Post-Hutaree: How Glenn Beck and Fox News spread the militia message
Reading last week's disturbing news accounts about the Midwestern arrest of nine alleged members of a Christian militia known as the Hutaree, a group whose members were reportedly planning to kill cops in order to spark a wider, armed revolt against the U.S. government, I noticed this nugget [emphasis added]:
FBI agents moved quickly against Hutaree because its members were planning an attack sometime in April, prosecutors said.
My hunch is the self-described "warriors" of the Hutaree probably circled April 19 on their calendars for any cop-killing fantasy they might have planned to pull off. Why April 19? That was the day, 17 years ago, when the FBI staged its final failed assault on cult leader David Koresh's heavily armed compound in Waco, Texas. It was on April 19, 1993, following a 51-day siege, that Koresh's fanatical followers, rather than surrendering to authorities, staged mass suicides (and, in some cases, executions) as the compound burned to the ground.
Precisely two years later, on April 19, 1995, right-wing zealot Timothy McVeigh commemorated the Waco inferno by declaring war on the federal government and blowing up his rented Ryder truck outside of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City. McVeigh's act of far-right radical terrorism sheared the north side off the Murrah Building, killing 168 people and injuring hundreds more. ("I reached the decision to go on the offensive -- to put a check on government abuse of power," McVeigh later wrote.)
April 19 remains an almost mythical date among dedicated government haters. It's a date that lives in infamy as proof of the dark consequences of when a tyrannical government (run by Democrats) turns on its own.
So yeah, as the Hutaree gun nuts allegedly plotted in the woods of Michigan on the best way to kill cops, pieced together their seditious plans to wage war on the U.S. government, and planned their upcoming confrontation with the Antichrist, I'm guessing the landmark militia day of April 19 loomed large.
For anyone who thought the dark, Waco-fueled chapter of domestic extremism in this country was behind us, the Hutaree arrests were a jarring reminder that, with the election of another Democratic president, the violent militia message is back.
And it's stronger than ever.
Not only have the number of radical-right extremist groups exploded in the wake of President Obama's election (more than 500 today, as compared to just 200 during the 1990s), but these militia members now have a proud sponsor in the person of Fox News' Glenn Beck, who has done more than any other person to amplify and mainstream the movement's hateful and foreboding anti-government message. Beck continues to give a voice, and national platform, to the same deranged, hard-core militia haters and self-style "patriots" who hounded the new, young Democratic president in the early 1990s in the wake of Waco.
On TV and the radio, Beck rarely bothers to mention the militia movement by name. Instead, he's simply co-opted their rhetoric as his own. He's acted as a crucial transmitter, warning about Obama fronting his own private "army," and urging followers to "start food storage."
Not to mention these previous militia moments:
The truth is that the daylight separating the radical, anti-government militia movement from self-styled mainstream conservatives is growing dimmer by the day. Like the fact-free Obama birthers, the militia remains a radical subset that today's right wing refuses to part ways with. That sad fact was highlighted when scores of far-right media voices initially downplayed the Hutaree arrests last week, or even defended the militia members and -- disturbingly reminiscent of Waco -- cast the FBI and the federal government as the over-reaching bad guys.
And at Fox News, it's not just Beck. The cable "news" channel's militia-flavored message (beware gun-toting IRS agents!) has been as simple as it's been relentless: Obama is destroying this country and he's doing it intentionally. It's not that people disagree with Obama and don't like what they call his "liberal" policies as applied to the economy and health care reform, etc. Instead, the conflict is much more dire. Obama is not just misguided in this political and legislative agenda. Instead, Obama is the incarnation of evil (the Antichrist?), and his driving hatred for America, as well as for democracy, runs so deep that he ran for president in order to destroy the United States from within.
Right on cue last week, Rush Limbaugh, who serves as sort of a militia godfather theses days, issued this back-against-the-wall warning: "Our country is being overthrown from within."
That's exactly what militias were saying about Clinton back in the 1990s, as historian David Bennett recently noted:
"I love my country but I fear my government," one bumper sticker proclaimed in the 1990s. A small North Carolina group of "Christian" constitutional literalists proposed to "resist the coming New World Order" by "removing treasonous politicians and corrupt judges." As today, they feared a liberal "tyrant" in the White House. At a gun rights rally in Michigan in 1995, a T-shirt called President Clinton a "Socialist-Marxist Comma-Nazi" ...
Folks, we're witnessing a militia rerun. Except this time, thanks to the likes of Beck and Fox News, the unwanted repeat is being broadcast nationwide.
Actually, today's hysterical warnings are probably even more extreme than the last time a Democrat sat in the Oval Office. What's disturbing is that instead of having to trade copies of The Turner Diaries, relying on grassroots fax networks, or traveling to gun shows to hear that kind of incendiary insurrectionist rhetoric (i.e. the president must be stopped!), haters can just turn on the highest-rated cable news channel.
In a way, I wonder why militiamen bother to form groups anymore if Fox News is willing to embrace and broadcast their fervent, anti-government New World Order rants on a daily basis? The militia flourished on the fringes in the 1990s, in part, because those on the far-right felt like their government-hating message was being ignored. But today it's celebrated and broadcast nationally. Talkers like Beck have trumped the militia movement. They've completely co-opted the message and made the groups increasingly irrelevant as Fox News cuts out the middleman -- the militia groups -- and hijacks their insurrectionist, government-hating rhetoric.
Don't think there's a larger connection? Just look at the initial reaction when news broke about the Hutaree arrests. The knee-jerk response from some right-wing bloggers to either defend the militia members, or at least raise all kinds of doubts and partisan suspicions about the law enforcement raids, told us all we needed to know about where their true allegiances lie. Meaning, conservative voices immediately telegraphed their support from the persecuted militiamen and clearly suggested they were being used as pawns in an Obama government abuse of power.
Blogger Pamela Geller complained that the FBI raids were "nuts." Glenn Beck's radio guest host Chris Baker decried the Hutaree arrests as "nothing more than attack on faith and free speech." And Washington Times columnist and frequent Fox News talker Monica Crowley likened Hutaree members to proud patriots, as she squarely placed the blame on the government for squelching the militia's right to dissent:
The Democrats handle dissent by isolating it, smearing it and delegitimizing it in order to crush it. The warning should be clear: If you have small-government, traditional values, you may be considered by your own leadership to be an enemy of the state.
