From the May 20 edition of Fox Business' Freedom Watch:
Loading the player reg...
The Knob Creek Gun Range in West Point, Kentucky advertises its World Famous, twice-a-year Machine Gun Shoot as "Family Friendly" entertainment. The slogan: "Nothing brings families together like blowing stuff apart...safely."
I won't deny the red-blooded-American joy of firing automatic weapons at exploding targets.
Still I have to ask: What's up with the little kids in Nazi shirts?
I was on site at the Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot fewer than 20 minutes last Saturday before I passed a shaved-head lad with with a Totenkopf death head on his chest. (The Totenkopf was the symbol of the Nazi SS division that ran death camps like Auschwitz during the Holocaust.)
The shirt looked brand new. I took that to mean the kid or whoever gave it to him bought it from one of the dozen or so permitted vendors who openly sold white supremacist merchandise. This included a wide selection of t-shirts and flags bearing symbols popular with racist skinheads and neo-Nazis. (And no, I'm not counting Confederate battle flags.) Also for sale were the race war fantasy novels Hunter and The Turner Diaries by William Pierce, founder of the National Alliance, a notorious hate group. A Friends of the NRA fundraising booth was located within sight of a stall of swastika flags.
Video- Guns and neo-Nazi merchandise
John Lott, a gun policy researcher that freqeuntly appears on conservative media outlets, has taken to his website to respond to a recent post of mine pointing out two misleading claims he made about the Obama Administration. Lott now accuses me of misquoting what he wrote in a March 18 Big Government post. In fact, I quoted Lott accurately, but someone subsequently altered his Big Government post, making it appear that I was wrong.
On March 22, I wrote [emphasis added]:
Lott also criticized Obama for a request made by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) citing an out-of-date article, saying that the Obama administration has "also imposed much more extensive reporting requirements on sales of long guns."
In fact, the Obama administration has not imposed the regulation in question. The proposed regulation by the ATF has been repeatedly delayed by the Obama administration, which most recently rejected the ATF's request to enact the proposal as an emergency regulation. The administration will decide on approval in April, if no further delays occur. If enacted the proposal would require gun shops along the Mexican border to report multiple sales of certain classes of rifles, such as AK-47s or AR-15s, made within a five-day period.
Lott responds [emphasis in original]:
In fact, my quote is "They have also tried imposing much more extensive reporting requirements on sales of long guns." Besides, even if the point had been honestly misread, if someone has tried to check the link, the point would have been clear. Nice try Media Matters.
Sure enough, Lott's March 18 Big Government piece now reads, "They have also tried imposing much more extensive reporting requirements on sales of long guns." That's what it says today, anyway. But that's not what it said when the article was published. Here's a screen shot showing how the article appeared on March 22 when I wrote the criticism:
|Francis "Schaeffer" Cox, according to transcripts |
of FBI recordings, told militia members, "I know
you're ready to die, but you have to be ready to kill,"
The annual Bear Paw Festival held every summer in Eagle River, Alaska, is better known for its pie-eating contests, carnival rides and dog-owner lookalike fashion shows than for controversial displays of right-wing militancy.
But last summer, as Tea Party Republican candidate for U.S. Senate Joe Miller shook hands on the sidelines of the Bear Paw parade rout, he was trailed by his campaign Humvee and roughly a dozen supporters wearing Miller campaign t-shirts and openly armed with semi-automatic pistols and AR-15 assault rifles.
The gun-toting Miller supporters included participants in the Southcentral Alaska division of the Second Amendment Task Force, a combative anti-gun control group founded in Fairbanks in April 2009 by Francis "Schaeffer" Cox, the militia leader arrested earlier this month along with four militia compatriots for conspiring to murder State Troopers, a federal judge and an IRS agent, among other serious crimes including the illegal possession of heavy machine guns, silencers and explosives.
At the time of last summer's Bear Paw festival, Cox was in the midst of a two-year radicalization process during which he transformed himself from a Ron Paul campaign worker, Tea Party activist and libertarian philosopher operating on the fringes of mainstream politics into a hard-core militia extremist, steeped in paranoia, who disavowed entirely the political process in favor of armed conflict and revolution, including allegedly the targeted killings of law enforcement officers and public officials.
