Hundreds of Armed Right-Wing Militia Members Take Over Federal Building

@layman,

layman wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

I don't know what you think you are proving, other than establishing your credentials as anti left. It isn't playing well.

I aint left or right. I'm for freedom from oppression for all peoples, eh? I guess ya could kinda call that "anti-left," come to think of it.

Don't worry, Ed, it aint just you. Some of these right wingnuts who are hollerin for the law to just leave these poor boys be, were probably in Ferguson, patrolin the streets, protectin "white peoples," eh? For a lotta pervs, left and right, it all just depends on whose ox is bein gored, ya know?

0 Replies

That was kind of funny. As I was reading down through posts, my eyes half picked up some small type which I read as "user ignorant"

0 Replies

I always think of Herbert Marcuse, "father of the new left," who introduced the old commie doctrine of "political correctness" to American campuses, eh?

Quote:

Herbert Marcuse became known as the preeminent theorist of the New Left and the student movements of Germany, France, and the US. Celebrated as the "Father of the New Left," his Marxist scholarship inspired many radical intellectuals and political activists in the 1960s and 1970s, both in the U.S. and internationally.

He advocates a form of tolerance that is intolerant of right wing political movements, writing: "Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marcuse

I mean, sheeit, if you're gunna get partisan about it, why not go the whole damn hog, I ask ya?

Peoples gotta be "liberated," ya know? What better place to start than "liberating tolerance?"

1 Reply

@layman,

More from Marcuse, eh?

Quote:

...if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc.

There cant be no free speech or freedom of assembly allowed, see? That wouldn't be right. Ya gotta take away the civil rights of anyone who doesn't share your ideological visions. That's LIBERATION, I tellya!

0 Replies

@layman,

Of course.

I'm sure that the Administration doesn't want the end result to be a bloodbath and not just because of "optics*," but they also very much do not want to be seen to "lose" to a band of liberty zealots and if they can manage to broadly taint conservatism, so much the better.

I can't recall what liberal politician it was (or even if it was a politician and not a pundit), but whomever he was, he was very honest in admitting that he and his confreres actually hoped the War in Iraq would go badly. They hoped for the US to lose, and he acknowledged that things "going badly" and the US "losing" meant US service men and women would be dying. Now he certainly didn't hope fellow Americans would die and when he secretly prayed for the US to fail, I'm confident he was telling the truth when he said he wasn't even thinking of the human implications. The fact, though,(and he recognized it) was that he found himself, motivated by partisan and ideological concerns, taking pleasure at any news of US failures and setbacks. The desire to win and/or be proven correct was so intense that he didn't even bother to think of what it meant in practical, non-political terms.

Now I'm sure the number of liberals who will declare "Well, I was against the war but I never hoped our troops would fail in their mission, or that our country would be defeated!" is incalculable, and who am I to gainsay any who do? I can't read their minds. However what this guy said rings so true that it's impossible for me to think that he is the one and only liberal in America who thought this way. Surely, Democrats have been accusing Republicans of this sort of thinking since Obama took office and I think that in a lot of cases they've been right. I can't put a percentage on it, but I feel pretty sure that most Republicans in Washington were hoping for a failed Obama presidency, even though a failed presidency (no matter who sits in the White House) means tough times for Americans. I know a lot of Democrats think that they are of an entirely different species than Republicans, but if Republicans do it, so do Democrats and vice versa.

Perhaps slightly more honest liberals would attempt to rationalize the feelings to which this fellow admitted: If one truly felt the War in Iraq was not only illegal, but immoral how could one hope for the US to win? If one truly felt the war would have far reaching and disastrous implications for America, how could one not hope the perceived goals for starting it would not be met? Again, this may be precisely how some liberals felt. I can't read their minds either.

These very same feelings, the most honest ones, and those that constitute rationalizing, are at play here. There are people, and they hold positions of importance, who can view this drama only through the lens of political victory and loss. I suppose it's always been this way, but it seems like we are more divided now than at any time in my life. If we were laboring under any delusion that we had put aside our tribal ways, it's absolutely clear now that this is not the case.