Keep in mind that both Geller and Crowley conveniently forgot to inform readers that the militia members had been arraigned on charges of plotting to kill cops. Apparently that fact no longer moves the needle in today's right-wing media, which has severed its traditional ties with the law-and-order movement and instead today pledges its allegiance to whoever hates the government -- and Democrats -- the most.
Other conservative media voices rushed in to downplay the Hutaree news last week. At Lucianne Goldberg's site, the wannabe cop killers were portrayed as "dimwits that [sic] couldn't recognize a decent deer hunt." A New York Post editorial dismissed the armed Christian "warriors" as "a few guys in the woods with guns." And when not mocking the FBI's raid and raising doubts about the need for arrests, the right-wing blog Confederate Yankee referred to the Hutaree not as an anti-government militia group, but as a religious "cult." (Nice try.)
Still others took a third path, suggesting politics were behind the militia crackdown. For instance, this was what Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds instinctively wrote about the Hutaree raid:
THE TIMING APPEARS CONVENIENT
Reynolds, along with other right-wing bloggers, suggested the arrests were politically motivated; that the raid was perhaps part of a government-wide conspiracy to spotlight conservatives in a negative light and stymie dissent. Rather than immediately denouncing anti-government extremists who may have been plotting to kill cops, Reynolds played up the partisan angle, suggesting the timing of the raid was a bit too "convenient." (Of course it was convenient, but not in the way Reynolds meant: The FBI claimed the extremists were poised to strike this month, so naturally that wanted to act before then.)
And oh, by the way, at Tea Party Patriots: Official Home of the American Tea Party Movement, this was the headline that immediately went up after the first bulletins about the militia raids were posted:
That's right, some Tea Party leaders instinctively tagged the Hutaree compound as one of their own as it came under attack from federal law enforcement officials. And can you blame them? Today's right-wing, Obama-hating rhetoric -- as amplified by Glenn Beck and much of the GOP Noise Machine -- is indistinguishable from the militia message.
That frightening kinship is obvious for everyone to see and hear.
Follow Eric Boehlert on Twitter.
What happened to the law and order conservatives we hear so much about?
Only when it's convenient...
The Militant Right Wing, and now the broader Conservtaive Movement and Republican Party that they have either co-opted, or that has voluntarily EMBRACED them, are no more than a bunch of hateful, hypocritical, self-righteous, psychotic, un-American, traitorous SCUM.
And these groups break laws all the TIME. They have members who evade taxes, possess lillicit or unregistered firearms, commit acts of violence and CONSPIRE to commit acts of violence. They should be rounded up, tried and senctenced. Period. If Bush was worth a damn, he'd have cracked down of them as part of his "war on terror." But then, that was really only a war against violent MUSLIMS. He turned a blind eye to violent CHRISTIANS, and now Obama is somehow at fault for insisting that the LAW be enforced.
Limabaugh was right: We ARE being taken over from within. But it's by Fox News, AM Talk Radio and these Seperatist RW Gun-Nuts. We should crack down on these treasonous law-breakers. And any principled Republican and any TRUE Patriot realizes this.
------------------------------------------------------
Tolerating violent action against your coutry, simply be 'the other guy' is in power, makes you no better than the threason scum that's perpetrating the violence.
If you don't see that happening, then I'll add that I hate stupidity when it occurs on that level.
If you see it and you're OK with it, since it's the other guy who's in power, then I hate you for your hypocrisy. (In addition to your treason.)
And there's no generalization going on here gere. The Conservative movement CHOSE to embrace, rather than condemn these fools. I'm not the one lumpuing them in, they lumped THEMSELVES in.
As you have, to yourself.
------------------------------------------------
Besides: OBAMA WON, dude. By a LOT. You have no majority.
Niceguy, you have all that backwards. The left has historically been the party of violence, protest, and intimidation. Read a real history book, not a worthless public school textbook. I love the desperation I see here since you all know that you are losing it all, and boy will the boss be mad if that happens.
BTW, I refuse to clink on a link that I think is going to even slightly resemble blithering, maniacal rantings such as the ones you connected it to.
Don't tell that to Hannity. He only thinks 40% of the Tea Party members are Independents or Democrats. He would hate to be proven wrong...
What is a real history book exactly? One that glenn beck writes? Give me a break. By real you mean horribly biased towards your own personal opinions. most textbooks are purposely written to be neutral and objective, not to cater to some partisan faction.
Therein lies the problem; they try to be objective, which means inevitably that they have a liberal bias. The wingnuts want to make sure everyone is brainwashed just like they've been.
No, I thought not.
If you could refute anything I've written, or anything that's been written here with a thoughtful, well reasoned, evidence supported counter argfument, you'd have done so by now.
Istead we get nothing but purile attempts at insults and "read a REAL textbook." Which I guess means, "one written by a right-wing kook that tells you the lies you want to hear." Dude: We wear your ignorant cirtiques as badges of honor.
You're just like every other brain-dead conservtaive: You assume something is right simply becuase it's Right (Wing) and wrong simply because it's liberal. WE, OTOH, judge an argument to be wrong based on the EVIDENCE, or lack thereof, not the ideology.
We judge an ideology by the evidence that supports it. You judge evidence by the ideology it supports. You see... Your head is screwed on backwards. So if you choose to boycott my blog, then fine: Good riddance.
One less intellectual punching bag for me to work over.
----------------------------------------------
CLICK THE LINK! YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO!
It's a Movement, all right...
This tells you all need to know about that.
Hypocracy is the deadliest of sins, because it allows you to justify committing all the others....
I LOVE this.
--------------------------------------
Well said.
Yes, the dems are hypocrites.
Then I read some of your other posts.
You have your head screwed on completely backwards, my friend.
-----------------------------------------
IMHO
I recently came across this article discussing the paralells you mention in your post. It is an excelent article which discusses the sabotage of the Obama Presidency. I also recomend the link regarding the Reagan Administration's use of propoganda midway through the article.
As usual Mr. Boehlert nails it. Keep up the good work.
There are stronger terms than "nonsense," but I don't use that kind of language.
WEATHER UNDERGROUND, ELF, ALF,Stop [sic] Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), etc.
