By Omission
By Mitch Berg
Picture this: You’re at the Hiawatha Avenue railroad yards. It’s 5AM. Trucks – which have been busy rounding up dissidents all night long – line up and unload their cargoes, to be stuffed onto boxcars by gangs of SEIU thugs with attack dogs. At 8AM, the trains pull out, hauling thousands of dissidents off to “re-education” camps in Idaho and eastern Wyoming. Their only crime? Speaking out against the Obama Administration; winding up on Janet Napolitano’s enemies list; getting denounced by their DFLer neighbors to the DFL “Hope and Change” tribunals.
At the camps in Idaho, they live in unheated barracks, eat potatoes (albeit Idaho potatoes), and learn proper thought by hauling wheelbarrows full of dirt from one pile to the other.
This is the vision of Jeff Rosenberg, of MNPublius. This is the world he wants.
Well, no – he doesn’t specifically say so. But he doesn’t speak out against it!
Oh – he’s talking about Rep. Michele Bachmann:
Well if I thought her rhetoric was overheated before, that’s nothing compared to a speech she recently made to a group of Denver conservatives:
“This cannot pass,” the Minnesota Republican told a crowd at a Denver gathering sponsored by the Independence Institute. “What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass. We will do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn’t pass.”
I’m gonna go out on a limb here; Bachmann grabbed the wrong metaphor in the heat of a rhetorical moment; you don’t slit your wrist, you poke your finger or thumb. It’s a guy thing anyway; nobody expects a chick to have a command of it.
Does “whatever it takes” include violent, armed revolution? Because her rhetoric over the past year doesn’t seem to rule that out in any way.
I just sat slack-jawed for a while when I read that.
I still am.
Let me be absolutely clear for our conservative readers. Free speech is protected, and Bachmann has the right to voice her opposition to health reform. However, sedition and fomenting violent rebellion are most definitely not protected.
Well – problem solved!
By the way – while Bachmann said nothing about armed revolt of any kind, it’s good to see lefties suddenly getting upset about violent opposition and anti-American sedition.
Bachmann needs to cool it before the birthers-with-guns movement turns into something even more insidious.
Perhaps Rosenberg means “before the “birtherns with guns “movement” turns into a movement”. There’ve been three incidents, none involving illegal activity, much less violence.
Indeed, every single incident of violence at every town hall meeting was precipitated by a Democrat or one of their sympathizers. Every one.
Who is it we have to worry about, here?
I, for one, would hold her partly responsible.
Like there was a lot of doubt about that.
September 2nd, 2009 at 6:45 am
Joel Rosenberg, of MNPublius? I rather think not.
September 2nd, 2009 at 6:46 am
And I’d probably know. There is enough booze in the world to make me willing to blog at MNPublius — but it would also make me pass out, first.
September 2nd, 2009 at 7:15 am
Yeah, yeah.
Fixed.
😛
September 2nd, 2009 at 7:58 am
Righteeo Mitch – I mean Bachmann makes an ass of herself, and Rosenberg takes her to task, and YOU create an extraordinarily offensive fiction of Nazi trains as cover/fear mongering blither blather, but it’s ROSENBERG who’s daffy?
Ok.
September 2nd, 2009 at 8:04 am
BTW Mitch, Rosenberg’s literary ‘license’ in going to the ‘extreme’ in your mind about interpreting/inferring from her words of ‘WHATEVER IT TAKES’ is, after all, only in your mind.
First, we had years of Republicans saying, “you have to do whatever it takes to keep us safe.”, and we’d say, “Does that include violating our baisc liberties”, and you all would say, “No, no, we only mean you don’t grant our liberties to foriegners – they shouldn’t have access to our courts, we CAN spy on them, wire-tap THEM, w/o permission”, and then we found out, actually you DID mean to violate the rights of US Citizens (Padilla, Hamdan). You DID mean to wire-tap (illegally) US Citizens, in short, if it meant killing civilians in Pakistan, that was just ducky – collateral damage and all after all.