I got to see my brother over the weekend and he is, politically, just about my polar opposite. I know this will come as a huge surprise to many in this forum, but when he and I are together we do not avoid political discussions and those we have are not at all acrimonious. For some time now I have been advocating, to him, a breakup of the Union along ideological lines as it seems the two sides represented in America are separated by a chasm that cannot be bridged. The chasm is widening and the efforts to force one side or the other to cross it are about as successful and harmful as they would be if the analogy was literal and there was no bridge, nor even a lifeline. This weekend, during one political discussion, he agreed that the country should split, even though we both know it won't happen. With anyone else I might have thought this change of mind was motivated by the fact that Obama's second term is coming to an end, and the fear that a Republican might be elected to the presidency this year.

I don't think there is a single Republican candidate who would ignore the occupation of the government station, or try to negotiate with the occupiers beyond promising them some sort of leniency if they withdraw (Something the Administration should be doing), but we can be confident that none of them, nor anyone on their staff would be secretly, or not so secretly, hoping for a bloodbath that could be used to his/her Administration's political advantage. This isn’t because Republicans as a group are inherently more virtuous than Democrats, but because Republicans have little to nothing to gain from this group looking crazy and blood-thirsty. If they did, the same forces would be at play. It is extremely tempting to believe that people who generally adhere to conservative principles are fundamentally better people than those who hold as firmly to progressive precepts, but being correct about the best way for society to be organized and governed certainly doesn’t, in and of itself, invest anyone with virtue. More and more, those who reside at either side of the spectrum see their counterparts as not simply wrong, but ill-intentioned, corrupt and devoid of redeeming characteristics. At present, there remains a reluctance to draw this conclusion as respects people one actually knows and associates with, but this reluctance seems to be fading. The nation may not officially break into two (or more) separate states defined by ideology, but the population seems to be working towards a de facto split through social means. But I’ve gone off the sidetrack too long already, this is better addressed on a separate thread.

(**Well, let's say I'm sure that the more mature members of the Administration who actually have human values don't want to see anyone killed because that would be a human tragedy. I have little doubt that there are mad-dog ideologues in the lower levels of the White House staff who at the very least wouldn't shed a tear if a bunch of crackers desperately clinging to their guns died in a violent gun battle. While the White House would have a hell of a time trying to explain why it was necessary to press this matter to the point of violence, it would also have reason to further rail about the peril of private gun ownership, and to point out just how crazy and dangerous these "right-wing terrorists" really are. Remember it was a Administration official very high up the food chain who noted that no serious crisis should be allowed to go to waste. This is the same guy who apparently led or condoned a cover-up of a police shooting that resulted in the death of a 17 year old back youth. No conspiracy theory brewing here. If the thing gets bloody it will be due to yet another federal muck-up and not, necessarily, sinister intent)

3 Replies

I'm a bit behind in my reading here so this may be off topic.

My life goal. I want to see a day-glo painting of my naked body as the feature illustration on a pinball machine.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

The fact, though,(and he recognized it) was that he found himself, motivated by partisan and ideological concerns, taking pleasure at any news of US failures and setbacks....However what this guy said rings so true that it's impossible for me to think that he is the one and only liberal in America who thought this way.

I think I know the guy you're talkin about, Finn, and he did say many liberals agreed with him. He also did, as you said, acknowledge that a lot of it was partisanship. But he also said it was more than just that:

Quote:

"I have a confession: I have at times, as the war has unfolded, secretly wished for things to go wrong," Gary Kamiya, executive editor of the left-leaning Internet journal Salon, wrote last week. Wished for the Iraqis to be more nationalistic, to resist longer.”

“Wished for the Arab world to rise up in rage. Wished for all the things we feared would happen. I'm not alone: A number of people who oppose the war have told me they have had identical feelings."

“Some of this is merely the result of pettiness -- ignoble resentment, partisan hackdom, the desire to be proved right and to prove the likes of Rumsfeld wrong, irritation with the sanitizing, myth-making American media. But some of it is something trickier:…

“Wishing for things to go wrong is the logical corollary of the postulate that the better things go for Bush, the worse they will go for America and the rest of the world. Pessimism is the dirty little secret of the antiwar camp -- dirty because there is something distasteful about wishing for bad outcomes.”