There are at least three big differences between radical left-wing violence and radical right-wing violence:
1. most of the left-wing violence happened ages ago, where there is plenty of right-wing violence now
2. most of the left-wing violence resulted in property damage, while right-wing violence tends to result in that plus many more deaths (didn't you read about Tim McVeigh in the article?)
3. the mainstream left always denounces the actions of the extreme left, while the mainstream right rarely (especially nowadays) denounces the actions of the extreme right
The teacher who shot a few people, the guy who flew a plane into the irs [sic] building ALL LEFT WING!!!!!
I'm not sure if you are using all caps to call attention to your foolishness; the sentence contains enough as is. The pilot, for one, was a classic government-hating right-wing nutcase. You own him.
you [sic] people are such hypocrites!!!!
Actual proof of our hypocrisy? Zip. Remember, extra exclamation points is no substitute for substance in an argument. Please come back when you learn to debate, or at least to write.
Thank you for playing.
James von Brunn shot up the Holocaust Memorial in Washington DC on 6/10/09. He was an active and well known white supremacist.
On 5/31/09 Dr. George Tiller was killed by Scott Roeder in the middle of church services. Roeder was a long-time member of the anti-abortion movement.
This is just off the top of my head - is this made up?
McVeigh killed 168 people, and that wasn't too long ago.
I seem to remember a bunch of terrorists flying planes into buildings back on 9/11, they were far right extremists as well.
An earlier poster hit it on the head, there are left wing terrorists as well as right wing. Unfortunately, the right is condoning theirs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pzmb5jHf2tQ
The footage on the video speaks volumes.
James Von Brunn. Didn't that happen "ages ago"?
Norman Leboon, arrested for threats of murder aimed at Cantor.
2004: Shots fired at Knoxville Bush-Cheney office.
Protestors Ransack Bush/Cheney Headquarters In Orlando.
Three arrested in GOP headquarters vandalism.
In Madison, WI, Swastika Burned Into Grass On Bush-Cheney Supporter's Lawn.
John Kerry speaking of Bush in the White House quote: "Could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone"
Chris Matthews: "Someone's going to jam a CO2 pellet into Rush's head"
August, 2009, SEIU thugs beat down black conservative.
Wasn't the murderer Amy Bishop, a rabid Obama fan?
Funny how out of hundreds of tea party gatherings and recent townhall meetings, all have resulted in zero arrests. Those are some real violent protesters.
The topic here is how mainstream (semi)conservatives are helping spread the militia message here. There's never been a similar methodology used on the left.
McCain Rallies crowd shouts "kill him!"
Sarah Palin "let's reload"
Rednecks with guns at Obama appearances.
So was one of her victims. Bishop was nuts, independent of any ideology.
Well, except for the errant shot that fell into Cantor's window and the mentally ill guy who has been arrested for threatening Cantor on his website. Leboon, the guy arrested, has made threatening videos against everyone from Obama, Pelosi, Reid, the federal courts and even the producers of the movie, Babe. This man believes that he is God. He will, in all probability, be found incompetent to stand trial and will face commitment.
You are posting talking points which have no basis in fact. For the record, it doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum a domestic terrorist claims to adhere to . . . terrorism is terrorism. It's wrong.
"He railed against politicians, the Catholic Church, the "unthinkable atrocities" committed by big business, and the government bailouts that followed. He said he slowly came to the conclusion that "violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer.""
Regarding his farewell note:
"In it, the author cited run-ins he had with the IRS and ranted about the tax agency, government bailouts and corporate America's "thugs and plunderers."
Who else lately has railed against the IRS and government spending too much? That would be the teabaggers, led by Fearless Leader (Beck) on FOX Propaganda.
Yes, mental illness was certainly at play, but his political leanings were more right wing than left.
Live with it, whiner.
Here's a short political quiz that demonstrates that.
From the left-leaning libertarian side of the scale,
PERSONAL ISSUES
* Government should not censor speech, press, media or the Internet.
* Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft.
* There should be no laws regarding sex between consenting adults.
* Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs.
* There should be no National ID card.
From the right-leaning Libertarian side of the quiz,
ECONOMIC ISSUES
* End "corporate welfare." No government handouts to business.
* End government barriers to international free trade.
* Let people control their own retirement: privatize Social Security.
* Replace government welfare with private charity.
* Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more.
Also made threats against Babe the Pig. Probably qualifies for your "lunatic" designation, rather than as a leftie.
Oh, I get it. Lunacy is exculpatory for the right, but not the left. And you call us hypocrites? Rich.
The anti-abortion doctor killers.
Spitting on members of Congress and posting their home addresses so "concerned" citizens can drop by to deliver coffins and harass family and neighbors.
The guy in Georgia who slapped a female Army member's child b/c she was black (and he was white).
The anti-Obama billboards.
Anything that comes out of Rash Limpballz's mouth.
I don't recall any recent ELF-related protests supported by the Democrats, either. Honestly, I've never even heard of some of the groups you gave.
What you are doing is trying to compare apples to oranges.
And there's plenty of evidence that several members of the sect were murdered before they were burned up. And there's evidence that the fire was purposely started at multiple places inside.
The loaded (pun intended) language is providing validation to these kooks as Fox in particular has convinced their viewers that they are a majority because they tune into the "most watched" network.
When in reality one to two percent of the population is watching.
AS has been stated before, Fox and the right wing are mainstreaming extremists views solely for power and money.
I agree.
Fox News is just a big fish in a little pond. Fox News can claim the most watch News channel; but most people do not watch T.V. for there news. Just as most people do not read the newspapers for news.
Being the most watched News station does not mean most of the country is watches T.V. News shows. Just another misrepresentation of reality by Fox News.
It just happens that Fox News viewers are not the majority of the Country. They might be the majority of T.V. viewers who get their news from T.V.; but that still does not make them the majority of the Country.
Just as there being more so called "red states" then so called "blue states" does not mean the Country has more Republicans than Democrats.
Do you mean to one where all those people got together and voted the Republicans out of power?
Now, when there are millions of people who are protesting the government and this President (during a time of war) who is a Democrat they are simply "patriotic" citizens who are concerned about the future of their country.
Behavior is justifiable depending on what political party the President is from.