And then there’s this, people like AK, and people like the woman in VA who stood up and said, “if we can’t win at the ballot box, it’s time to grab the bullet box.” (btw, yes Mitch, she was a Republican) – well, they make all the sane folks worry you neo-cons have ‘gone off the reservation.’ Comments like Bachmann’s COULD and probably ShOULD be seen as simple rhetorical metaphor – but the mistake wasn’t about whether we should ‘slit our wrists’ vs. ‘prick our fingers’ it was about advocating doing ANYTHING it takes without qualification of UNDER THE LAW – and PEACABLY, because you see, when doctors start getting shot, when clinics get blown up, when speakers at town-halls get threatened with “We know where you live”, we begin to think you folks will do ANYTHING.
September 2nd, 2009 at 8:05 am
And the lefites NEVER said anything over the top that implied revolution during the Bush Administration right?????????
September 2nd, 2009 at 8:17 am
you folks will do ANYTHING
Strawmen are rilly dangerous. They might shoot ya!
Try the decaf, Peev. And while you’re at it, have you shared your concerns with Rep. Bachmann yet? The whole speaking truth to power thing?
September 2nd, 2009 at 8:45 am
I didn’t read Bachmann’s comment as seeking armed revolt, I read it as a call to form a suicide corps, ala The Judean People’s Front.
“You can’t fire me, I quit” translated into health care lingo is: “Your Death Panels can’t kill us, we’re committing suicide!”
It would be a magnificent pacifist gesture, like the Buddhist monk who set himself aflame to protest the Vietnam War in that famous photo.
Of course, I may have misunderstood her. Probably my fault – my mind doesn’t instantly leap to violent responses to policy questions. That’s why I’ll never make it as a Progressive. Or in the union.
.
September 2nd, 2009 at 8:49 am
Actually, I think originally (middle ages and before) it was slit your palms, one each, and grasp each others hands to become “blood brothers” (or give each other hepatitis or something.) In 18-19th century, it involved people just pricking their finger and putting their mark in blood next to something on paper. But yeah, no wrist slitting, that’s definitely another connotation. The lady misspoke. We don’t want any conservatives slitting their wrists for any reason and certainly not when our enemy is taking it the shorts.
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:01 am
Peev comprises a lot of charcters of the Wizard of Oz. He brings a lot of strawmen here and then he plays the part of the cowardly lion.
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:01 am
“At the camps in Idaho, they live in unheated barracks, eat potatoes (albeit Idaho potatoes), and learn proper thought by hauling wheelbarrows full of dirt from one pile to the other.”
Sounds like a better gig than I got now. Where do I sign up?
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:01 am
Ah, yes, Peev. Master of impotent, yet lengthy, keyboard rage; complete novice at actual interpersonal engagement. If he ever did actually meet Bachmann, I suspect he’d wet his pants and weep uncontrollably.
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:02 am
Speaking of revolt, what’s with the “Take Back Minneapolis” rally? A flier promoting it was in the Republican building at the fair. Are we partnering with hippies?
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:06 am
You have to forgive moonbats. Their bonding ceremony involves splitting up according to gender and passing kool-aid back and forth between locked lips.
Really close bonds include a bit of tongue, I’m told.
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:18 am
Yes, Jeff Rosenberg — while a pleasant guy — is demonstrably daffy on this stuff. That’s Jeff — Juliet Echo Foxtrot Foxtrot — Rosenberg.
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:20 am
Peev seems to forget the last President of the US to incarcerate political opposition was Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat. At the height of WWI he had about 14,000 political prisoners.
Now ask me who I think is scarier, Bachmann or Obama?
September 2nd, 2009 at 11:09 am
penigma said:
““if we can’t win at the ballot box, it’s time to grab the bullet box.” (btw, yes Mitch, she was a Republican)”
Are we setting aside all REAL ballot box chicanery here? I mean, who’s leading the pack these days at actually grabbing that ballot box?
September 2nd, 2009 at 11:50 am
“And on the next level, I thought “it doesn’t matter what the candidates say, because the best they can hope for is to be merely wrenched out of context; whatever they say will be called “hateful” or “crazy” anyway”.”
