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

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Do you ever read National Review, The Weekly Standard or The Wall Street Journal?

I go to the first two every morning as part of my reading regimen. WSJ rarely. This morning on one of these a2k threads, I posted an excerpt from Jim Geraghty's NRO piece with link. I also quoted (with link) a Weekly Standard piece this morning. Over the last two years, I've engaged something like 100 NRO discussion threads.

You use the term "entertainer" to describe Hannity. Limbaugh uses this term to describe himself. Both uses are distractive and effectively false. These people aren't doing Robin Williams or Elton John or Las Vegas hypnotism act. They are entirely political and entirely concerned with forwarding Republican electoral opportunities through their content.

The study you want to refer to (you don't, I'm sure) is Echo Chamber, Oxford Press, Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Joseph N Capella.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

There are anti-Muslim activists involved in the group - precisely as stated.

Mr. Moyers did not say the group was anti-Muslim. His sentence was parsed correctly.

Mr Moyers is being an asshole by including "anti-Muslim" into his blog post at all. The only reason for doing so is to stir up more sentiment against what he sees as an egregious affront to his liberal sensibilities. It's not enough that they are anti-government (which they aren't, they are anti-federal land management) so he throws in the anti-Muslim sentiment to rally support against what he sees a a bunch of kooks.

Let's at least be honest with our selves and see why he added that in his blog post. Even the post he attributes his blog post doesn't call the group anti-Muslim. Just Moyers.

1 Reply

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

You use the term "entertainer" to describe Hannity. Limbaugh uses this term to describe himself. Both uses are distractive and effectively false. These people aren't doing Robin Williams or Elton John or Las Vegas hypnotism act. They are entirely political and entirely concerned with forwarding Republican electoral opportunities through their content.

So when Jon Stewart fell back on his "I am just an entertainer on a comedy network" routine, you are telling me that he wasn't really just an entertainer? In reality he was entirely political and entirely concerned with forwarding Democrat electoral opportunities through his content?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Breaking and entering is a felony. Commission of a felony while armed is typically a felony in and of itself.

Trespassing in a park is a misdemeanor.

Being in the country illegally is a civil offense. Illegally entering the country by not presenting yourself at the border is a misdemeanor.

Somehow I see a rather large distinction between a felony with a gun and a misdemeanor with no weapon. I wonder why you can't.

0 Replies

. . . the conservatives are correct about another aspect of original meaning. As understood at the time of ratification, the Constitution did not permit the federal government to retain and manage land indefinitely for unenumerated purposes. Massive, permanent federal land ownership would have been seen as subversive of the constitutional scheme. The federal government's authority to dispose was
unlimited (except for trust standards), but its authority to acquire, retain, and manage was not . . .
____________________________________________

It was remiss of me to fail to provide the source of the above in my previous post:

http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1072&context=faculty_lawreviews

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote:

So when Jon Stewart fell back on his "I am just an entertainer on a comedy network" routine, you are telling me that he wasn't really just an entertainer? In reality he was entirely political and entirely concerned with forwarding Democrat electoral opportunities through his content?

No. What I was telling Finn can be found in the words and sentences of my post above.

But apparently you would like me to address similarities and differences in Jon Stewart's show compared with Hannity's show or Limbaugh's. Do I have you right?

1 Reply

I'll find some more pertinent excerpts and post them tomorrow.

0 Replies

@blatham,

No, all three are entertainers. You just don't like 2 of them. They play a role in public entertainment. A role that is sometimes scripted, rehearsed and planned out. I just want you to admit that you feel ok in demonizing them because they disagree with you politically.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote:

No, all three are entertainers. You just don't like 2 of them. They play a role in public entertainment. A role that is sometimes scripted, rehearsed and planned out. I just want you to admit that you feel ok in demonizing them because they disagree with you politically.

The inability or refusal to make discernments won't make you a smarter or wiser dude.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

The Vox source he references (see my link on previous page) speaks about the anti-Muslim activists in the group.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

The Vox source he references (see my link on previous page) speaks about the anti-Muslim activists in the group.