Thanks for that weak attempt at conflating two different things. There was and is a lot of anti-Bush sentiment owing to his invasion of Iraq and other follies, but it was never "anti-government". There's a big difference between protesting the policies of the administration in power and building a militia with the intent to kill police or federal employees.
Also, I don't recall any kind of "hate campaign" against Bush. Government reports which indicate that his administration "inappropriately manipulated" intelligence to fit their pre-planned invasion of Iraq wouldn't be a "hate campaign," it would be truth. Federal courts ruling that the Bush administration prosecuted illegal surveillance of American citizens . . that's truth. Budget records indicating that Bush and his Congress almost bankrupted the country . . . that's truth.
So, what are you talking about?
And the result was a massive waste of taxpayer dollars
Contrast that with a republican in the White House immediately after Clinton and those same republicans couldn't find anything too big to ignore and managed maybe 5 subpoena's
The "liberal media" is also complicit in giving the right wing credibility as "watchdogs"
They watched the GOP loot the Treasury.
They watched Cheney profiteer off the war in Iraq.
They watched Bush bankrupt the country.
Wonderful "watchdogs."
"Beck and other talk radio corporate whores have 4 constituents
1. Wall St
2. Big oil/energy
3. Pharma/health
4.War profiteers
He,Rush and Hannity all use the populist/patriotic schtick to dupe and manipulate their viewers. On EVERY issue they protect one of their 4 constituents. Since the GOP also represents the big 4 they need to get them back in power.When Reagan repealed the Fairness Doctrine it opened the door for the big 4 to own and operate the message. The 4th estate is nothing more than another arm of the big 4 industries that own this Country. "
The funny thing is they are Obama's constituents now too.
1- Obama gets to tell CEO's how much money they can make. He bought out the Bank of America. He owns GM.
2-He just allowed big oil access to the east coast.
3-He had to buy off pharmaceuticals to get the healthcare bill passed.
4-....I'm sure something will pop up.
Maybe Beck and Obama are in cahoots?
:)
As a free market progressive I realize that we need to have a financial system, medicine, Healthcare, energy etc, but like Obama, I believe they have been allowed to rape and pillage this country at will because they control the message and choose the stories to propogate. All he is doing is trying to rein in some of their greed and power.
The question should not be "Is the Government too big or small?" It should be "Is the Government of, by and for the people or of, by and for the Big 4 or 5 industries that the GOP. Fox and talk radio hosts all protect.
My point is that Obama now controls those powerful industries. Which if A=B and B=C, you'd think A=C, right.
" but like Obama, I believe they have been allowed to rape and pillage this country at will because they control the message and choose the stories to propogate. All he is doing is trying to rein in some of their greed and power."
That is all fine and good, but should it be by expanding presidential/governmental powers?
"The question should not be "Is the Government too big or small?" According to Thomas Paine the government is always to big. The less government the better. Thomas Jefferson would agree with him.
The only reason for government is to protect people from people. (According to Paine, and I agree.) Larger governments are required as people require more protection from people. So I don't blame progressives for our exceedingly large government, I blame people. There is an obvious lack of integrity, in washington, on wall street, in our coomunities, and around the world. The more protection people need the larger government will get. The trade off for security is fewer freedoms. The more protection we require, the fewer freedoms we enjoy. Its a simple and true principle.
Its a vicious cycle.
The protections I believe lynneg was referring to, however, are those that protect people from processes that can be legally exploited to further greed and corruption. These processes, not the people, are what government regulation is intended to stop. It is my belief that you can protect people from these practices without sacrificing freedom. Anyone who equates greed with freedom would have to define murder as okay, if that's what constitutes a psychopath's pursuit of happiness, right? Just as we outlaw murder and do not see it as infringing on individual rights, so too should we regulate those processes that deprive individuals of the ability to pursue their own happiness. This is where the "seperation of church and state", and the regulation of interstate commerce come from, in my opinion.
B. Franklin wasn't disputing the fact that governments were meant to provide security and freedom. He was agreeing with Paine by stating that the trade-off of security for freedom inevitably ends in tyranny.
"These processes, not the people, are what government regulation is intended to stop."
You are missing the point. The "processes" are not self-perpetrating. The "processes" can't happen without a person initiating it. Just like the old arguement about gun control, guns don't spontaneously attack people, someone has to pull the trigger. Coporations don't accidently file their taxes a certain way to avoid paying taxes, they don't pay CEO's a wage based on the roll of a dice, people don't wake up one day to find they have to pay a no-interest mortgage. People perpetrate problems. People are the reason for government.
"It is my belief that you can protect people from these practices without sacrificing freedom."
ITs called being responsibe, once you let the government step in, you start losing freedoms, they may be small, and they may be difficult to trace but you lose them all the same.
" Anyone who equates greed with freedom would have to define murder as okay,"
...not really sure what you mean. I don't think anyone ever equated freedom and greed.
"Just as we outlaw murder and do not see it as infringing on individual rights, so too should we regulate those processes that deprive individuals of the ability to pursue their own happiness."
Murder isn't a process you can exploit. There are laws against murder, and if you break the law then you lose the majority of your freedoms. In some cases the government has attempted to regulate murder, look at the recent militia group in Michigan, they were arrested and they never committed murder, the evidence they were going to committ murder was there but they never did it. They are being punished for a crime they never committed. They said they were going to do it, they had plans, and they had means, but they never did it. That is government limitation on our rights for the sake of security.
I'm not saying they shouldn't have been arrested, I'm not saying the government made a mistake or that people should be allowed to do whatever they want. It is just an example of how people have given up their rights to obtain security.
You have to ask yourself, do I value the right to free speech more than the possibility of stopping a possible violent act. THE FACT IS WE DON"T KNOW IF THE HUTAREE GROUP EVER WOULD HAVE ACTED ON THEIR PLANS. Humans have agency, despite all the evidence pointing to their planned attack, we really don't know if they ever would have done it. We can't predict the future. However, as a society we have decided in the intrest of security that we would prefer to end potential threats of violence rather than allow people the freedom to think, plan, or talk about whatever they want.
Murder is an infringement on another person's right to life. We have through our laws attempted to prevent when possible murder from happening. AGAIN THOSE LAWS INFRINGE ON PEOPLES RIGHTS. If a person commits a crime, then he forfeits his rights. I think you are confusing those two ideas.
This turned out to be much much longer than I intended.
