…for the wave of “right wing violence” that, we are assured, will be much worse than Al Quada and ISIS and is just around the corner, honest, we see the left’s propensity to thuggery is alive and well:
An adjunct professor at Southern State Community College (SSCC) in Ohio is under investigation for threatening to shoot up the NRA.
“Look, there’s only one solution. A bunch of us anti-gun types are going to have to arm ourselves, storm the NRA headquarters in Fairfax, VA, and make sure there are no survivors,” James Pearce wrote in a Facebook post on June 13. “This action might also require coordinated hits at remote sites, like Washington lobbyists. Then and only then will we see some legislative action on assault weapons. Have a nice day.”
By all means, “professor ” Pearce, go for it.
“Look, there’s only one solution. A bunch of us anti-gun types are going to have to arm ourselves, storm the NRA headquarters in Fairfax, VA, and make sure there are no survivors,”
Wow this sounds like a solution from the DG Think Tank.
There is no ‘left propensity to thuggery’; this is far from representative of the left.
In contrast, the current conservatives have embraced violent movements, while purging yourselves of the moderates among you.
I don’t see anyone standing with this professor, and plenty who repudiate him.
We wait and wait and wait to see you conservatives do the same with your violent and bigoted fringe who use far more objectionable rhetoric.
The hard reality is that even conservative administrations have found there are more violent right wing groups and individuals than on the left.
But of course we also see conservatives in denial of factual evidence on a regular basis.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/opinion/the-other-terror-threat.html?_r=0
“But headlines can mislead. The main terrorist threat in the United States is not from violent Muslim extremists, but from right-wing extremists. Just ask the police.
In a survey we conducted with the Police Executive Research Forum last year of 382 law enforcement agencies, 74 percent reported anti-government extremism as one of the top three terrorist threats in their jurisdiction; 39 percent listed extremism connected with Al Qaeda or like-minded terrorist organizations. And only 3 percent identified the threat from Muslim extremists as severe, compared with 7 percent for anti-government and other forms of extremism.”
This is consistent with the conversations on terrorism and extremist groups that I’ve had with different law enforcement agencies in Minnesota.
When the MN GOP gives convention space to groups like the Oathkeepers who aspire to be a paramilitary group that wants to violently take down the United States government, and which appears in violent stand offs with legitimate law enforcement in locations like the Cliven Bundy standoff over unpaid use of federal lands — PUBLIC lands — then shame on your conservatives. You support and include domestic terrorists. You also embrace extremist groups like the John Birchers, a nasty bunch of racists.
Shame on you. No one is giving this professor support; the same cannot be said of conservatives for right wing terrorism.
DG,
So moving to the right is “violence?”
Seems…excessive?
And yes, plenty are with the professor.
As re your NYTimes headline: I’m shocked, shocked I tell you, to see that the left’s primary propaganda organ of record has found evidence from a left leaning “police think tank” that supports the idea that there’s a wave of right wing violence on the way. Honest. No, for real this time.
“Oathkeepers who aspire to be a paramilitary group that wants to violently take down the United States government”
Well, that’s the defamatory, propaganda version of their goal, sure. “Holding government accountable to the Constitution” is the FACTUAL version.
Shouldn’t this “professor” be arraigned on inciting terrorism charges? Is this deranged individual still roaming the streets? Still has a job? Shouldn’t FBI be investigating him? Oh, wait, never mind, law is only for people to the right of the sanity line.
Also, DG?
I find it interesting that you demand all sorts of nuanced appreciation for different points of view regarding violence on the left…
…while constantly painting conservatives not so much with “a broad brush” as with a spray paint compressor.
Look back to your references to carry permittees being “fat bald angry white guys who want to be Rambo”, and get back to me.
Looking at DG’s link, it’s interesting that they make the case that anti-government extremism is always on the right. Remembering the “occupy” movement, the Unabomber, and more, I would dare suggest that this is a bit of a hasty generalization, to put it mildly. For that matter, the very article indicates the case of a professor at Purdue who was forced to resign after harassing pro-life students.
