How crazy are the Obama resistors?

[praktik]

Straight from the horse's mouth, a far-right interpretation of the Hutaree raid (interestingly, quoting from the son of Cleon Skousen near the end!). The author of this piece was the former Presidential candidate of the Constitution Party.

----

The Hutaree Militia Raid

By Chuck Baldwin
April 6, 2010
NewsWithViews.com

Once in a while, someone writes a column that leaves me enviously exclaiming, “Darn! I wish I had written that!” Candidly, I do not often find myself saying that, but I sure did when I read William Norman Grigg’s excellent column entitled “Casus Belli” (Latin for “Case for War”) on Monday, March 29, 2010. Read his column here (even if you don’t read the rest of mine).

I want to try and expound on Grigg’s outstanding analysis of the Hutaree militia raid. In doing so, I am going to also expand upon Grigg’s reference to James Madison’s trenchant treatise in Federalist 46.

Referring to the federal indictment against the Hutaree militia, that alleged members were making preparations for potential armed conflict against law enforcement officers as a “seditious conspiracy,” Grigg astutely noted, “If they were acquiring weapons and developing appropriate skills in anticipation of defending themselves against government aggression, their actions–while possibly conspiratorial in nature–don’t amount to a crime. This is particularly true in light of our cultural history, in which sedition–agitation to change the existing political order–is our proudest civic tradition.”

Grigg then rightly observes, “Government is nothing more than the rationalization and exercise of violence. Everything done by government contains at least the implicit threat of lethal coercion. Thus the indictment’s description of Hutaree as ‘an anti-government extremist organization which advocates violence against local, state and Federal law enforcement’ is a product of rhetorical onanism [from Genesis 38:9--a great analogy, Will].”

As a general rule, government is the most violent force on the planet. If one wants to get a true perspective on the historical record regarding who or what routinely produces the most violence and death, one should pick up a copy of R. J. Rummel’s book, “Death By Government.” Since the end of World War II, Communist China and Red Russia lead the pack when it comes to death and brutality; however, the US government has inflicted its share of carnage as well. For example, in Iraq and Afghanistan alone, the government in Washington, D.C., has killed over 800,000 civilians (and this figure is a conservative estimate noting the most credible resources possible).

See here and also here.

Plus, does anyone remember the violence that our federal government enacted upon the Branch Davidians outside Waco, Texas? Does anyone remember the mother shot in the head while innocently holding her little baby in her own home by a federal sniper near Ruby Ridge, Idaho (after her small son was shot in the back by federal agents)? In fact, the list of civilians who have been killed by federal law enforcement agents over the years is a very long one. Granted, many of these killings were done in lawful self-defense; but others amounted to nothing less than old-fashioned murder (and never was the federal agent who committed the murder ever brought to justice).

If one wants to indict an “organization which advocates violence,” then surely the central government in Washington, D.C., should be indicted!

If Hutaree members were indeed planning AGGRESSIVE violence against anyone–in the government or without–they deserved to be stopped. If, however, they were simply preparing to DEFEND THEMSELVES against government overreach or abuse–and would only resort to violence in an act of lawful self-defense–they committed no crime and are but the most recent victims of federal abuse of power. This is a question that will doubtless be determined in a court of law.

To charge, however (as the indictment does), that Hutaree members (all 9 of them!) planned “to levy war against the United States, [and] to oppose by force the authority of the Government of the United States . . .” will take some doing to make stick. As Grigg points out, “If Hutaree was preparing for armed DEFENSE against criminal actions by government officials, this charge is as pointless as a broken pencil. If their efforts to ‘prevent, hinder, and delay’ various government initiatives were confined to activism, rather than armed conflict, they are–in that particular–not substantially different from hundreds or thousands of other groups.”

The entire case against Hutaree appears to be based upon the testimony of an FBI undercover agent inside the group. Placing agent provocateurs inside groups such as Hutaree is a classic strategy of federal police agencies. This part of the story was broken by the Wall Street Journal.

See the WSJ report here.

Using agent provocateurs is a long-favored tactic of both the Kremlin and the White House. Joel Skousen’s latest WORLD AFFAIRS BRIEF contains an extremely trenchant and insightful analysis of how Russia and the US have used–and continue to use–this tactic.

Skousen writes, “A related tactic [to false flag operations] is the hiring of agent provocateurs to infiltrate a group targeted for destruction and induce radical elements of that group to perform crimes against innocent civilians that will justify armed retaliation or arrest. With the sudden surge in claimed terrorism in Russia and the arrest of the radical Hutaree group in the US, it is helpful to review the role of false flag terror attacks in Russia and the role of agent provocateurs in the US as we analyze what’s really going on.”