— Mitch
“Picture this: You’re at the Hiawatha Avenue railroad yards. It’s 5AM. Trucks – which have been busy rounding up dissidents all night long – line up and unload their cargoes, to be stuffed onto boxcars by gangs of SEIU thugs with attack dogs. At 8AM, the trains pull out, hauling thousands of dissidents off to “re-education” camps in Idaho and eastern Wyoming. Their only crime? Speaking out against the Obama Administration; winding up on Janet Napolitano’s enemies list; getting denounced by their DFLer neighbors to the DFL “Hope and Change” tribunals.
At the camps in Idaho, they live in unheated barracks, eat potatoes (albeit Idaho potatoes), and learn proper thought by hauling wheelbarrows full of dirt from one pile to the other.
This is the vision of Jeff Rosenberg, of MNPublius. This is the world he wants.”
–Mitch
So, I’m curious Mitch, do you actually believe in the inane bullshit you’re posting, and do you reserve the same contempt for your disconnect from reality that you did for moonbats declaring basically the same thing during the Bush administration?
Sean
September 2nd, 2009 at 11:51 am
Pen,
Answer these questions:
1) Do you sincerely believe Bachmann didn’t misspeak, and was actually advocating suicide?
2) Do you believe, based on actual evidence, that there is a “Birthers with guns” movement? If yes, please substantiate copiously, or at least adequately.
3) Against the many,many instances of violence confirmed to have started with SEIU or other pro-Obama agitators at town hall meetings, please list the actual, confirmed incidents of violence started by anti-healthcare advocates. Not yelling. Not discourtesy. Violence.
I won’t even bother asking you to compare the instances of “artistic” threats on PResident Bush’s life.
See to this.
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Sean,
So, I’m curious Mitch, do you actually believe in the inane bullshit you’re posting, and do you reserve the same contempt for your disconnect from reality that you did for moonbats declaring basically the same thing during the Bush administration?
First, Sean, I get the impression you missed something. I’m satirizing the idea that “failure to abjure an atrocity” equals “approving of it”. You did catch the bit Jeff wrote about, I repeat, “Does “whatever it takes” include violent, armed revolution? Because her rhetoric over the past year doesn’t seem to rule that out in any way.“. In other words, since Bachmann hasn’t spoken about armed insurrection, she must approve of it?
Now, Sean, I realize you’re bound by the leftyblog covenant – “everything conservatives write is teh suck” – but I was satirizing what I consider irresponsible rhetorical overkill. Do I believe Jeff favors an anti-GOP Holodomor? No! Does Jeff honestly think any credible conservative – any of them – actually support armed insurrection?
Because while I personally shun the term “Inane bullshit”, I gotta say if that’s what he/you/y’all actually think, it’s concerning. You really believe that about the people who you share a nation with?
As to the “Disconnect” bit, I”m going to write it off to the fact that your browser doesn’t see “satire” tags. See to that, please.
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:40 pm
“Do I believe Jeff favors an anti-GOP Holodomor?”
Has ever ever written against it?
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:41 pm
sorry,
Has he ever written against it?
September 2nd, 2009 at 3:58 pm
1) Do you sincerely believe Bachmann didn’t misspeak, and was actually advocating suicide?
I can answer. Any comment made by a conservative or Republican that, in the reality based community, might require some interpretation, examining context, or analysis of nuance, should be taken at full face value, word for word, and extrapolated to the most heinous possible meaning.
(I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back.)
Vice versa for liberals/Democrats. Nuance it all the way out to fluffy marshmallow land until it disappears from the sheeples’ mindset.
September 2nd, 2009 at 4:15 pm
“First, Sean, I get the impression you missed something. I’m satirizing the idea that “failure to abjure an atrocity” equals “approving of it”. You did catch the bit Jeff wrote about, I repeat, “Does “whatever it takes” include violent, armed revolution? Because her rhetoric over the past year doesn’t seem to rule that out in any way.“. In other words, since Bachmann hasn’t spoken about armed insurrection, she must approve of it?”