On the light side, I find it darkly amusing that the community college is “allowing” police to investigate, as if they have a say in the matter. How nice of them, and yes, this choice of verbiage does suggest that the cancer of progressive terrorism is more widespread than DG would like to admit.
Militarized police are worried about citizens who object to militarized police inching ever closer to being the standing army of occupation troops that the Founders warned about in Federalist 29.
Joe wins the internet for today.
No doubt this will turn out to be a case of right-wing youths waging a war on women at Lake Calhoun.
http://kstp.com/news/minneapolis-police-investigate-alleged-terroristic-threats-calhoun-parkway/4186341/
JD, please remind me again why does IRS need to be armed? And why do armed civilian agencies outnumber the Marines?
Show me where anyone responded to the professor in solidarity, or opted to support his position and actions.
I haven’t seen anything. Provide me a link showing support, from a quality source, with verifiable information.
What I do see is for example the court hearing covered in the STrib today of the right wing extremist shooter of the black lives protesters.
Let’s just take a look at the recorded expressed right wing political views of this jerk, who was arguably engaged in attempted murder. He did not target individuals he knew out of some specific conflict. Instead he targeted a group of people unknown to him individually out of racism. As one of the sovereign citizen crowd he is strongly anti-government on top of being a racist bigot. (bigot for purposes of definition here require two criteria be met – factually inaccurate and disparaging of a large group of individuals )
He accumulated weapons, he held strong anti-government sovereign citizen views, and he went to the black lives matter protest in cammo wearing masks, armed, with the intent to intimidate. He had others with him who shared his views.
I haven’t seen any repudiation by any of you of these people; rather they are precisely the folks I see welcomed at MN GOP caucuses ( I have attended in the past, and attended most recently this year), and their views applauded when expressed.
I have NEVER seen or heard a report of someone like this professor being encouraged or welcomed at a DFL caucus. But if you have info to the contrary — again, provide it.
There is a big difference between someone who mouths terrible views like this, but who is NOT welcome on the left, including by a political party and the example below. This professor falls into the category of “get off my side”, we reject your views and beliefs. I have not seen any accepted gun control group which shares this opinion, or any violent act regarding guns and gun owners — and I’m pretty familiar with their positions and most of the well recognized groups. People like this are consistently repudiated and rejected; on the right, the equivalent are encouraged, welcomed and supported.
Mitch does not have a valid claim here.
Looking at one of your right wing extremists:
“The protest by black activists quickly caught the attention of Scarsella and his fellow racists, who decided to confront the demonstrators wearing face masks and camouflage clothing on Nov. 19.
There is now mounting evidence that the four suspects honed their white supremacist views on far-right extremist websites and in chat rooms.
In announcing the charges Monday, Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman said “there is no doubt” the Nov. 23 attack was “racially motivated,”
Scarsella and his associates, court documents allege, “made inappropriate [racial] comments to protesters,” leading to “angry Internet posts on Reddit and 4Chan,” the court documents say.
“Investigators have viewed a 4Chan website e-mail string where participants discussed going to the BLM protests to ‘stir things up’ and ‘cause commotion,’” the court documents say.
Through further examination of social media, Minneapolis police spotted a video made by Scarsella and an associate on their way to the BLM protest on Nov. 19, referring to African Americans “in derogatory terms, saying they are going to do some ‘reverse cultural enriching’ and ‘make the fire rise,’” the documents say.
“They returned four days later with firearms, leading to the wounding of five demonstrators.
Scarsella claims on the video that he and a fellow racist who displays a handgun are on a “search and recovery mission.” The video ends with the words “stay white.”
……………………
The definition of a hate crime which distinguishes it from other crimes is that it has both direct victims and indirect victims, that the violence and intimidation directed at the immediate victims is intended as well to frighten other members of the targeted group.
