The "Red Dawn" Psychosis

I remember the early days of the militia movement in the late 1980s and early 1990s- or, rather, I remember the popular response to media coverage of the militias. Here, we were told, were people scared to death of everyone else, people who sought to overthrow any government they didn't approve of, no matter how many people did approve. These people gathered insane arsenals in their homes, usually ill-constructed shacks out in the wilderness, and engaged in standoffs and shoot-outs with federal authorities.

And everyone I knew, liberal and conservative alike, thought they were insane, dangerous, and un-American.

Today the militia movement, in its guise as the Tea Party, have taken over American conservatism. When Obama proposed simple, common-sense measures to regulate certain kinds of guns and their sale, the reaction of mainstream conservatism was universal: rush to the gun store to buy more guns, build up an arsenal, and prepare for the all-too-necessary overthrow of the elected government of the United States.

Think I'm joking? Think I'm exaggerating?

"I think they're gonna wait to see what Obama does, and I've talked with other of my colleagues on what's going on, and there's a general consensus that if he steps over that line that something has to be done. He feels like he's Abraham Lincoln, you know, we're not at civil war," Stockman said. "The line is when you cross from administrating executive orders which deal with his office and pass legislation through executive orders."

That's my Congressman who said that. (I didn't vote for him.)

"...they [guns] are used to defend human life. They are used to defend our property and our families and our faith and our freedom, and they are absolutely essential to living the way God intended for us to live.”

That's a California state elected legislator.

And meantime, in response to Obama's call for a ban on high-capacity magazines and high-power automatic or semi-automatic assault rifles, legislators and governors in at least eight states, including Mississippi, are pushing for laws to nullify federal regulations- even to the point, in some cases, of threatening to imprison any federal agent who seeks to enforce those laws.

And in the meantime a gun manufacturer is proposing a fortress community in which everyone will be required to own and carry an AR-15 military assault rifle, Glenn Beck is pushing forward with his version of Galt Gulch, and at least one Congressman has proposed abolishing all gun regulation altogether. Meanwhile, we had a "Gun Appreciation Day" organized and sponsored by white supremacists, while Matt Drudge, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and their ilk compare Obama to Hitler- "Hitler loved gun control!" (In reality, Hitler inherited a gun ban from the democratic Weimar government and DEREGULATED gun laws- but only for Nazis.)

With this kind of leadership, is it any wonder I'm constantly seeing, in comments on news articles and replies on Twitter, various people pointing out that they need guns to defend themselves from our tyrannical government in Washington?

I was going to offer you some quotes from a Twitter user who responded to Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo, making just that point- and adding that, unlike Shays' Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, and other examples, this time eighty million American gun owners would be on his side. I can tell you my responses, though:

Me: "First, Mr. (name), thanks for admitting you favor the armed overthrow of the United States... Second, subtract THIS particular gun owner from your revolutionary roster. I'm no traitor."

Him: "Not the United States, only our current tyrannical government."

Me: "This government which just happens to be elected by the people?"

It's absolute madness, but what can you do? When someone's in such a paranoid mental state, persuasion simply isn't going to work. The best you can do is publicly rebuke the insanity to discourage others from joining it.

 And it most certainly is madness. Consider the obvious point first: even if you have unfettered access to assault rifles and massive amounts of ammo, there are simple financial limits to your ability to build an arsenal. You are not going to be able to buy, arm and fly your own F-23, for example. There may be thousands of surplus Abrams main line battle tanks sitting in Arizona unused, but you're never going to have the dough to lay your hands on a disarmed one, much less one that's fully operational. Most of all, you're not going to have 400,000 buddies fully organized and coordinated with satellite observation, command and control electronic communications, years and years of combat training and experience, and a single common purpose. Standoffs against the government of the United States never end in anything but victory for the US government, and to believe otherwise is insanity defined.

But what if you could? What if the armed might of the federal government simply stood aside and said, "All right- let's allow you people with political disputes to settle them with bullets. Have fun. We won't get involved at all." What kind of country would we have then?

What kind of freedom would we have, in a nation where every man feared every other? What kind of freedom of speech, when any dissenting viewpoint might lead to a hail of bullets? What kind of community could we build, when no one trusts anyone who is different in any way? When all government is to be hated, feared, and overthrown, how are laws to be made and upheld? How can contracts be entered into freely, without fear of coercion? How can justice be even-handed when the muzzle of a gun rests at the back of the judge's skull?