Activist. Singular. Here is the entire context of the single use of the word "Muslim" in the article.

Quote:

That may not necessarily be the case this time around. In fact, at least one militia member seems to be expecting things to go very differently this time. Jon Ritzheimer, the former US Marine whose anti-Muslim rhetoric and activities raised alarms with the FBI in November 2015, posted a video to YouTube on December 31 in which he seemed to be saying goodbye to his family and explaining the reason why he felt compelled to fight the US government in Oregon.

So, obviously the entire group can be considered anti-Muslim so far as Moyers is concerned. It's lame.

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

The inability or refusal to make discernment's won't make you a smarter or wiser dude.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing.

0 Replies

These guys were said to have acquired a full set of keys, so it appears there was entry without "breaking." They are now said to occupy all 7 buildings at the complex.

1 Reply

@layman,

Hopefully those other buildings will have bathrooms and showers. 150 guys in that little houselike building they first showed, after a couple of weeks, is going to be freaking RANK. They might have to send in medics just to treat the people passing out from the smell.

0 Replies

@blatham,

And you don't recognize that Democrats trade on fear and dire predictions of the future?

The "shift" referred to by Rucker and Costa is most evident in Trump because it exists only in Trump. To the extent that past primaries actually did focus on an ideological litmus test, they still do for those candidates not named Donald Trump. They're all fighting over who is more against amnesty, who would be tougher on ISIS etc etc.

Understandably the Left wants to see the Trump phenomena as confirmation of what they have always thought: That Republicans and conservatives are a bunch of angry white racists and xenophobes who are getting more and more afraid, and more and more desperate as the reins of power in America slip more and more from white hands.

Of course there is some truth to this perception, such people exist and Trump attracts them, but not all of the people who support him fall into this category. I’ve spoken with a number of people who claim to support The Donald and they are not all racists and xenophobes. Amazingly they all closely identify with the guy and when he’s criticized, they tend to take it personally. I think this is because they feel he is speaking for them; saying the things millions of people want to say but are afraid to do so because PC bullies will be on them like white on rice if they do. They are tired of being made out to be racist if they think it’s ridiculous for some blacks to get mad when anyone says “all lives matter,” or if they think the country has enough problems and enough people in poverty that we don't need to invite in more from other countries; particularly if they don't have the common courtesy to obey our laws for entering.

The interesting thing is that it bothers them a lot when someone calls them a racist. I would have thought they didn't much care what PC trolls thought of them, but a lot of them are young people who grew up during years in which kids were taught in school that racism is a terrible thing. They took it seriously and they don’t want to be considered a racist, but they don’t want to give up what they consider to be common sense either. Trump speaks plainly and bluntly and as he will always remind us, he says what he thinks and he thinks he is right. He's not going to dance around an issue because a reporter on MSNBC might otherwise make a monologue out of his comments the next morning, or the twitterverse will light up right after his speech. (Unfortunately what a lot of his supporters don't appreciate is that he is saying a lot of these things precisely for the reaction they get. Whenever the news cycle is taken up by a story that doesn't involve him, you can bet big money that a new outrageous statement is on the way)

This what happens when open discussion is not allowed and that is where we are in America. There are definitely opinions that are not permitted to be voiced, and I am not referring to an “opinion” that black people are an inferior mongrel race. People like Trump thrive in this sort of environment. The same thing is happening in Europe as respects the immigration issues. It must seem like a great strategy to stifle dissent by shaming the dissenters, (In the case of Europe they even file charges for hate speech) but eventually it blows up, and typically the people left standing are the extremists from the opposite side of the spectrum.

(Just out of curiosity, is there anything about the Democrats or the liberal movement, in general, that concerns you or do you honestly think that their flaws are relatively minor and they remain not only the only hope for America, but a bright one as well?)