Hit men would disagree with you, and rightly so.
Actually, no. Conspiracy to commit a crime or crimes can be punished just as the crime itself can.
As far as personal responsibility within corporate activity, I happen to agree with you. However, with health coverage reform as a handy recent example, health care costs have ballooned to the point where we were paying twice what any other country on earth paid, 1/6 of GDP, and were 38th in the world for health outcomes. That kind of profligate greed is something the government has a duty to rein in, for the good of all Americans. Likewise with prevent the collapse of our economy.
There were no multinational corporations with annual revenue exceeding that of many nation-states when our constitution was drafted. however, I expect our government to defend us from their predations just as I expect it to defend us against military threat from other countries. I am not aware of any freedoms I have sacrificed in requiring insurance companies to stop using pre-existing conditions as a means of denying the coverage I have been paying for.
If you are concerned about loss of freedoms, the aftermath of Republican power subsequent to 9-11 cost us habeas corpus, and also left us open to summary loss of citizenship and attendant rights based simply on one person's say-so. We also lost our privacy, as the entire nation was wire-tapped in the interests of 'keeping us safe'.
I never said it wasn't a crime. Conspriacy to commit a crime doesn't hurt anyone until it is actually carried out. The point I'm made is that crime prevetion is often security bought at the price of freedom.
"That kind of profligate greed is something the government has a duty to rein in, for the good of all Americans. Likewise with prevent the collapse of our economy."
And I happen to agree with you, the point of government is to protect its citizens. Healthcare reform could have been achieved in other ways, it wasn't necessary to force everyone to buy insurance, or force employers to offer it. It is one of many dangerous precedents Obama is making, and I can't see any good coming from it.
You directly implied they were innocent of any wrongdoing with this sentence, copied and pasted from your post above. The crime they committed was conspiracy, and that is what they will be punished for. There was no loss of freedom that stemmed from this particular case.
About health coverage reform, my preference would simply be to open up Medicare to anyone who wants to pay, and make the premiums a sliding scaled based on income (you make more=you pay more). By insuring everyone, the risks are spread out among a wider pool which will lower the costs for everyone paying in. A simple enough idea. Not all employers are being forced to offer it.
I think you missed the point. We are punishing them for their thoughts, for their ideas, and their plans. They never murdered someone. It would be like grounding your child because you thought he was going to do something bad. There is a loss of freedom, you can't write whatever you want, you can't say whatever you want, you can't express whatever ideas you want. We are punishing them for what we thought they might do. I"m not saying we shouldn't, I'm just saying what we did as an illustration of a freedom we give up to secure our safety.
It is the ability to prosecute conspiracies to commit illegal acts that also helps put mobsters and other organized criminal elements away, regardless of whether or not they hav reached the stage of carrying out the illegal activities they had planned.
There is no loss of freedom here, except for the freedom the criminals will have to give up when they are convicted. They deserve to lose that freedom.
You have never been able to say or write whatever you want.
If YOU wouldn't ground your child for making those kinds of plans, then you're a bad parent and I hope all you have are imaginary children!
Please I'm begging you to tell me where I said you should punish them.
You are arguing imaginary voices in your head, imaginary conservative boogeymen. If that makes you feel better keep on talking.
I thought progressives were more tolerant and less judgemental. I guess not.
Many are. Employees of those that are will have to get insurance themselves or use the government. Either way you are forcing people to get it whether they want it or not.
That was the case before the healthcare bill passed. It was illegal to turn someone away from emergency care.
Since when was I obligated to buy something? According to the CBO it is unprecedented.
IF you would like to pass a tax to pay for the uninsured, or if you would like to create a single payer plan, that is fine, try and pass it through congress, but don't tell me I HAVE TO BUY SOMETHING BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT SAYS SO.
"We are merely requiring people to meet their obligations, which all freedoms come with."
No. You are giving the government powers never enumerated in the constitution; a very dangerous game.
Why?
Because the costs of not doing so are paid by the rest of society and that simply isn't fair.
Sorry Newzhound, YOU DON"T HAVE TO BUY THE MOTORCYCLE. YOU DON"T HAVE TO BUY THE CAR.
The government isn't forcing you to own a motorcycle or a car. Sorry, that is a bad example. Try to find a new one.
If the government wants to regulate how the insurance industry operates, or even create a single payer plan, FINE. PUT IT THROUGH CONGRESS, but call it what it is, government healthcare, and you have to pay additional TAXES to fund it. Get it through congress and I'll gladly pay, but don't tell me what I have to buy.
I'll post it again. The CBO said it was unprecedented.
I am assuming that you are referring to the insurance companies? Did you know that the percentage of profits for most insurance companies is about 2%? Is that greed?
How about the greed of the trial lawyers and their frivolous lawsuits, and the greed of those whom they represent?
What about the greed of the pharmaceutical companies who are willing to put a product on the market after risk factor calculations show that only a small number of users may die from it? Or the FDA who approved the distribution, also knowing the risk factors?
Are you aware that Las Vegas casinos pay out around 80 cents on every dollar taken in, where the health insurance industry pays out more like 65-75 cents on every dollar in claims?
The percentage of profit does not indicate greed. $15 million annual salary while 45,000 Americans each year die from lack of coverage? Greed. $15 million annual salary which equates to 300 times the averge income in America? Greed. How about we just levy a 100% tax on all income above 20 times what the lowest paid employee in a company makes, and let the CEOs set their own salaries?
Want to know where that $15 million comes from? It's the average executive compensation at a Fortune 500 company, which includes all the various VPs and other officers.
You are arguing for tort reform. How quaint. It works out to about 2% of the current health coverage costs. Not really a big savings there. You want to limit what lawyers can take from settlements? Fine. I'm all for that. It goes for big Pharma as well. The FDA has been lobbied into fast-tracking profitable drugs for the pharma companies, who send their R&D out to state run colleges and universities, so they also need to be taken to task for ripping off the American people.
By the way, if lawyers filed as many frivolous lawsuits as you claim, they would soon be out of business. In order to make money, they must -win- their suits, or see that they get settled out of court.
There weren't really any corporations at that time. There were wealthy individuals who controlled vast amounts of resources and peoples though. Corporations and the free market have done more to create and widely distribute wealth than any previous institution.