No, I’ve just seen enough insipid bullshit couched in sarcasm and irony to stop caring. And what I found interesting, which is why I included that first quote from you was to highlight that you seem to suffer from the same rhetorical excesses, and a delightful habit of wrenching things out of context (that, the very real threat of wingnutters attacking elected officials is some how related to some victimhood fantasy of conservative concentration camps). Sorry for not being clearer about that.
Now, I know that you and every other victim of this oppressive liberal regime can’t begin to imagine why exactly Liberals would be very concerned about the rhetoric being used by Republicans and Conservatives (and yes ‘credible’ ones) and it resulting in violence towards Democratic elected officials. See, the thing is, no matter how fixated you are on a couple shithead labor goons getting into a shoving match at a health care town hall, there are a whole lot more ‘conservatives’ out there who are wholly disconnected from reality, and who have guns (and more!) and who have a real love of using them (see Richard Polawski, Timothy McVeigh, James W. von Brunn).
The problem is, and this gets to what ‘credible’ conservatives have said, is that you can only challenge the legitimacy of the President, and declare that he is trying to destroy the Republic, convert us to socialism, etc. so many times before some real fucking nutbag and excuse my french, decides to ‘take matters into (his) own hands!’ and tries to kill, the President or any other number of people.
This is what that DHS report from earlier this year was about Mitch, and it’s serious, because I don’t think you have to look very hard to see how, or who it would be who would do this. Any number of the people who have somehow forgot about the 10th Amendment for the last 8 years, but now think that the President is a radical black Muslim from Kenya, well, now they’re concerned about it (for example, it’s strange that the 10th Amendment comes out when we’re talking about Health Care, but where were these people when George Bush basically took sole control over state National Guard units?). Or how about the numerous whacked out white supremacists in the country? Or how about any number of the cracked out militia members?
The response to this is: “Well, those people are crazy! How can you hold people who engaged in political discussion responsible for the actions of nutters?!” this is a fair point, but it’s worth considering, but first remember how if liberals challenged the former President or his policies, how they were traitors, or how they supported terrorists, or how they wanted America to fail? Remember all that hyperbole and insipid bullshit? Well now imagine that the response of that wasn’t academic, but instead resulted in someone dying?
“You really believe that about the people who you share a nation with?”
I believe that we disagree about a lot of things. I don’t think you’re a fascist, and, if I believe that health care should be universal I don’t think that makes me a socialist who wants to take all of your ‘freedom’.
September 2nd, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Peev is too much a coward to ask Bachmann a question.
September 2nd, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Pen,
Answer these questions:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! Mitch, you slay me.
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:43 am
Mr. Broom,
No, I’ve just seen enough insipid bullshit couched in sarcasm and irony to stop caring.
Er, yeah. It shows. :-`
And what I found interesting, which is why I included that first quote from you was to highlight that you seem to suffer from the same rhetorical excesses
Right. On Purpose. To lampoon.
A subtle distinction, but a rather meaningful one.
and a delightful habit of wrenching things out of context (that, the very real threat of wingnutters attacking elected officials is some how related to some victimhood fantasy of conservative concentration camps). Sorry for not being clearer about that.
Well, you’re still terribly unclear. I’m lampooning the left’s modern-day paranoid fantasy (re-born from the Clinton era) of camo-clad “militias” swarming in from the hill country to shoot up your coffee shops.
Now, I know that you and every other victim of this oppressive liberal regime
Bzzzt.
No, Sean. The Obama Administration is my victim. I and a few million others are going to send it packing. I’m having a ball. Keep your preconceptions!
can’t begin to imagine why exactly Liberals would be very concerned about the rhetoric being used by Republicans and Conservatives (and yes ‘credible’ ones) and it resulting in violence towards Democratic elected officials
Well, I could – if it were anything but a little bit of re-warmed Jeffersonian rhetoric being wrenched out of context by – let’s be honest – an Administration that’s operating (with thudding, plodding predictability) from the Alinsky rulebook and the Chicago manual of politics. Demonize! Isolate! Trash!