This is always a problem when trying to "reason" a priori from "indubitable" ideological premises. There are "corollaries" that lead one into hypocritical and inconsistent fanaticism.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

I have been advocating, to him, a breakup of the Union along ideological lines as it seems the two sides represented in America are separated by a chasm that cannot be bridged.

If that happened, I would live right on the border and constantly go back and forth. When I wanted a hand-out I would head over to the commie side and complain that I was in need. Then, once I played them chumps, I would head back over to the "free market" side to blow the money, ya know?

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Quote:
And 30 years ago, a similar standoff between police and a black anti-government group in Philadelphia played out very differently. Armed members of a fringe liberation group called MOVE were bombed and burned alive for directing their weapons at police. The bombing highlighted the stark contrast in the way cops treat black and white radicals.
Members of the liberation group sought a natural lifestyle, free of government control, law enforcement, and technology. They lived together in a barricaded house, protested for animal rights, and ate raw foods. Similar to Bundy’s supporters, they believed the federal government violated their constitutional rights. And with a cache of weapons in their possession, they also advocated armed defense if targeted by the city’s authorities.
http://bit.ly/1kGD9aS

It is difficult to take a site like THINKPROGRESS seriously when it is so obsessively focused on making a favorite argument that it will contrive a comparison between two events, and deliberately excludes or mischaracterizes germane information that would otherwise undermine the analogy.

The author of the cited article, Carimah Townes, attempts to paint MOVE as a group of eccentrics who might have been a little kooky in their personal style and diets, but who suffered the overwhelming force of a racist power structure.

Now, what happened was an excellent example of governmental use and abuse of excessive power by a woefully trained and led police force wherein a criminal lack of regard for the safety and lives of innocents was horribly evident. In terms of comparisons though it was far more similar to the Waco and Ruby Ridge sieges then what is transpiring now in Oregon.

I somehow doubt that Ms Townes would attempt to describe David Koresh and the Branch Davidians or Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris as she has with MOVE: essentially harmless oddballs, living and operating on the fringe.

The author makes a somewhat passing reference to a 1978 incident that predated the 1985 stand-off and eventual bombing. The earlier incident also began with the police attempting to carry out their duties. Before that August 8th there had been a year long stand-off between MOVE and Philadelphia police over a court order requiring MOVE to vacate the premises in which they had set up shop. On the 8th after police attempted to enter the building, MOVE members opened fire and a gun battle ensued. PO James Ramp was shot in the back of the head and killed. Seven other cops, five firemen, three MOVE members, and three bystanders were injured, although none fatally. This hardly sounds like the behavior of a simply eccentric fringe anti-government group.

As of this writing, the Bundy group in Oregon hasn't fired a single shot or been involved with a direct confrontation with police.

Rather than offering the 1978 incident as evidence of why the police had reason to be concerned about confronting MOVE in its new stronghold, it is instead presented as evidence to support the claim of MOVE that the 1985 attack was in retaliation for the 1978 murder of PO Ramp, and that it was, all along, the intent of the Philadelphia PD to exact revenge on MOVE by killing its members.

In reality, the Philadelphia PD was responding to complaints from residents of the black neighborhood that had been made for years, that MOVE broadcast political messages via bullhorn at all hours of the might and that the group's compost heap and excessive trash and garbage presented a health hazard. They also came to the building to execute various warrants in regards to indictments of MOVE members for parole violations, contempt of court, illegal possession of firearms, and making terrorist threats. In the article, Ms. Townes writes that MOVE members were "killed and burned alive" for "directing their weapons at police." I suppose one could argue that by this, Ms. Townes actually meant "firing their weapons at police," but if this is the case, why use a phrase that is more easily interpreted as "pointing their weapons at the police?" In fact MOVE members fired on police and then all hell broke out. I've no intent or desire to defend the Philadelphia PD for the catastrophic mayhem that followed the first gun shots,

It is worthwhile noting that the mayor of Philadelphia at the time was W. Wilson Goode, the first African-American mayor of the city. There is no evidence that Mayor Goode was somehow not involved in the decisions made before and during the 1985 incident, and that the police were outside of his control and being led by a racist Police Commissioner or Chief of Police. In fact, it was Goode who made the decision to drop the bomb on the building. Unless Ms. Townes is accusing Mayor Goode of being a racist as regards his fellow African-Americans in Philadelphia, it's difficult to see how the charges that the 1985 incident was motivated by racism and perpetrated by a city government that institutionalized racism, can hold up.