"I am not aware of any freedoms I have sacrificed in requiring insurance companies to stop using pre-existing conditions as a means of denying the coverage I have been paying for."
How about the freedom to spend your money how you want to. Nope, instead you will pay higher taxes. Taxing the rich is such a silly idea. What happens if I tax the plumber more because he makes over $250,000? Do you think he is OK with making less money? No, he is going to increase his prices to raise his profit margins. Who will pay for his higher taxes? What an illogical idea.
I'd prefer to spend my money how I want, n how I'm force to. To me that is lost freedom.
"If you are concerned about loss of freedoms, the aftermath of Republican power subsequent to 9-11 cost us habeas corpus..."
I'm not sure why you brought this up. you must be assuming I'm a Red Blooded GOP card carrying memeber. That I'll defend their stupidity no matter what they've done. No thanks, republicans have been the most dishonest of all, they have claimed to be conservative and proponents of the free market but in reality they sold their souls years ago.
Oh? Do you favor taxing the poor? We have to pay for government somehow. I don't know any plumbers making $250,000, but when I say 'wealthy', I generally mean anyone with over $1 million income per year. Can they afford to pay more? Absolutely. During the 1950s, everything over $400,000 was taxed at 90%, and we had very low unemployment and massive growth.
That's just personal taxes, as well. Corporations have paid in less every year since the 1960s, including the good folks at Exxon, who made billions in profits last year and STILL received government subsidies. You want silly? There you go.
You will never be free of taxes. Being taxed for living in a society is the price you pay for living in that society.
What a dumb statement.
Entitlement to the poor increases their reliance on the government and increases their drain on the rich.
Everyone should pay taxes.
"processes that can be legally exploited to further greed and corruption."- Another-Cat
I didn't know there was a legal form of murder-for-hire. (Other than abortion.) I would consider doctors performing abortions "hit men". MAybe you have a point.
:)
Its beeen the discussion the whole time. Thats why I posted this post from another-cat. I assume you guys are in cahoots. You must be the original.
Keep up.
Just because there is a law doesn't mean it idn't wrong.
Actually, no OBama can't tell CEOs how much money they can make, unless they took money from the public trust, ie, our money, in order to keep their companies afloat, and as soon as they pay back said money, they can then pay their CEOs what they want to again. Is that really such a bad thing?
Obama doesn't own GM, we do. As in, again, it's our money that was used to bail them out.
Look for example at Citigroup, they are paying back their loans from the bailout, and we (as in America) are making a huge profit off of said money.
Thanks for pointing out that the president doesn't own 70% of GM, we, the American citizens do. I've never quite understood how citizens in a democracy can distance themselves from a government that they run.
So who is it?
Make up your minds.
We are making huge profits from citigroup? I'll tell you what is going to happen, Obama is going to tell us that we made so much money we all have to claim it on our taxes this year as profit since it is 'our' company. I can't believe anyone could trust their government so explicitly.
Read
I hadn't read anything about bonuses specifically but I did find this little gem.
"In February, Messrs. Obama and Geithner said the administration would cap executive salaries for firms receiving extraordinary assistance and require that any incentive compensation come in the form of restricted stock.[Emphasis added]"- From the WSJ article above.
This change in ideas is what is frighting white America and Fox News and wrong-wing Radio, sees an chance "to kill two birds with one stone". Crush the dreams of non-whites, (retaining power by whites) and make lots of money in the process by increasing viewers and ratings.
There has been a history of this type of action whenever the status quo is challenged, women rights to vote, blacks in professional sports, black children going to whites only schools, blacks playing sports in white colleges, equal rights, and on and on.
In the end, over time, the opponents to change always fail because progress move forward.
I also believe that any democratic President would be facing this same shi*storm as Obama is. The republicans, and their cohorts were also trying to make Clinton fail, and or to get him out of office no matter how. They were cheering for failure by Clinton so that they could get back the White House. They were cheering for Clinton to be impeached, so they could get back the White House.
Much of the sh!t that has been manufactured about these groups is not valid and is the result of hatred, mistrust, and a very well-coordinated campaign of misinformation.
Whats the difference between queer and gay?
:I
I haven't kept up with the new sex identity crisis fad.
Why do you care how people identify themselves?
Because people who don't know who they are make bad decisions.
"I thought it was "Questioning"? "-phredicles
"You're the one questioning their identity."-mmfa.fan
Nope. Just hoping they figure it out.
"I'm sure they're quite happy with who they are."-mmfa.fan
Maybe, maybe not. I have worked with several people who were questioning their sexuality, and none of them were happy with who they were.
"You're the one that seems insecure about it."-mmfa.fan
You are suffering from the progressive plague. Constantly telling people what and how they are.
Show me one please where I indicated I was insecure about my or another persons sexuality. I realize that you can't and your pathetic attempt to justify your remarks required an ignorant statement based on a fantasy you created.
" People are different, get over it. "-mmfa.fan
Take your own advice.
It appears that the communist, fascist hate-inciting organization Media Matters is going against the god-fearing constitution-loving (second amendment only) patriots of the right-thinking grassroots organizations in America, whose main purpose is to take back the country from its evil usurpers (anyone who graduated from college). How dare fear-mongering MMFA bring out these conspiracy theories and scare tactics. How dare MMFA claim that constitution scholar Glenn Beck (whose TV program was described at CPAC as "a graduate seminar in political science") is incendiary and hateful (even though moderates would agree).
How dare you claim that the most-watched (and fair and balanced) TV news network (with completely respectful people) is unpatriotic. Being the top rated news station is proof that we are right.
Beck is an inspiration to us all--having kicked a cocaine and alcohol problem (maybe the drug part of it). He is a self-made man, best-selling author, and someone to whom we can all look up to. His logical and coherent discussions come from the heart of the problems in America. More people should listen to him to see the truth about this country (that Fox is a big part of the problem). The government and all progressives are trying to destroy this country, and Beck does not want to see that happen (at least that's what he says).
SORRY, I couldn't write an answer with a straight face.--donwelty.
~Yoda
Well, what the Weather Underground did during their time was atrocious, but do you know how many deaths were accounted to the Weather Underground? 2. And those 2, were members of said Weather Underground who blew themselves up while making a bomb (they deserved that).