See, the thing is, no matter how fixated you are on a couple shithead labor goons getting into a shoving match at a health care town hall, there are a whole lot more ‘conservatives’ out there who are wholly disconnected from reality, and who have guns (and more!) and who have a real love of using them
Um, yeah, that’s what you guys keep saying. THe problem is, every bit of actual (as opposed to imagined) organized deliberqate political violence and thuggery and strong-arming in America today is being carried out by those “couple shitheads”. And while you say…
(see Richard Polawski, Timothy McVeigh, James W. von Brunn)
…there is no way in hell you can lump them in with mainstream, or even fringe, Republicans they way that those “shithead” SEIU jagoffs are part of your mainstream. Indeed, you’ll find scarcely a Republican who wouldn’t have shot any of those three themselves; most of us believe that there are things more important than politics.
The problem is, and this gets to what ‘credible’ conservatives have said, is that you can only challenge the legitimacy of the President, and declare that he is trying to destroy the Republic, convert us to socialism, etc. so many times before some real fucking nutbag and excuse my french, decides to ‘take matters into (his) own hands!’ and tries to kill, the President or any other number of people.
Really, Sean? “So” many times? And you (pl) have decided that we’re about up to “so” many, and at that threshold the camo-clad redneck hordes are going to descend?
THis is the funny part, Sean; over the last eight years of unhinged Bush-derangement, I don’t recall a single conservative saying “you can only say “Buck Fush” and “Bush went to war for oil” only so many times…”, as if we believed there was some magic threshold of derangement; its because we fundamentally believe the American people can be trusted with their freedom.
This is what that DHS report from earlier this year was about Mitch, and it’s serious, because I don’t think you have to look very hard to see how, or who it would be who would do this.
Of course I don’t. With the help of a zillion lefties, I can see them behind every bush!
Seriously, Sean – baloney. The DHS report was an Orwellian smear. It proved that this administration is just a Chicago city council campaign run amok.
Any number of the people who have somehow forgot about the 10th Amendment for the last 8 years, but now think that the President is a radical black Muslim from Kenya, well, now they’re concerned about it (for example, it’s strange that the 10th Amendment comes out when we’re talking about Health Care, but where were these people when George Bush basically took sole control over state National Guard units?).
Er, the Burger Court gave sole control over the Guard to the President in 1990 in Perpich Vs. Department of Defense.
Or how about the numerous whacked out white supremacists in the country? Or how about any number of the cracked out militia members?
Whose numbers, importance and existence seem to wax and wane depending on whether a Democratic administraiton needs to have a “vast, right wing” boogeyman to guard against.
The left just spent eight years reminding us that it was utterly wrong wrong wrong to cast aspersons on, say, Islam becuase of the (actual!) crimes of a few dozen or hundred of their coreligionists; that concern and suspicion was “Pants-wetting” at best, “racism” at worst.
So why does Islam get a consideration that millions of American conservatives don’t?
Oh, I know why, of course, but I’d love to see your answer.
But let’s say that it’s true; that there is some fringe of putatively “right-wing” wackoes out there.
The response to this is: “Well, those people are crazy! How can you hold people who engaged in political discussion responsible for the actions of nutters?!” this is a fair point, but it’s worth considering, but first remember how if liberals challenged the former President or his policies, how they were traitors, or how they supported terrorists, or how they wanted America to fail?
The problem, Sean, is that nobody can seem to find a quote from a credible conservative who isn’t speaking in a bout of ratings-building hyperbole about the “Traitor” bit; there are legitimate questions about how one should deal with terrorist threats; and there is a significant faction on the hard left that very much does want America – at least, the part of America that isn’t like them – to fail; I understand you might not want to claim International ANSWER and Code Pink, but they most certainly both do want America to fail and, unlike the hordes of boogeymen militias, actual exist and proudly parade through our streets.
Remember all that hyperbole and insipid bullshit? Well now imagine that the response of that wasn’t academic, but instead resulted in someone dying?