To be fair, Ms. Townes does reference Waco and Ruby Ridge, but in this manner:

Quote:

There have been some instances where violence against white extremists has been used, in Waco and Ruby Ridge, for example.

That's it; coming at the end of the article and immediately followed by a sentence beginning with the word "But." Again there are numerous similarities between the Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents and 1985 MOVE incident, but Ms. Townes can't be bothered to point them out, and that is because they don't fit the premise of our article, that the reaction of the federal government to the current situation in Oregon when compared to the reaction of the Philadelphia city government to the situation with MOVE, in Philly; in 1985 is so drastically different that it provides clear evidence of system racism within governments in America.

There are armed white men occupying a park station out in a sparsely populated area of Oregon. They are anti-government kooks. There is no prior incident with these people wherein a police officer was shot and killed. These people have not fired weapons at police nor had a direct confrontation with them.

There were armed black men occupy a building in the heart of densely populated Philadelphia. They were anti-government kooks. Seven years prior there was an incident wherein a Philly PO was shot and killed and eighteen others were injured. The police attempt to enter the occupied building and the occupiers fire their weapons at them.

What's different about these two situations? Everything except that both groups are/were anti-government kooks.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

That's actually a very good post, finn. Well done.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Well, you did leave out the part where the police dropped a home-made bomb on the house in Philly, from a helicopter, igniting a fire which not only killed men and women and children, but also burned down a block of row houses. But hey, it was just a black neighborhood, right? The point about bringing up Philly is the overreaction of the police when the bad guys were black.

Members of MOVE immediately disputed the claim that they killed the police officer in 1978, saying he had been shot in the back of the head and was facing the house at the time.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

The point about bringing up Philly is the overreaction of the police when the bad guys were black.

Treat them more better than white foke, eh? They burnt up 76 men, wimminz, and chillinz at Waco, aincha heard? All onna counta they was white.

Probly more better to leave the race-baiting to Al and Jesse. They pros, you aint.

0 Replies

Your bullsh*t routine with the phony language does not for a moment alter that the Philadelphia police force was and had been for years accused of racist actions and policies, and that they acted recklessly when they dropped their IED on the MOVE house. You should consider growing up some time and dropping that bullsh*t Stepin Fetchit routine. As i've already said, i have no reason to believe that you're a black man, and that kind of tripe demeans blacks.

1 Reply

There is actually a rather interesting column by Jim Gerahty up at the National Review right now. Here's the first two graphs...

Quote:

The American Right is divided between those who think our country has serious problems and those who think it is teetering on the edge of collapse. Donald Trump’s rise has been fueled by the latter group, which sees itself as Cassandra, accurately surveying and desperately trying to revive a “crippled America,” as Trump titled his book.

The edge-of-extinction crowd hasn’t just failed to persuade the rest of the Right; they’ve failed to persuade the mass of voters. Americans tell pollsters the country is headed in the wrong direction, but they’re not apocalyptic about it. To everyone else, the Doomsayers come across as paranoid, race-obsessed hysterics.

http://bit.ly/1Jr1Q6U

Pretty good, as far as it goes. But Gerahty isn't willing to be fully honest here. In his last graph, he repeats a formulation he's spoken of earlier. Note the term I've bolded...

Quote:

The best part of this narrative is that if Trump fails to win the nomination or the presidency, the outsiders have a ready-made explanation: the party and/or the country chose to be ostriches, heads buried
in the sand as the country fell apart.

What makes that term rather dishonest is that there's no party candidate who hasn't repeatedly pushed that "we are on the very brink of losing America" button during speeches and debates in this cycle. This has been a constant theme coming up in movement conservatism since (at least) Goldwater. Evangelicals, a deep and influential contingent in the modern party, has been giving this same alarmist warning for decades. Then there's talk radio and
Fox and Breitbart and Bozell, etc, etc. Which isn't even to mention neoconservative apocalypsisms, ("He could have nuke capability in 6 weeks!" and "We don't want the smoking gun to become a mushroom cloud").