Skousen further states, “As we move on to discuss the arrest of the radical members of the Hutaree cult in Michigan, it is important to note that virtually every prosecution of so-called domestic terrorism in the past decade is owed to the infiltration of FBI informants. While none of us in America dispute the need to gain intelligence on real threats to national security, we have to question the propriety of training and pressuring informants (most of which have been forced to accept the informant assignment in lieu of a prison term for other crimes committed) to provoke and induce angry and unstable dissidents to commit acts of terror.

“All too often, FBI ‘informants’ have been pressured by superiors to go far beyond informing. They have provided weapons, explosives, and even acted as the guiding hand to map out the strategy and tactics for performing the deed. These things only come out reluctantly during trial, and even then I suspect that we are never allowed to know the full extent of these provocations.”

To receive a sample of Joel Skousen’s WORLD AFFAIRS BRIEF or to subscribe to this excellent newsletter (I highly recommend it), write to: editor@worldaffairsbrief.com

In addition, Will Grigg states that another major component of the indictment that is worrisome is the charge that Hutaree is guilty of “seditious conspiracy.” As Grigg writes, “Whatever is eventually learned about Hutaree, as things presently stand the indictment against it could provide a template for ’seditious conspiracy’ prosecutions involving practically any group that endorses the use of defensive force to protect citizens against government aggression.

“Indeed, the definition of ‘conspiracy’ used in the Hutaree indictment could make a criminal out of anyone who reads Federalist Paper 46 in public, thereby sharing James Madison’s commendably seditious admonition that the people preserve ‘the advantage of being armed’ in the event that insurrection against the central government proves necessary in order to preserve liberty.”

Let’s look a little closer at Federalist 46, written by Founding Father, author of the US Constitution, and America’s fourth President, James Madison. In dispelling the fears of colonists toward a standing federal army, Madison said in Federalist 46, “Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.”

Madison went on to say, “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

Could Madison be any clearer? He (and the rest of America’s founders) emphatically expected the militia of the “several States” to be universally armed against the potential encroachment on liberty by the central government, meaning: the citizenry must at all times be prepared to use their arms against any aggressive nature of the federal government to trample their freedoms.

This, of course, reinforces the founders’ intent, that the 2nd Amendment protected the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the express purpose of providing the citizenry with the capability to repel (with violence) any assault against their liberties by their own federal government.

So, pray tell, would today’s FBI categorize James Madison’s statements in Federalist 46 as “seditious conspiracy”? If so, perhaps we are closer to tyranny than any of us wants to admit!

Furthermore, it is not lost to millions of Americans that this is the same federal government (through Department of Homeland Security fusion centers) that just recently characterized pro-lifers; people who support the 2nd Amendment; people who oppose the United Nations and illegal immigration; people who voted for Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin; and Iraq War veterans as “extremists” and potential “dangerous militia members.”

But, once again, the federal government–along with their propagandists in the major news media, including its artificial authority on militias, the ultra-liberal Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in Montgomery, Alabama–is able to use the Hutaree militia to demonize militias in general, and even more damaging, to try and destroy the concept of constitutional State militias in the minds of the American public.

Did members of the Hutaree intend to carry out aggressive violence against law enforcement personnel? I have no idea. Until this story broke in the national media, I had never heard of this group. I will wait for the facts to come out–if indeed the federal government and national media even allow the facts to come out.

I do know this: I do not trust the federal government to tell the truth about anything! They did not tell the truth about the Branch Davidians at Waco; they did not tell the truth about Randy Weaver; they did not tell the truth about Gordon Kahl; and, if their track record is any indicator, it is doubtful that they are telling the truth about the Hutaree militia. But we shall see.

In the meantime, as William Norman Grigg opines, “There’s reason to believe that the Feds have expanded and escalated this ongoing enterprise to exploit, and exacerbate, growing public hostility toward an increasingly invasive and esurient government.

“Whether it is ever demonstrated that Hutaree intended to ‘levy war’ against the U.S. government, this much is beyond serious dispute: The Homeland Security state is unambiguously preparing for war with the public–in fact, it has been doing so for a long time.”