You mean, like if someone took a run at Michele Bachmann because they’d been inflamed by all the bullshit that’s been written about her?
Because you have to admit that’s a helluvva lot more likely than anything you’re worried about, at this point.
I believe that we disagree about a lot of things. I don’t think you’re a fascist, and, if I believe that health care should be universal I don’t think that makes me a socialist who wants to take all of your ‘freedom’.
Well, I’m fine with that; I have always believed in disagreeing without being disagreeable.
But seriously – curb the paranoia. You may believe it, but at best it poisons any civil discussion, and at worst serves a cynical agenda that eventually makes us all worse-off.
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:00 am
“no matter how fixated you are on a couple shithead labor goons ”
Don’t you see Mitch. Actual, in the flesh, video taped, and arrested violent left wing goons are no match for the imaginary right wing goons running around inside Sean’s brain.
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:27 am
“But seriously – curb the paranoia. You may believe it, but at best it poisons any civil discussion, and at worst serves a cynical agenda that eventually makes us all worse-off.”
Mitch, no matter how dismissive of it you may be there is one simple incontrovertible fact, ALF/ELF, Code Pink, etc– the loonies on the left– they didn’t kill anyone during the 8 years of the Bush administration. ALF/ELF/WELP, whatever they’re calling themselves now, they committed acts of violence, blew up logging trucks etc, but they didn’t kill anyone.
Richard Polawski, James von Brunn, Tim McVeigh, Scott Roeder– they killed people. They killed people because they thought the big bad liberal government was coming to get them. Polawski said that Obama was coming to take his guns, and I wonder where he got that idea? Could it have been the NRA and Fox news parroting it over and over and over again? Scott Roeder? There was minimal if any violence at abortion clinics when Bush was in office, but it seems that the election of a Democrat brings out the real fucking nutbags.
You chuckle at my paranoia– but the thing is– there weren’t acts of violence like this during the Bush administration (remember, we’re effete urban liberals who wouldn’t even know how to use a gun!), but there seem to have been during the Clinton and now, just months old, the Obama administration. If you can’t see the difference? Welp…
re: the National Guard, I’m talking about the legislation in 06(?) that gave the President the right to take over the national guard in individual states, not the Perpich case.
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:29 am
The problem, Sean, is that nobody can seem to find a quote from a credible conservative who isn’t speaking in a bout of ratings-building hyperbole about the “Traitor” bit;
This too is funny. Oh we’ll call other people in America traitors, but it’s all in pursuit of ratings! And now, now we’ll call the President racist, or say that he wasn’t born in America, and I’m sure that’s all for ratings too!
The things you can explain away as though they’re acceptable.
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:43 am
An extremely flexible definition of “incitement” seems a very convenient thing to have if you wish to silence your political opponents. However, “your words are responsible for their actions” seems an incredibly stupid thing to say.
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:56 am
Sean — Pvt. William Long, a Marine recruiter, by a Muslim convert. Code Pink frequently targeted Marine recruiters in their protests, and blamed them for recruiting Americans to kill Iraqi children.
Is Code Pink responsible for Pvt Long’s murder?
Have you ever once spoken out against Code Pink’s rhetoric?
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:02 am
Sean — Pvt. William Long, a Marine recruiter, was murdered by a Muslim convert. Code Pink frequently targeted Marine recruiters in their protests, and blamed them for recruiting Americans to kill Iraqi children.
Is Code Pink responsible for Pvt Long’s murder?
Have you ever once spoken out against Code Pink’s rhetoric?
September 3rd, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Polawski said that Obama was coming to take his guns, and I wonder where he got that idea?
Possibly from Obama’s directorship at the Joyce Foundation? Obviously — and it’s a sad sign that I need to make this explicit — that doesn’t justify murder, or lesser crimes, but Obama’s history around “gun control” legislation would lead a prudent person to think that, yes, he’s in line with the Joyce policies.
