As noted yesterday, the right-wing media, consumed with Obama hatred, just can't help themselves. Faced with news that far-right, radical, anti-government extremists in Michigan had been arrested for allegedly plotting to kill policemen, bloggers immediately suggested the arrests, and the timing of the arrests, were politically motivated by the Obama administration.

Today, a New York Post editorial (see below) and a Washington Times column (here) also seem to jump to the defense of alleged cop haters.

Monica Crowley's column in the Times is especially stunning, as she compares Michigan's Hutaree gun nuts to proud patriots and squarely places 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.

And no, nowhere in her column does Crowley mention that, oh BTW, the militia members were busted for plotting to kill cops.

Meanwhile, the Post also does its best to downplay the radical doings in Michigan. And specifically, the Post insists that the Christian gun nuts are nothing like Islamic terrorists [emphasis added]:

But one need only contrast the wild fantasies indulged by the Hutaree kooks with the lethal calculation of killers like the 9/11 plotters or the Fort Hood gunman (not to mention their respective body counts) to understand the radical difference between the two threats.

One consists of the dedicated agents of a ruthless, religion-driven ideology.

The other: a few guys in the woods with guns

Just in case readers didn't get the point, the Post ran a photo of AG Eric Holder to accompany the editorial. i.e. He's the person at the center of the controversy, not the unhinged Christian 'warriors' who allegedly plotted to kill cops.