ELF, another atrocious organization, who has also not killed anyone. They work in property destruction/damage. Responsible for millions of dollars of lost property, but no human lives.
ALF? The alien from 80's TV? Oh, no, you meant the Animal Liberation Front. Got it. They also destroy private and corporate property (but no humans) and rescue animals from labs and set them free.
Another group for animal rights who specialize in property destruction, but don't appear to have killed any humans.
The teacher who shot people. How are you equating her as being a leftist? Because she was a college professor? She sounds like a ground level kook if anything. Her shootings were not politiclaly motivated.
The guy who flew into an IRS building? Really? You're going to say that guy was a lefty? Seriously? Examine what you just wrote. We lefties are supposed to LOVE big Government, and hence, the IRS. Why would a lefty fly a plane into a building? That makes no sense. He sounds more like a tea partier to me.
What about the guy who shot the guard at the Holocaust musuem?
What about the guy who shot cops in Pittsburgh because Beck told him that Obama was going to take his guns away?
What about the guy who murdered Amish people because Obama was going to take his guns away?
What about Tim McVeigh?
What about the Branch Davidians?
What about the 9/11 terrorists?
In order for us to be hypocrites (I suggest you look up the definition of the word) we'd have to embrace left wing violence, and then denounce right wing violence. Since pretty much all mainstream liberals denounce violence perpetrated by extreme left wingers, we are NOT hypocrites.
But see, here you are, being yourself a hypocrite, because you have not denounced right wing violence, but seem pretty stressed out about left wing violence that hasn't killed anyone.
The problem with that assertion is that her political persuasion had nothing to do with her actions.
She was crazy and that's why she shot those people.
I don't see anyone condoning violence. I see someone trying to make excuses for the violence of the left by claiming that only extreme groups are guilty of it, and that the whole left movement should not be chastised for it, but yet I see that same person chastising all those on the right because of the actions of a few that he STILL cannot prove were right-wing.
I am still waiting for how you figure that 9/11 terrorists were right-wingers.
What? Did you think they were hippie peaceniks?!
Tell me you are joking please.
Oh, I get it, you're joking.
DID I ONCE SUGGEST THE TERRORIST WERE LIBERALS? DID I? THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS, USED IN A DISHONEST ATTEMPT TO DISTORT MY POST.
The fact that you had to make a dishonest baseless claim is proof that you had no case in the first place.
Keep on lying, I doubt you can do anything else.
This is the second right winger in a couple of days who has called me a liar for trying to get them to be honest.
Did I ever imply that?
You certainly implied that I did.
If I did please point it out. Otherwise you attempted to distort the truth, which is dishonest.
Or show me where I implied that liberals were akin "fanatic, culture warrior,traditional religious fundamentalists".
OR at least explain why you said it.
Robert Nisbet gave the best definition of conservatism. Conservatism is centered around tradition, property, liberty, and religion. (Nisbet, Dream and Reality,)
It is in opposition to the pervasive radical liberal individualism that is the current fad.
He also points out, and I agree, that conservativism has been in a crisis since the turn of the century, since the begining of the welfare-state. The two have been at odds, and modern conservatives have attempted to assimilate liberal idealogy unsuccessfully. The result has been a conservative party, the republican party, that is more akin to the democratic party than its conservative roots.
Coservatism is based on the idea of private property, freedom of religion, tradition (family), and protecting society from a government which inevitably seeks to limit their freedoms.(Limited Government)
Al Qaeda is based on religious intolerance, repressing womens rights, big government founded on religion, limited personal rights, limited property rights, and powerful religious/political hegemony.
Conservatism and Al Qaeda may share certain terms like tradition, religion, conservative, but they are achieved in utilizing completely different methods, and are sought after for completely different reasons.
There may be fringe groups, (not including the Michigan militia) that seek to destroy the United States Government but they are in no way related to the conservative ideology. Even most of the radical members of those groups, Timothy McVeigh included, are seeking to destroy the government in order to install a christian theocracy. (Al Qaeda's goal.)
"If you accept that al Qaeda was behind the 9-11 attacks, then you have already conceded that it was perpetrated by right-wing, or conservative, religious fanatics."-The-Cat
A weak correlation based on completely fluid terminology.
"Aside from their choice of deity, they are no different from the religious right in this country that has seized control of the Republican party."-The-Cat
As you read above, you will see that American conservatism is based on completely different motives, methods, and goals. To my knowledge all the violence perpetrated by "right-wing" fanatics has been based on the idea that they feel the government has become to powerful and has began unconstitutionally controlling their lives. I cannot currently think of a single case where violence was perpetrated with the intention of creating a theocracy, or destroying the united states as a society. That is al Qaeda's purpose. I can't think of a single instance "right-wing" conservatives attacked the government because of its stance on womens rights, or its support of Israel.(Democracy in the middle-east.)
The comparison progressives here are trying to draw is inaccurate. It is a convoluded fantasy meant to feed and justify their hatred and dismissal of conservatism's legitimate concerns with the government. It is a diabolical tactic based on lies to marginalize the questioning view.
It makes me sick to hear Americans compare a legitimately and large concerned group of fellow Americans to al Qaeda. No matter which side is doing it, it reduces the humanity of both sides and promotes hatred.
Relative to their beliefs they are certainly not wanting to progress and change their beliefs to keep up with newly attain knowledge and a changing world because of this newly attained knowledge.
They do not want to progress; thus they are not progressives, they are conservatives.
That isn't the issue. The issue was the above attempt to link AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES to al QEADA. I've said it hundred times, it was a false, distorted, dishonest attempt to attack conservatism in America. DISHONEST.
"Relative to their beliefs they are certainly not wanting to progress and change their beliefs to keep up with newly attain knowledge and a changing world because of this newly attained knowledge."
They aren't Omish. They use automobiles, they have TV's, and the internet. They have educated doctors, physicists, engineers, economists. They aren't resisting technology, they are resisting how it is employed. They claim to resist immorality, and wish to preserve their traditional beliefs, but not technology.
"They do not want to progress; thus they are not progressives, they are conservatives."
Progress and Progressives are loosely correlated. Conservatives in the United States aren't resisting technology. They are resisting ideas, policies, and traditional cultural values changes. If you know of a time conservatives resisted technology please do tell.
You have confused progressive idealogy with progress in general, and the two ARE NOT SYNONYMOUS.