[praktik]

Tea Party NY Gov Candidate's E-Mails Exposed: Racism, Porn, Bestiality | TPMMuckraker

[judge wopner]

Praktik:

do you see islamic-inspired violence as a greater or generally equal threat alongside "far-right" quasi-militia groups and neo-nazis in america?

i dont really see either as much of a threat compared to far worse threats in the form of disease and military risk, yet they seem to dominate the headlines of both sides of the political spectrum.

would you agree that in broad terms the average left leaning person would have more empathy for a self-declared islamic extremist and view "far right"/militia groups as a greater threat, while a conservative would likely have less empathy for an Islamic extremist, and consider them the greater threat while empathizing with a quasi-militia group in terms of the roots of their rage?

this says less about the veracity of these kinds of threats and more about the fact that people tend to focus on different sources for their fear, regardless of objective analysis that says neither of these issues should be paramount when other more pressing issues are at hand. imho.

without rehashing this both sides have their crazies line, as ive said before its not a matter of that, but it is a matter of both sides purporting to be scared of threats that may or may not be arrived at from objective analysis. at least i view it as such, i think i would be more likely to be scared of a person i lack empathy for by focusing on the source of their rage as opposed to focusing on the veracity of the threat, which ultimately is what we are hoping to prevent)

[judge wopner]

interesting post from one of my fav geo-political writers juan cole up at Salon, he makes some good points comparing the mehdi army to the hutaree militia accept for the part ive bolded where he fails to find any resolve when acknowledging one group is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands while the other none as far as i know. is this a fair comparison in that sense? is it realistic?

(the crux of his point remains reasonable in my mind thought that "terrorism" is not exclusive to extremist islam, even groups caught before commiting crimes are already labled as belonging to a terrorist plot if they are muslims)


Terrorists are terrorists, Christian or Muslim
The Hutaree militia extremists might be Christians, but what they were (allegedly) doing was still jihad
By Juan Cole


FBI raids on the Hutaree Christian militia have brought to light this formerly little-known group based in Adrian, Michigan.

Unlike the generally secular white supremacist organizations, Hutaree are explicitly Christians. Many seem to be millenarians, expecting the end of time to come soon. Like the so-called Patriot Movement, they are gun nuts. They are said to be organized to kill the Antichrist, and some reports say that they planned violence against American Muslims.

Polling shows that about 1/4 of members of the Republican Party believe that President Obama is the Antichrist, and one fears that Hutaree may agree.

Irregular Times has a good overview of their beliefs, which include secession from the US and return to colonial times, perhaps in preparation for another revolution. (Will they have to register in South Carolina?) Some are antinomians, rejecting U.S. laws. They fear a liberal 'new world order.'

Fox News and Rupert Murdoch bear some responsibility for such groups. When Glenn Beck tosses around a charge like 'anti-Christ' at a prominent liberal, he knows that term is an incitement for militant Christians. And the years of rabid Fox promotion of hatred of US Muslims is bound to get someone among them killed-- and is therefore murder by television.

I am struck that Hutaree has a great deal in common with the Mahdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq. The Hutaree militia seems to recruit from the poor or lower middle class. Michigan's real unemployment rate is said to be 17%, and for many Michigan workers there have been years of hopelessness and joblessness, inducing despair and anger. The Mahdi Army likewise drew on Iraqi unemployed and angry youth. Many Sadrists believe that the Mahdi or Muslim messiah will soon come, perhaps accompanied by the return of Christ. The Mahdi Army has sometimes targeted Christian video or liquor shops, as a symbol of the oppressive other (yes, that is unfair to Iraqi Christians but they had the misfortune to be W.'s co-religionists.).

The Hutaree, a mirror image, target Muslims. The Mahdi Army considered Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld the Dajjal or anti-Christ. Both have an unhealthy interest in firearms for political intimidation of others. The Hutaree fear the United Nations, as the Mahdi Army fears the US occupation. (Muslim radical groups often also hate the UN.)

Both groups are victims of a neoliberal world order that uses and discards working people, while protecting and cushioning the super-wealthy. Instead of a rational analysis of exploitatation, however, they are responding with emotion and symbol, projecting their economic and political alienation on other religious or ethnic groups (the Mahdi Army ethnically cleansed tens of thousands of Sunni Muslims from Baghdad in the name of anti-imperialism. They resort to irrational conspiracy theories, to religion and guns. Admitedly, the Mahdi Army is somewhat more rational, since they really do face foreign occupation, though their targeting of Sunnis instead of forming a nationalist front was highly dysfunctional.

The U.S. press is saying the Hutaree people are a Christian "militia" but is avoiding calling them 'alleged Christian terrorists." Apparently only organized Muslim radicals can now be called terrorists.

[praktik]

Originally Posted by judge wopner

do you see islamic-inspired violence as a greater or generally equal threat alongside "far-right" quasi-militia groups and neo-nazis in america?

I think as Canadians we have more to fear from Islamic terror because we don't have the same tradition of far-right extremisim that America has and so for us we are more likely to be targetted by Islamic extremists angry at our complicity in the War on Terror than we are by an American Patriot movement that is well, American.