Cox, a fundamentalist Christian who grew up in Fairbanks and was home-schooled from an early age, first appeared in the public sphere in 2008 when he ran for Alaska State House. He lost. Also that year, according to an online bio, he "Led the Ron Paul campaign for Alaska" and became a founding board member of the Interior Alaska Conservative Coalition, "a grass roots movement of citizens regardless of party affiliation who promote conservative values and a return to Constitutional Rule of Law."
Early in 2009, Cox founded the Second Amendment Task Force (2ATF) in Fairbanks. On March 28 of that year, according to internal 2ATF emails obtained by Media Matters, the group hosted a "Constitution Crash Course," at University Baptist Church in Fairbanks." The emails indicate that 2ATF was aligning itself with the national Tea Party movement. Cox exhorted 2ATF members to mail "tea bags or pictures of tea bags," to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, D.C. (the White House).
According to Eddie Burke an Anchorage conservative talk radio host and prominent Tea Party organizer, Cox had trouble making inroads or friends with Tea Party leaders in Anchorage that spring. He demonstrated a habit of refusing to relinquish the microphone at meetings and frequently strayed from the topic at hand into rambling diatribes about gun control, state sovereignty, abolishing the Federal Reserve and other topics that had little to do with the stated purpose of the meetings, such as reining in earmark spending. He dominated the discourse and veered wildly off-topic even if it was a panel discussion and Cox wasn't on the panel.
"The more I got to know him [Cox] the more I began to realize he was too far out there for me," said Burke.
As reported earlier, Francis "Schaeffer" Cox and five members and associates of a Fairbanks, Alaska, militia group were arrested yesterday for allegedly plotting to kidnap or kill Alaska State Troopers and a Fairbanks judge.
Last year, Cox was arrested on a misdemeanor firearms charge. During a December 10, 2010 pre-trial hearing before District Judge Jane Kauva, Cox made this statement: "There are a lot of people out there who would just as soon come and kill you in your home at night as argue with you in your court by day."
His comments were captured in a video espousing Sovereign Citizen ideology that was circulated among right-wing groups online.
Earlier in the same pre-trial hearing, Cox said in open court:
"Soulless federal assassins have made threats on the lives of my wife and children. This, coupled with your long established and well documented practice of refusing to ascertain the truth leaves me but one inescapable conclusion: You are rebellious impostors to reduce [sic] us under absolute despotism."
The following week, Cox returned to the Fairbanks court house and tried to serve a different judge with a sovereign citizen arrest warrant.
The right-wing media have repeatedly mischaracterized Attorney General Eric Holder's recent reference to "my people" to claim that he is a "black nationalist" or that the Obama Justice Department is motivated by "racial bias." In his statement, Holder actually took issue with the suggestion that a 2008 incident involving the New Black Panther Party was a more "blatant form of voter intimidation" than what occurred in the 1960s; Holder said the suggestion "does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line, who risked all."
From the March 2 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:
Loading the player reg...
From the January 25 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
Loading the player reg...
From the January 21 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:
Loading the player reg...
From the January 19 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
Loading the player reg...
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman takes a lot of abuse from right-wingers for his liberal political views and his economic theories that contradict the right-wing way of doing things (never mind that Krugman did receive a Nobel Prize in economics). But did you know that Krugman is just like Fred Phelps, pastor of Kansas' Westboro Baptist Church and best known for leading his tiny flock in odious protests of funerals of fallen soldiers?
That's what NewsBusters' Matthew Sheffield wants you to think. In a January 12 post (cross-posted at the Washington Examiner, where he works as an online media consultant), Sheffield asserts that any liberal who suggests that extreme right-wing rhetoric might be contributing to an environment that may have played a role in the Arizona shooting is acting just like Rev. Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church brood because, as Sheffield explained, liberals think "Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and anyone else who dares to resist the march of history are heretics. That's why they need to shut up, or in the event that they choose not to, have someone else shut them up."
Sheffield transcribed a Phelps sermon asserting that, in Sheffield's words, "Innocent people were killed because American and its leaders have sinned against the higher light." He then claimed that this "is effectively what New York Times columnist Paul Krugman said in a column printed Monday." This is followed by a lengthy section of Sheffield juxtaposing excerpts of Phelps' sermon with Krugman's column.