Yet this is exactly the kind of freedom today's conservatives insist upon- the freedom to be exactly like everyone else, or else be Other. To conform, or to be suspect. To be in, and all the way in, or else to be all the way out.

Such a state of affairs is, of course, part of our heritage. The situation I just described is how most of the South operated since before the American Revolution. Each man or woman belonged to a group. If they stepped outside their group, or into an area their group was not permitted, they were slapped down hard- often fatally, and as often without as with the sanction of law. Everyone agreed to smile and pretend and lie to themselves, but in reality everyone hated and feared everyone who wasn't part of their particular tiny group.

This is why, both during and after slavery, the South has been, and remains, the most un-free part of the United States, with the exception of Mormon Utah- and this only because the early Mormon Church took paranoia and fear to new heights. This is why the current Southern domination of the Republican Party has been disastrous for our country for the last twenty-five years (at least).

And, because they seek a time that was happy for them because they were the strongest and most privileged group of all those mutually hated groups, the rich and powerful men who control conservative thought in the United States- men like Limbaugh, Roger Ailes, and the like- these men seek to return us to those days, when freedom was only a word.

I do not want to live in a society based first, last, and always upon fear and paranoia. I want a society based on trust and empathy- and conservative thought, as it currently stands, can't even conceive of either trait.

It's not a threat- it's a WARNING.

So, today being the anniversary of Lexington and Concord (and Waco and the Oklahoma City bombing), all the militia groups (including a lot of teabaggers) are holding protests across the country.

Two are being held in the Washington, DC area, and they couldn't be more different; one is a simple Second Amendment rally, whose organizers are deliberately keeping out anyone who might actually bring a gun into the District or threaten the government.

The other one, being held just across the river in gun-legal Virginia, is more or less the exact opposite:

According to the Washington Post, protesters at the "Restore The Constitution" rally will take advantage of new gun laws signed by President Obama allowing the carrying of firearms in national parks to make an armed stand for liberty today.

Rally organizer Daniel Almond put the event together "because he is upset about health-care reform, climate control, bank bailouts, drug laws and what he sees as President Obama's insistence on and the Democratic Congress's capitulation to a 'totalitarian socialism' that tramples individual rights," the Post reports.

Almond will be packing heat, and he's calling on others to join him. The park is just a few miles from downtown D.C. and, on a clear day, the Capitol dome is visible from the location.

This second rally is so extreme in its orientation that even the organization calling for the military to mutiny against the federal government withdrew its support:

An Oath Keeper's board member explained his group's decision to pull out of Almond's event April 12 to the Post.

"It had gotten to the point that it would be dangerous to attend," the Oath Keeper told the paper. "There are people out there willing to do anything to create chaos in an uncontrolled situation, and [the event] is wide open for disaster."

Yeah, when an organization that waits with breathless anticipation for civil war with a "tyrannical" federal government doesn't want to be part of an armed anti-government rally, you can bet there's trouble.

The thing to remember, though, is that this second protest is absolutely NOT an isolated fringe group. It's part and parcel of the modern conservative movement- and especially the Republican Party. Remember, these people elect representatives who call for their constituents to be "armed and dangerous" in opposition to federal laws, who appear in the South and praise efforts to "rise again" in either ignorance of history or support of rebellion.

And, of course, these are the voters without whom the Republican Party would fall to the ranks of the "third" parties. In part, the armed rally within sight of the capitol is a reminder of this: do as you're ordered, or next time we won't bother with an election.

These are people who, more and more, are coming round to the idea of an armed rebellion against the elected government of the United States.

Granted, there is a little bit of good news about this. In my home state, the governor who said Texas might need to secede is in a tight race against a Democrat... and, by the way, that three-point lead is from a polling outfit with a six-point Republican bias, as (repeatedly) proven by FiveThirtyEight.com . And the Democrats are on the attack, mocking the neo-secessionists and militiamen:

Barnes, in particular, took aim at what he characterized as Republicans’ frivolous pursuits since they took power, such as making it illegal to implant a microchip in a person without his permission and threatening to secede from the U.S.

“Do they not know that the Yankees have got the atomic bomb now?” he joked. “We won’t make it through Bull Run.”

So perhaps there's hope.

But in the meantime... maybe it's time to organize gun owners who SUPPORT the currently elected government for a rally of our own.

Someone needs to make it clear that, if these loonies go to war to overturn an election, they WILL be opposed.

Post-Convention Cull Day

Wow, a LOT apparently happened while I was busy at, or recovering from, the convention I worked at this past weekend. Too much for me to keep track of, or research, or comment in detail on.