As for Americans, I think its more difficult to say which is the greater threat. Prior to 9/11 the FBI's #1 threat was the far-right underground, politically that changed substantially after 9/11 for obvious reasons. We have that one, huge, spectacular attack with the highest body count for a terror attack ever, versus a long chain of more persistent, but less "spectacular" attacks from the far right. I think a lot depends on where you live. If you're living in Alabama maybe your greater threat is the far-right extremist. If you're in a major city, a "target" city like New York, its probably the islamists.

Originally Posted by judge wopner

i dont really see either as much of a threat compared to far worse threats in the form of disease and military risk, yet they seem to dominate the headlines of both sides of the political spectrum.

Or traffic accidents? Now we're getting into the stats game. Thing is that a terror attack on an abortion clinic has ramifications for the community at large - including the rapid spread of fear and loss of access to health services - that a traffic accident doesn't have. I don't see, logically speaking, that my greater chances of death from an errant bus when I cross the street means that I should be posting about driver safety instead of this..

Originally Posted by judge wopner

would you agree that in broad terms the average left leaning person would have more empathy for a self-declared islamic extremist and view "far right"/militia groups as a greater threat, while a conservative would likely have less empathy for an Islamic extremist, and consider them the greater threat while empathizing with a quasi-militia group in terms of the roots of their rage?

Yes you're talking about confirmation bias. And I'd be a fool to say confirmation bias doesn't exist and that you couldn't find evidence for it in the kind of examples you provide.

[judge wopner]

Originally Posted by praktik

As for Americans, I think its more difficult to say which is the greater threat. Prior to 9/11 the FBI's #1 threat was the far-right underground, politically that changed substantially after 9/11 for obvious reasons. We have that one, huge, spectacular attack with the highest body count for a terror attack ever, versus a long chain of more persistent, but less "spectacular" attacks from the far right.

yes but prior to 9/11 there were attacks by islamic extremists (bombing of USS cole, embassy attacks), and due to the more global nature of islamic-extremist attacks in madrid and london since 9/11 give the appearance of a much broader and deeper problem. its much more nuanced in my mind, but the US assumes the position that islamic inspired violence anywhere in the world is part of their problem.

i think this comes back to what we have discussed before in terms of perspective. very often people disagree on a fundamental basis simply because how they classify offenders:

was the Fort Hood shootings a product of islamic extremism? do we count those murders in the stats when assessing the relative "risk" emanating from domestic terrorism sources? the same for the smaller series of events you allude to coming from "right wing/militia" groups, how do we really quantify the level of risk if deciding what is terrorism from any corner vs. what is the work of mass-murders plain and simple?

(ie: was the montreal massacre or the columbine shootings terrorist events and if we assign that label does it require there to be not only pre-mediation, but murder for political purposes and complicity by an entire network of like-minded individuals?)

which is why i increasingly reject the "each side has their crazies" charge simply because we could make a case that much of the smaller events of violence may be commited by people who posses the label we'd like to assign them (muslim or right-wing gun nut) but may in fact be birds of the same feather: (violent sociopaths) one in the same, not a "crazy person" from one end of a political spectrum. nuance only goes so far when many of those who proclaim to be on the right-wing-libertarian movement are in fact in-reciept of a host of socialized benefits, or have benefited from these programs over the years but are too stupid to realize it. their opposition is so full of holes intellectually that it defies classification.

i may claim to commit an act of violence in the name of a particular cause but very often people who do so would be hard-pressed to truly make a reasoned case without resorting to lies and myth. at its core is the appeal to moderates when terrorism is denounced by the muslim community, an understanding is sought that simply claiming to commit violence in the name of any particular movement doesnt not demand designation into the "extreme" category of the moderates.

mike lind makes a great case time and time again how the vacuous claims by many of the "extreme right" like glen beck are in fact not conservative at all and are simply manufactured ideologies w/ no factual basis. it goes beyond the left/right divide. much the same way a racheal maddow and mike lind could likely have a reasonable conversation and come to some real consensus about these movements, i would rather have the political discourse represented by these 2 on either side than assigning tags to violence offenders claiming they are killing in the name of a particular god or political ideology.

[praktik]

In cuba so not going to bother linking cause the internet here is crazy slow - but saw in my room last night a long interview with Bill Clinton on CNN by Wolf Blitzer that was exactly on this thread topic - so go search over there if you wanna see it I thought he had some worthwhile insights.

[judge wopner]

Originally Posted by praktik

In cuba so not going to bother linking cause the internet here is crazy slow - but saw in my room last night a long interview with Bill Clinton on CNN by Wolf Blitzer that was exactly on this thread topic - so go search over there if you wanna see it I thought he had some worthwhile insights.

enjoy the beach, fuck message boards on vacation!!

Clinton draws parallels between 'upheaval' of 1995, today - CNN.com

[praktik]

haha ya well i had a few mins waiting for peeps to get their dinner act together that night..