@ebrown p,
I'm glad you've chosen to elaborate because I didn't know why you posted the video. It didn't seem like it detailed a response to the threat you perceive.
Quote:First, I want (and expect) a government response. Last month the Department of Homeland Security published a report on the threat of domestic terrorism. I would like these programs to be strongly supported at high levels in government and well funded (of course they should act both aggressively and within the law).
This seems pretty vague.
What government response do you want and expect?
The following is all I can find in the DHS report you've cited:
Quote:DHS/I&A will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in rightwing extremist activity in the United States, with a particular emphasis on the political,economic, and social factors that drive rightwing extremist radicalization.
This seems pretty vague as well, and more like research than anything else.
I note the report also contains the following:
Quote:The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence...
Quote:Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups
during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts.
Quote:Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first
African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new
members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal
through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.
Quote:Most statements by rightwing extremists have been rhetorical, expressing concerns about the election of the first African American president, but stopping short of calls for violent action.
Quote:Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy
generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment...
Quote:DHS/I&A assesses that lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States.
Emphasis added.
Quote:Second, there is extremist rhetoric coming from within "mainstream" (if mainstream is measured by the size of their audience) conservative media; from Glen Beck to Rush Limbaugh to Coulter to Terry Randall.
Can you provide examples of this extremist rhetoric?
Quote:Many people say that Terry Randall (of Operation Rescue) should be held accountable for the violent rhetoric that justifies murder
Many people? Any of them district attorneys or federal prosecutors?
Here's what I can find on Randall's comments:
Quote:George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. Unless some miracle happened, he left this life with his hands drenched with the innocent blood of tens of thousands of babies that he murdered. Surely there will be a dreadful accounting for what he has done. I believe George Tiller was one of the most evil men on the planet; every bit as vile as the Nazi war criminals who were hunted down, tried, and sentenced after they participated in the 'legal' murder of the Jews that fell into their hands. But even Mr. Tiller - like other murderers - deserved a trial of his peers, and a legal execution, not vigilante justice.... Our actions must be equal to this crime: we must continue with vigorous (yet peaceful) actions such as have been used by every social revolution since America's birth....
Not a glowing testimony to the life of George Tiller, but it falls very far short of justifying the killing or inciting additional murders.
Apparently he also released a video in which, according to Wikipedia,
Quote:he called President Barack Obama and pro-choice politicians child killers, and described Tiller as a "mass murderer" who "reaped what he sowed." He voiced regret that Tiller wasn't able to "get things right with his maker" and that it was unfortunate that he didn't get a "trial of a jury of his peers and to have a proper execution."
Not something I would consider appropriate, but hardly actionable.
Quote:...I want strong condemnations of both the violence acts, and the organizations who provide the rhetoric that justifies them. Groups that support this speech should be challenged, and then shamed. I believe that advertisers should be targeted...It turns out that after these murders, this line of attack is very effective (the pro-life folks are put on the defensive).
It seems, by these statement, that you reveal the actual goal of your call for responsive free speech --- to disrupt and "put on the defensive" people and organizations with which you have ideological differences. There is no legitimate reason to believe that the vast majority of "pro-life folks" and pro-life organization condone violence or celebrate Tiller's death, and yet you consider it effective that they be pressured to deny that they do. It's even more clear to me that you wish for the story that is the core of this thread to be attributed to the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps so that they too can be "put on the defensive," despite the fact that there is nothing they need to defend.
You're within your rights to use free speech for your intended purpose, but your self-righteous attitude about it is pretty hollow.