So... it's Cull Day!

First off: Oklahoma becomes the first state to begin organizing its secessionist army.

Frustrated by recent political setbacks, tea party leaders and some conservative members of the Oklahoma Legislature say they would like to create a new volunteer militia to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty.

. . .

"Is it scary? It sure is," said tea party leader Al Gerhart of Oklahoma City, who heads an umbrella group of tea party factions called the Oklahoma Constitutional Alliance. "But when do the states stop rolling over for the federal government?"

Incidentally, folks, it should be borne in mind that, just before the Civil War, most newspapers in the South were agents of the fire-eating secessionist wing of the Democratic Party, deliberately ginning up fear, hatred and paranoia among their readership. Today... we have Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, NewsMax.com, Drudge, National Review... so, yeah.

The Tea Parties are trying to unite... except, well, it's only those tea party groups funded and run by Republican Party activists that are uniting:

Mark Skoda, a Tea Party leader from Memphis (and a founder of the recent Tea Party Convention), is serving as the chief spokesman for the effort, and appears to have played a leading role in putting it together. Skoda, working closely with Judson Phillips of Tea Party Nation, had helped organize and promote February's convention, at which Sarah Palin delivered the keynote speech and which enjoyed widespread media coverage. Also part of the new coalition is the Tea Party Express, the brainchild of a team of California Republican political consultants.

But one prominent group, the Tea Party Patriots (TPP), doesn't appear to be joining the party. Jenny Beth Martin, a leader of TPP noted to TPMmuckraker that her group already considers itself the largest grassroots Tea Party organization, and said it hadn't been involved in planning the new federation. TPP had also stayed away from February's convention.

It should be noted that Tea Party Nation is the group founded and led by former Republican leader Dick Armey. This is a clear case of the Republican Party trying- and failing- to co-opt the teabaggers, who are definitely much more radical and bigoted than the national average. Even Fox News is calling the teabaggers out on their lunacy, now that they realize they won't be controlled.

Even as Virginia Governor McConnell apologizes and backtracks on his leaving slavery out of the Civil War, Mississippi governor Haley Barbour brushes slavery off as unimportant:

CROWLEY: You know what I'm trying to get at here is that there's a sort of feeling that this is insensitive. But you clearly don't agree?

BARBOUR: To me, it's a sort of feeling that it's a nit, that it is not significant, that it's not a -- it's trying to make a big deal out of something doesn't amount to diddly.

So, yeah: slavery was wrong, "everybody knows that," but apparently it wasn't important at all to the Confederacy. Riiiiight.

Matthew Yglesias cuts right to the heart of both the Republican desire to celebrate the CSA, and the core of teabagger support:

... something that links the mentality of today’s right to the mentality of the slaveowners and segregation proponents is the white southern political tradition’s very partial and selective embrace of majoritarian democracy. As long as national institutions are substantially controlled by white southerners, the white south is a hotbed of patriotism. But as soon as an non-southern political coalition manages to win an election—as we saw in 1860 and in 2008—then suddenly the symbols of national authority become symbols of tyranny and the constitution is construed as granting conservative areas all kinds of alleged abilities to opt out of national political decisions. Even if you think opposition to the Affordable Care Act has nothing whatsoever to do with race, the underlying political philosophy by which a George W Bush or James Buchanan is a national president but an Abraham Lincoln or a Barack Obama merely a sectional one remains incoherent and pernicious.

Meanwhile, if you haven't had enough reminders of innate Republican evil, Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's chief of staff in the State Department, testified that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld knew full well they were imprisoning- and torturing- innocent people in Guantanamo and elsewhere:

I came to understand that there were several different reasons for the refusal to release detainees in Guantánamo, even those who were likely innocent. These reasons continued to the time of my departure from the Department of State in 2005. At least part of the problem was that it was politically impossible to release them. The concern expressed was that if they were released to another country... the leadership of the Defense Department would be left without any plausible explanation to the American people...

. . .

Another part of the political dilemma originated in the Office of Vice President Richard B. Cheney, whose position could be summed up as “the end justifies the means”, and who had absolutely no concern that the vast majority of Guantánamo detainees were innocent, or that there was a lack of any useable evidence for the great majority of them. If hundreds of innocent individuals had to suffer in order to detain a handful of hardcore terrorists, so be it. That seemed to be the philosophy that ruled in the Vice President’s Office.

Of course, with Dawn Johnsen's nomination to the Office of Legal Counsel scuttled, the last faint hope of Obama ever following up on this testimony has long since flown away.