Here is your comment on 9/11 terrorist and after re-reading the posts prior to yours I did not see anyone linking 9/11 terrorist to American Conservatives or American Conservatism. It was stated that the 9/11 terrorist were conservatives. You assumed the term conservative must mean American Conservatives.
Plus you are assuming again that I am linking progress with technology. I mentioned nothing about conservatives not embracing technology. I was taking about knowledge which is much more than technology.
Knowledge is wisdom and wisdom leads to understanding and understanding leads to progressive thinking; which can lead to re-thinking ideas, policies, and traditional cultural values. Progressive thinking is to embrace, not resist, re-thinking those issues when new knowledge is learned. Just as the Founding Father of America did. Yes, the Founding Fathers of this Country (USA) were progressives. That is the irony of American Conservatism, wanting to conserve progressive ideas.
As far as 9/11 terrorist and Al Qaeda terrorist what you wrote to describe American Conservatives seems like an accurate description of Islamic terrorists.
[/quote] Conservatives in the United States aren't resisting technology. They are resisting ideas, policies, and traditional cultural values changes. [/quote]
After saying this he went on to say "What about" these other groups. He listed several including the 9/11 bombers. It was pretty clear what he was implying.
"Aside from their choice of deity, they are no different from the religious right in this country that has seized control of the Republican party."-The-Cat
Making the connection between the 9/11 terrorists and the republican party leaders in this country.
"They are all right wingers, not on the left. As is al queda and other religious fundamentalists." -Sharpe
Lumped them all together, as one in the same. Supporting the original post.
"Plus you are assuming again that I am linking progress with technology." -wmjodea3
Progressivism isn't based on new knowledge. What new discoveries define the progressive movement? Progressivism has been around since the turn of the late 1800's. each of the major progressive movements have been based on ideas formed before progressivism. Womans rights, worker's rights, civil rights, and now economic equality. This is the first time that mainstream progressivism has openly accepted socialist policies as their own.
"Just as the Founding Father of America did. Yes, the Founding Fathers of this Country (USA) were progressives. That is the irony of American Conservatism, wanting to conserve progressive ideas."
The progressivism of their day is not the same progressivism that exists today. Progressivism has been hijacked by the left, and can almost be used synonymous with liberal. The progressivism of today is not the progressivism of yesterday.
"American Conservatives seems like an accurate description of Islamic terrorists."
It was meant to. It points out the progressive desire to make the link. The ideas, policies, and values that American conservatives are resisting are far, far different than those that are being resisted by al Qaeda.
That is what is so sinister about this arguement. People are trying to associate two groups based on tacit terms and ignoring the meaningful seperating differences.
If Cheney & Bush were still in charge, anyone spewing the filth Glenda is, would be strung up with a rope -- in a heartbeat.
I'm sorry, but you seem to misunderstand years of jurisprudence regarding conspiracy law. People get arrested before completing conspiracies because that's how law enforcement works. The "argument" above would get laughed out of court of a defense attorney tried to claim "well yeah, they did stockpile weapons, they did threaten to kill not just cops, but specific cops, and yes they decided to attack in April, but no, you can't convict because you don't really know if they would have followed through."
I'm sorry, but this is not how it works. Reasonable jurors will see through such dishonest arguments. Epic fail.
Your text to link here...
By embracing folks like this and being reluctant to denounce such things, the Republican Party (and there talking heads on Fox and radio) is on the verge of becoming a fringe party if it is not already there. If this is Glenn Beck's vision of America, I want no part of it.
Yes, it harkens back to the Clinton years, but the roots are deeper than that. Absolutely the thinking is, 'let's pollute the process, create legislative disarray, ramp up the rhetoric and ensure that the opposition agenda is thwarted and bogged down by fear and chaos.
And while it may be most obviously expressed through the most extreme elements of the U.S. right-wing, let's not pretend that they are not being cagily guided by the more 'mainstream' arm of the Republican party. They can play 'moderate' while they simply going to block any actual governing and let the foot soldiers sow fear and doubt on the streets. They are well funded and their goal is to 'control the levers of power.'
I remember the Regan years and the covert wars in Latin America where the goal was not so much outright over-throwing a democratically elected government, but throwing enough disarray and fear into the process that the only alternative is to cede power.
Reading this article, I began to think a very weird thought i have never even thought before ever since i first heard the name glenn beck - perhaps his show can be viewed as a potential positive in that it provide an outlet for right wing extremists. Obviously this isnt true in all cases but some psychologists believe that it was not the violent video games but the taking away of these games that led to harris and kleibold planning the columbine massacre. It was the computer games like doom that provided an outlet for their destructive and hostile behavior and consumed a huge chunk of their time. Once, this was taken out of their lives, they had precarious hours of free time each day to plan their homicidal rampage.
Im not saying I agree with this - I dont because i think beck is doing more harm than good but if anyone is willing to look at the bright side here, beck may be a huge time drain on violent militia types. They watch his program and listen to limbaugh all day and they have less time to plan, acquire weapons and train for terrorist attacks. I mean lets just hope thats the case. Obviously, it wasn't with this hutaree gang. I just don;t know if beck is fueling the fire, imitating the right wing extremists that would be out there anyway for all of us to see as a warning to the rest of us or distracting the would-be terrorists from killing people. lets prepare for the worst and hope for the best here.
Traditional values? Like what - bring back slavery? letting only white property owning men vote? Or maybe they mean toting guns and committing acts of terrorism or planning to do so?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/08/survival-seed-bank-uses-a_n_490955.html
Stephen Colbert's take on Glenn's Seed Bank:
Said Colbert: "Glenn's advertisers know nothing moves product like the hot stink of fear." Case in point: a commercial for a product called Survival Seed Bank, in which the spokesman claims nonhybrid seeds will be more valuable that silver and gold, and thus save you from the impending economic meltdown.
Survival Seed Bank's message mirrored the craziness of Beck, himself, seemingly predicting an apocalypse. The commercial claimed that the product provided enough seeds to plant a full acre "crisis garden," which of course got Colbert excited: "When you're tilling the earth with a human femur while the sky is raining fire, you'll want a reliable supply of radicchio and mini squash."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/11/colbert-mocks-glenn-becks_n_494651.html
Whiskey Tango Foxtwat?