September 3rd, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Mitch, no matter how dismissive of it you may be there is one simple incontrovertible fact, ALF/ELF, Code Pink, etc– the loonies on the left– they didn’t kill anyone during the 8 years of the Bush administration. ALF/ELF/WELP, whatever they’re calling themselves now, they committed acts of violence, blew up logging trucks etc, but they didn’t kill anyone.
Ah. So we’re moving the goalposts. “political violence” doesn’t rise to the threshold of concerning – just murder?
Sorry, Sean. Every violent act intended to shut down free speech and human rights – from a murdered abortionist to a pie thrown at Ann Coulter – is a crime against a free, open government. The difference is, we conservatives vigorously condemn the tiny fringe of madmen who are lumped (usually wrongly) in with us. You guys make ’em folk heroes.
Richard Polawski, James von Brunn, Tim McVeigh, Scott Roeder– they killed people. They killed people because they thought the big bad liberal government was coming to get them
Leaving aside the giggly little attempt to tie “concern about government size, intervention and intrusiveness” to “murder” – although we should not, because that is precisely the talking point you and Jeff are servicing here – but Von Brunn and McVeigh were no conservatives. Both had neo-Nazi tendencies; while it’s in your interest to try to equate the two, it’s a bigger lie than saying “the DFL are a bunch of Stalinists” (because while the MNGOP has never supported the Nazi party, the DFL did in fact cuddle up to Stalin; we’ll ignore that, since Humphrey took care of that sixty years ago).
I mean, if we have to cop to any of them, certainly the left should eat the Unibomber…
Polawski said that Obama was coming to take his guns, and I wonder where he got that idea?
As Joel notes, because it’s in Obama’s record. And it’s part of the national Dems’ platform, and in places where the Dems are in sufficiently suffocating control, it’s part of their policy?
Could it have been the NRA and Fox news parroting it over and over and over again?
“Parrotting?” It is a fact: Obama is a grabber; always has been. He’s from Chicago, and has always supported their total gun ban (although he muted that when he got national ambitions, for obvious reasons; in saner parts of the country, gun control is political poison).
Scott Roeder? There was minimal if any violence at abortion clinics when Bush was in office, but it seems that the election of a Democrat brings out the real fucking nutbags.
Right. Just like having Hitler in office brought arsonists to the Reichstag.
You chuckle at my paranoia– but the thing is– there weren’t acts of violence like this during the Bush administration (remember, we’re effete urban liberals who wouldn’t even know how to use a gun!), but there seem to have been during the Clinton and now, just months old, the Obama administration. If you can’t see the difference? Welp…
I see that every wacked out person who can be classified, however torturously, as a “conservative” is covered with maniacal intensity now that Obama is in office.
We are surrounded by the violent detritus of liberalism. Our inner cities are rotten to the core and the most violent places on earth that are not war zones, and it’s a direct result of three generations of liberal policy.
re: the National Guard, I’m talking about the legislation in 06(?) that gave the President the right to take over the national guard in individual states, not the Perpich case.
Doesn’t matter. The Guard has as a matter of fact been an extension of the Army Reserve since the eighties. Different laws and policies and, in the case of Perpich, cases made it so. Which is neither here not there, except that it further clobbers the notion that the Guard is the “Militia” as referred to in the Second Amendment. Not that we need to keep clobbering it in the wake of Heller, pbui.
September 3rd, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Sean,
Let’s do try to get on subject here.
The point of my piece was the Jeff, like you, are participating in an immense slander; you are trying to tie legal, if spirited, dissent to murder. You are trying to wrap the actions of a small group of criminals (who were not, largely, politically motivated in any case, except in the most trivial sense), who in at least a couple of cases would seem to be completely insane, with conservative dissent from the president, and doing it in a very hamfisted way.
It is an organized attempt to demonize dissent, from Napolitano’s DHS report (which basically covered all organized conservative opinion! and most of the rest too!) on down to all you leftybloggers.
It’s the most cynical thing I’ve seen in my life; using Alinskyite slander on half or more of the American people.
It is inexcusable – or would be, in a place where both side were held to the same standard of ethics.