3 Replies

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

From Bill Moyers: They demand that government-controlled land be handed over to ranchers and loggers because they claim the Constitution says it should be. But the anti-government and anti-Muslim activists involved in the takeover are not locals — “they are a small group of individuals who travel around the country attaching themselves to various local fights against the federal government, usually over land rights,” explains Jennifer Williams at Vox.

Which, if true, puts them in the same arena as the Westboro Baptist folks.

Not really. The Westboro Baptists don't come to a town to assist the local homophobes and anti-Semites. They have a traveling team.

It would put them in the same arena as members of anarchist movements who travel to conflict sites in an effort to incite and inflame riots.

0 Replies

@CowDoc,

Thanks for that CowDoc

0 Replies

@layman,

This is directed to both layman and Glenn but is connected to layman's post as he has proven himself the daisy of the two.

Yes, it is interesting (the excerpts that is) and it makes sense. Thanks.

There is a place for federal ownership of land, but it must be for specified purposes and not for indefinite periods. This is certainly in keeping with the Founders' aversion to an overly powerful and unaccountable federal leviathan.

(I would think that anything and everything the federal government does should be guided by the requirement that it must serve the interest of the entire country)

Of course we have been, much to our own peril, moving steadily away from the Founder's wise and prudent concerns over a federal leviathan, largely because such a governmental beast is necessary to advance progressive precepts. Without a very powerful central government with vast resources and a national reach, most of the progressive agenda would not be possible.

Unfortunately the need for this mighty beast is based on the premise that the citizenry cannot be trusted: Left in private hands the land will be exploited, stripped of it's resources and left a barren desert or toxic Abbadon. Left to the States, massive pockets of injustice and inequity would exist throughout the nation, and a mere pittance, if anything, would be spent on the disadvantaged. Left to private enterprise and a free market, predatory capitalists would impose feudalism throughout the country with workers reduced to the status of serfs, and a moneyed ruling class living lives of obscene luxury and consumption. Our stores would be flooded with dangerous and defective products, and consumers defrauded rather than protected. Monopolies would subsume every industry and service sector and prices would soar as quality plummeted.

Fortunately we have wise, just, incorruptible and indefatigable federal bureaucrats who devote their lives to ensuring the survival and prosperity of this wonderful utopia that progressives have built.

It is also interesting how the Founders notion that the government could never be trusted, but the people, generally, always should be, has, after a little less than 240 years, been completely turned on its head.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Where did the "anti-Muslim" come from? Is this something you are cool with Blatham? Sure makes them sound like far more right-winged lunatics if you throw that anti-Muslim rhetoric around. I am surprised Moyers stopped there and didn't include misogynistic baby murdering Nazis as well.

Well, he got it from Vox, so it must be true. No bias from that source.

Aren't Bundy & Co. claiming that the entire Administration consists of sleeper Muslim jihadists?

0 Replies

From the article posted by Glenn:

Quote:

Clarence A. ("Casey") Emerson of Bozeman, Montana-a former state senator wants Montana to sue the federal government. Montana, like most other western states, is composed largely of federal land, 4 and Emerson, like many other Westerners, is fed up with federal land management. He wants that acreage given to the states. More specifically, he wants Montana's federal lands deeded to the state government. Montanans, he says, can do a lot better managing local lands than bureaucratsin Washington, D.C.-who, if they care about Montana at all, are under enormous pressure from people who do not.

He believes Montanans cannot continue to suffer under federal land ownership policies. Those policies, he says, throw people out of work and bar them from their own backyards. In past years, he continues, federal policies have fostered over-cutting of timber; more recently, they have fostered undercutting-resulting in ravenous and polluting forest fires. Local people, he says, would administer Montana lands far more responsibly.

In many western states the feds "own" 50-90% of the land. The conflicts this generates between the federal government and those states and their inhabitants is long outstanding and probably not well-understood by those who aren't there. Why does the government continue to assert control over such vast amounts of land after granting state sovereignty to newly admitted states?

It's not an important issue to easterners, but it's a critical one for those western states. And I'm not sure what the feds have to offer in the way of an answer to the question.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know