And finally, a recent federal court ruling puts a major kink in plans for net neutrality regulations. That said, it was almost certainly the right ruling:

If “ancillary jurisdiction” is enough for net neutrality regulations (something we might like) today, it could just as easily be invoked tomorrow for any other Internet regulation that the FCC dreams up (including things we won’t like). For example, it doesn't take much imagination to envision a future FCC "Internet Decency Statement." After all, outgoing FCC Chairman Martin was a crusader against "indecency" on the airwaves and it was the FCC that punished Pacifica radio for playing George Carlin’s “seven dirty words” monologue, something you can easily find on the Internet.

Of course, this ruling can- and probably will- lead to more direct and stringent regulation of telecoms and internet providers by the FCC, since they won't be allowed to do spot-checks on egregious incidents. This issue is by no means settled.

Hutaree: Outlier, or Taste of the Future?

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

Sinclair Lewis didn't say it at all, apparently, but it is still a completely true statement. Even more true is Huey P. Long's version, "When Fascism comes to America, it will be called anti-Fascism!".

With these quotes, freshly researched, in my mind, I sit down to write something about the followers of "Captain Hutaree," alias David Brian Stone.

As most of you no doubt learned yesterday, Stone and seven of his followers were arrested yesterday on an indictment alleging a plot to spark the overthrow of the American government. (An eighth follower was tracked down and arrested today.)

The indictment alleges that killing a law enforcement official would be just the beginning: "As a consequence of this act, law enforcement officers from throughout the nation would be drawn to and gather in the Eastern District of Michigan for the funeral," the indictment said. "According to the plan, the Hutaree would then attack law enforcement vehicles during the funeral procession with improvised explosive devices with explosively formed projectiles."

Making Light goes into much, much more detail on the subject, even quoting broad sections of the federal indictment:

The HUTAREE’s enemies include state and local law enforcement, who are deemed “footsoldiers” of the Federal government, Federal law enforcement agencies and employees, participants in the “New World Order,” and anyone who does not share in the HUTAREE’s beliefs.

Since at least 2008, the HUTAREE has been meeting regularly to conduct military-style training in Lenawee County, located in the Eastern District of Michigan, and elsewhere. The purpose of this training has been to plan and prepare for the impending war with the HUTAREE’s enemies.

. . .

From on or about August 16, 2008, and continuing thereafter up to and including the date of the filing of this indictment, in the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, and elsewhere, the defendants … acting as a militia group known as the HUTAREE, did knowingly conspire, confederate, and agree with each other and other persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to levy war against the United States, to oppose by force the authority of the Government of the United States, and to prevent, hinder, and delay by force the execution of any United States law.

. . .

The general concept of operations provided that the HUTAREE would commit some violent act to draw the attention of law enforcement or government officials and which would prompt a response by law enforcement. Possible such acts which were discussed included killing a member of law enforcement after a traffic stop, killing a member of law enforcement and his or her family at home, ambushing a member of law enforcement in rural communities, luring a member of law enforcement with a false 911 emergency call and then killing him or her, and killing a member of law enforcement and then attacking the funeral procession motorcade with weapons of mass destruction. These acts would intimidate and demoralize law enforcement, diminishing their ranks and rendering them ineffective.

. . .

The general concept of operations further provided that, once such action was taken, HUTAREE members would then retreat to one of several “rally points” where the HUTAREE would wage war against the government and be prepared to defend in depth with trip-wired and command detonated anti-personnel Improvised Explosive Devices (IED), ambushes, and prepared fighting positions. It is believed by the HUTAREE that this engagement would then serve as a catalyst for a more wide-spread uprising against the Government.

And these cretins weren't just planning or training to kill cops as part of a crackpot scheme to trigger a mass theocratic revolution: they were actually trying to put that planning and training into action. Again quoting from the indictment (via Making Light):

e. On or about February 6, 2010, several conspirators attempted to travel to Kentucky to attend a summit of militia groups convened by DAVID BRIAN STONE. … The purpose of the summit of militia groups was to facilitate better communications, cooperation, and coordination between the various militias. In anticipation of the summit, DAVID BRIAN STONE … solicited a person he believed capable of manufacturing destructive devices to provide him with four anti-personnel Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) to take with them to the summit. Although weather conditions prevented them from reaching their destination, DAVID BRIAN STONE … identified law enforcement officers in a specific community near his residence, and one officer in particular, as potential targets of attack.

They were getting the weapons, and they had chosen the targets. It was just dumb luck- or excellent anti-terrorism work by the FBI- that Stone chose a government informant to approach for bombs and other explosive munitions.