Terrorism is also directed at a similar goal; the accepted definition of terrorism is:
” the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims”
Scarsella engaged in violence and intimidation, and he has political aims which he was in part furthering by those actions.
He is one of yours. And he did something.
I don’t see the professor as having done anything other than open his mouth demonstrating he is an asshole.
And if you have any doubt — I intensely repudiate this jerk professor.
Any of you want to repudiate Scarsella for being a racist sovereign citizen pro-gunner?
DG,
I’ll respond to this latest when my work schedule allows.
Kindly answer the many questions posed to your previous comments while we wait, OK?
Because I’d hate to go back to my previous “metablogging” policy.
The NY Times column DG links to is in the opinion section.
This is typical sourcing by Dog Gone, she has been called on it numerous times and she cannot or will not learn how to create a foundation for a serious argument.
You have to begin, not by challenging the statements in the article, but demonstrating that it is an OPINION article, and why opinion articles are not called fact articles, or even news articles.
One measure of societal approval for this professor would be a listing of his Facebook friends before, and after, the posting. If he maintained his Facebook friends, then we would assume he’s got a body of like-mindless people around him. Which is, ahem, exactly what we would have inferred from the “Occupy” protests at political conventions, for what it’s worth.
And ++ for Bento. When DG learns how to interpret evidence, she’ll be a lot less fun, because the horsesh** quotient coming from her keyboard will go down a lot.
By the way, DG – while it’ll be child’s play to show you sympathizers in academia, it’s kind of funny what a stickler you become around others’ generalizations, while you’re so free with your own.
Anyway – feel free to answer the questions posed to you in other comments, and we can discuss this later.
Just a few general comments on terrorism metrics.
The 9/11 stats are left out by people who want to minimize the threat of Islamic terror in the US. Why? I have no idea. but it iundercuts their arguments when they when they write ‘ After 9/11’ or ‘Not including 9/11.’ It would be like a person who wants to minimize anti-government terrorism writing ‘Not including the Oklahoma City bombing . . ..’
Calling them Right Wing terrorists is a misnomer. Anti-government terrorists would be more accurate*.
Because these terrorists are anti-government, they tend to hit harder targets than Islamic terrorists. Police stations, courthouses, government buildings, and judges and other government officials. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to judge whether that makes people in law enforcement more concerned about anti-government terror than about Islamic terror.
*Even the SPLC seems to think that anti-government is a synonym for right-wing.
Night;
I saw that article this morning on WND. The person that put it up, Leo Lohmann, quoted one of the targets as saying that KSTP was the only local media sources that reported it. With the exception on Tom Lyden who has been all over the local Muslims that became ISIS fighters, KMSP has become just as left as the other propaganda spewers. Of course, we can’t put any undue focus on miscreant Muslims, no matter how many westerners they kill.
Doggy breath;
Ever heard the saying that brevity is the soul of wit? Of course, in your case, no matter how brief your turd dumps are, you are not witty and you wouldn’t know a fact if it bit you in the ass!
I viewed the KSTP piece first. I may have grabbed the wrong link – I don’t typically look at WND as authoritative. Powerline had a post on this last week, but the silence locally has been nearly deafening; yeah, yeah, I get it – holiday weekend and all and we need to cover the hot dog eating contest. I do wonder what we might see if it were a group of Irish lads causing trouble in Cedar-Riverside – or some redneck hitting a Somali woman with a beer mug in a restaurant, as happened last year. IIRC, that story lead the news for several cycles.
Pingback: In The Mailbox: 07.07.16 : The Other McCain
Meanwhile, events have overtaken the pompous ravings of a mad dog. Snipers in Dallas attacked police on duty at a BLM rally. Five dead cops so far, others injured. Of course Obama is shocked, shocked to learn of it after he had dismissed the two recent police shootings here and in Baton Rouge as being the result of racism. Nice work Mr president.
No left wing violence,eh, DG? Go to Dallas Police HQ and tell them that line of nonsense, K? Left wing violence arguably encouraged by irresponsible statements from Governor Dayton and President Obama.