So, isolating Trump and his followers might make some sort of sense but it's minor. What's going on here is that the NRO crowd really, really do not want Trump to be the candidate. And another thing that's going on here is that Gerahty and colleagues either haven't recognized that "the outsiders" are now probably an overwhelming presence in US conservatism or they are pretending this isn't so.

0 Replies

And related to above post, here's a piece from a front page column at the Weekly Standard today...

"Although there is no poll of GOP officials, it is pretty clear from news accounts and political reporting that elected Republicans and party officials do not favor a Trump nomination. Far from it. To judge by attributed and unattributed quotes from those stories, it would be surprising if more than 5 percent of those GOP regulars favor Trump." http://tws.io/1Jr56PK

So it appears some sustained effort is now being put into ridding the GOP of this guy as candidate (because he hasn't disappeared and continues to poll above others candidate) by key establishment media voices. We expected this, yes? They see disaster ahead.

I'm not sympathetic. I would be if these guys made any step towards perception and admission of their complicity in creating the base that now exists.

0 Replies

And then there's Ted...

Quote:

“At some point, we have to deal with the fact that there are at least two candidates who could utterly destroy the Republican bench for a generation if they became the nominee,” said Josh Holmes, a former chief of staff to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. “We’d be hard-pressed to elect a Republican dogcatcher north of the Mason-Dixon or west of the Mississippi.”
“Trump and Cruz are worrisome to most Republican candidates for governor, senator and Congress,” said Curt Anderson, a longtime GOP strategist and former Republican National Committee political director. “Some will say they are not worried, but they are.”

http://politi.co/1UsPuM1

Once again, you might feel some sympathy for the relatively saner components of the GOP if and only if they took some ******* responsibility for fostering this beast that's now lunging for their throats.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Your bullsh*t routine with the phony language does not for a moment alter that the Philadelphia police force was and had been for years accused of racist actions and policies, and that they acted recklessly when they dropped their IED on the MOVE house. You should consider growing up some time and dropping that bullsh*t Stepin Fetchit routine. As i've already said, i have no reason to believe that you're a black man, and that kind of tripe demeans blacks.

I never read a word of criticism of that bombing. It disturbed me then and still does.

1 Reply

Press conference statement from Sheriff David Ward:

Quote:

Good afternoon.

My name is David Ward, and I am the Sheriff of Harney County.

The Hammonds have turned themselves in today at 1:37 p.m., in accordance with the law, and are currently in custody at Federal Correctional Institution in California.

Harney County is a community of approximately 7,000 people; almost 5,000 of us live here in the community of Burns and Hines.

This event has had a significant impact on that community.

Our goal is to work together to restore calm and regular services for the people we serve.

This incident originally started when people from outside the state arrived in an attempt to prevent the Hammonds from returning to prison. This began as a peaceful protest.

It took an unfortunate turn when some of those people broke off and began an armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

The Harney County Commissioners and I have requested law enforcement assistance from Oregon State Sheriff's Association and Oregon State Police.

Sheriff's Offices from around the state have also sent resources to assist us.

We requested this additional support to make sure the citizens of Harney County are safe. This is our top priority.

I want to directly address the people at the wildlife refuge: You said you were here to help the citizens of Harney County. That help ended when a peaceful protest became an armed and unlawful protest.

The Hammonds have turned themselves in. It is time for you to leave our community. Go home, be with your own families and end this peacefully. Source

0 Replies

@George,

George wrote:

I still don't know what it is they want. They seem ready to settle in for as
long as it takes . . . for what? Have there been specific demands?

This is the best explanation I can find.

Quote:

He said the occupying group has made "no direct demands," but the participants have stated that they will leave if the federal government gives up control of the nearby Malheur National Forest.

They are also demanding freedom or a reduced sentence for two Oregon ranchers whose imprisonment sparked the current standoff, Bundy said.LA Times

2 Replies

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

. . . This is the best explanation I can find.
Quote:
He said the occupying group has made "no direct demands," but the
participants have stated that they will leave if the federal government gives
up control of the nearby Malheur National Forest. . .

Such a modest demand. Why not ask to dismantle the entire National Park
System?

1 Reply

Hundreds of Armed Right-Wing Militia Members Take Over Federal Building

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know