After looking (exhaustively) through what's left online of the Hutaree websites, the Nielsen Haydens don't think much of their claims to defend Christ:

Are the Hutaree religious extremists or anti-government extremists? I’d say the latter. Their religious doctrine is barely there. They may talk a lot about Jesus, but their timing and plans appear to be driven by secular concerns.

David Neiwert agrees- because of what he saw in the 1990s, with the militia movement as it grew during Bill Clinton's presidency.

It very much reminds me of the Washington State Militia, the group whose bust and subsequent federal trial I covered in 1996-7. The WSM was a lot like the Michigan Militia in that it liked to sell itself as a civic-minded group whose main purpose was to defend citizens from government oppression and to perform various civic function. I'll never forget John Pitner, the WSM's "commander," telling reporters outside a meeting hall in Mount Vernon in January 1996 that he and his members had been heavily involved in sandbagging efforts to combat the floods that had hit local rivers the week before.

. . .

Pitner and six of his comrades were arrested in July 1996 and hit with a variety of charges, most notably for making pipe bombs. At the trial, it emerged that the FBI had videotaped many of the militiamen's meetings, and so both the trial audience and the jury got to hear Pitner and his cohorts planning various acts of violence, including bombing a local reporter's home and a nearby train tunnel.

Nothing has changed, except the name of the Democratic President.

And, just as with Ruby Ridge, JustUs Township, and the other militia nuts of the 1990s, the conservative movement is stumbling over themselves to defend the Hutaree.

The worst example of the above:

Last time I looked, wanting to start a civil war (insane as it is) was not a crime. Assuming they are crackpots, they still have the same constitutional rights as everyone else, and I hope for the sake of the rest of us that they are being respected.

So... apparently, treason- the attempted overthrow of the federal government by force of arms, in this case- is a constitutional right.

But is this really surprising at all? We've seen, time and again, the threatening signs of the teabaggers, such as, "WE COME UNARMED- THIS TIME," or, "IF BROWN CAN'T FIX IT, BROWNING CAN." We've seen certain of their members already busted for seeking a war with the federal government.

And, through it all, we've seen conservatives in general and certain elected Republicans in particular- John McCain, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin for examples- playing up both the rhetoric of rebellion and the paranoid beliefs that fuel the desire for rebellion.

And it should be most telling indeed about the true nature, and allegiance, of these militias that, during the administration of George W. Bush, they were almost totally SILENT. They sat, and waited, and relaxed... but now that a Democrat, as middle-of-the-road as they come, has taken over the Oval Office, it's right back to armed resistance and rebellion.

And, as Huey Long said, in the name of "anti-Fascism."

It is entirely possible- indeed probable- that the elected Republicans, and the conservative talking heads of radio and Fox News, don't intend to inspire an actual armed revolt against the federal government. They merely think that, by playing up the fear and paranoia of militia supporters, they themselves can regain control of that same government. Unfortunately, the more they use revolutionary rhetoric, the more they call on their followers to "defend the Constitution" or "uphold Judeao-Christian values", the more likely Hutaree-like terrorists are to pop up...

... and, of course, the more dependent Republicans will be upon them.

I conclude with a quote that really DOES come from Sinclair Lewis, from his book It Can't Happen Here, which I'm going to start reading in full... the excerpts I've glanced through thus far are all too applicable to the current political climate. Here's the quote:

He was an actor of genius. There was no more overwhelming actor on the stage, in the motion pictures, nor even in the pulpit. He would whirl arms, bang tables, glare from mad eyes, vomit Biblical wrath from a gaping mouth; but he would also coo like a nursing mother, beseech like an aching lover, and in between tricks would coldly and almost contemptuously jab his crowds with figures and facts — figures and facts that were inescapable even when, as often happened, they were entirely incorrect.

Lewis is describing his soon-to-be Fascist dictator of America here... but he could just as easily be describing Rush Limbaugh, or Sarah Palin, or Glenn Beck, or Michele Bachmann, or Sean Hannity, or John McCain. All ignore the facts, or else blatantly lie about them... but all of them play on the fear and hatred of their listeners to bring them to acts which, had they the truth at their disposal, they might otherwise not support.

And people like "Captain Hutaree" are listening... and taking action.

Yes, fascism can happen here in America. It is on the march now. It carries a cross, it wears the flag either as a pin or a patch... and it claims to be our only defense against dictatorship and destruction.

And, if we do not become more alert, it will be too late to stop it.