But Sheffield's little experiment discredits his argument. For instance, Krugman's statement that he was "expecting something like this atrocity to happen" is juxtaposed by Phelps' statement "God appointed the Afghanistan veteran to avenge himself on this evil nation." How are those statements any way analogous? We have no idea.
Krugman has never claimed he wanted to silence all views he opposes, nor does he claim divine approbation for his views; rather, he spoke in his column specifically of "eliminationist rhetoric" that he identified as "coming, overwhelmingly, from the right." Krugman has not called for his opponents to be struck down from above, nor is he running around the country picketing the funerals of those he disagreed with.
Americans may not be able to agree on much these days, but one thing both left and right do agree on is that the funeral protests held by Phelps and his fringe congregation are hateful and despicable. What purpose could Sheffield have in likening Krugman to Phelps other than revel in the vitriolic rhetoric Krugman is trying to tone down?
Sarah Palin comments on the Arizona shootings:
Like many, I've spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and praying for guidance. After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event.
Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.
[E]specially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.
So, according to Sarah Palin, violent rhetoric plays no role in inspiring violent acts -- but criticism of violent acts incites "hatred and violence."
From the January 10 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
Loading the player reg...
Q: How twisted do you have to be to distort domestic violence guidelines in order to argue for loosening the definition of domestic violence?
A: Twisted enough to write for the Daily Caller.
Under the header "Yippee, we're all abusers now!," Carey Roberts denounces "the Abuse Mavens" of the "domestic violence industry" who "ginned up this grand scheme: Let's exponentially broaden the definition of domestic violence" because they "don't want to see their generous paychecks trimmed."
Roberts' entire column is a litany of purportedly-ridiculous things treated as "domestic violence" by "Big Sister." Here's a taste:
Go to the website of the federal Office of [sic] Violence against Women. The OVW informs us domestic violence is a "pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control."
Maintain power and control?
Ladies, if you nag your husband to mow the lawn, that's power and control. Men, quit telling your wife to not overdraw the ATM — same thing. If you get into a disagreement over the TV remote control, you guessed it, that's proof of an obsessive need for power and control. That's a heinous offense, according to Big Sister.
It goes on like that at some length. The most obvious sign that Roberts is blowing smoke is that he doesn't offer a single example of anyone ever being unjustly charged with domestic violence. He pretends that merely reminding a spouse not to "overdraw the ATM" will result in jack-booted government thugs kicking down your door (no joke: Roberts compares the Office on Violence Against Women to the KGB.) But he doesn't identify any example of anything even remotely like that ever happening, which is a pretty good indication that he's bitterly denouncing straw.
But Roberts doesn't stop at absurd caricatures of domestic violence definitions: He tells clear falsehoods about them as well. Here's Roberts:
But domestic violence runs rampant and proto-abusers need to be held accountable — or so the domestic violence industry claims — so why not swell our definitions even more?
Now, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, partner violence also includes "getting annoyed if the victim disagrees" and "withholding information from the victim." If that doesn't suffice, "disregarding what the victim wants" also counts as a punishable offense.
Well, no. According to Roberts, CDC will punish people for "partner violence" simply for being annoyed. But in reality, CDC lists "getting annoyed if the victim disagrees" and "withholding information from the victim" as potential elements of "Psychological/emotional abuse" -- not "violence." That doesn't mean that "getting annoyed" is automatically abuse, just that it could occur in a way that constitutes abuse. Perhaps more importantly, while Roberts pretends that CDC considers annoyance a form of "violence," CDC makes clear that it does so when emotional abuse comes in the context of prior physical or sexual violence:
The panel made the decision to classify psychological/emotional abuse as a type of violence only when it occurs in the context of prior physical or sexual violence, or the prior threat of physical or sexual violence. The panel suggested that "prior" be operationalized as "within the past 12 months."
Basically, Roberts is defending emotionally-abusive conduct by people who have already been physically abusive. But he doesn't dare come out and say that, so he pretends that the part about prior physical violence or threats of violence doesn't exist.
Again: You have to be pretty twisted to make a dishonest case for weakening domestic violence laws. But not so twisted that Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller won't publish you.
Oh, and just a week ago, Roberts took to the Caller to denounce restraining orders, arguing that instead, women should avoid "late-night strolls in public areas."
From the November 24 edition of Fox Business Network's Fox Business:
Loading the player reg...