Extremist group demands governors resign, FBI says

[BenBurch]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/02/governors.extremists/?hpt=T2


A domestic extremist group has sent letters to more than 30 U.S. governors demanding they resign, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI said in an intelligence note.

The note, dated Monday, said the letters told the governors to vacate their posts within three days.

The FBI and DHS said there do not appear to be credible or immediate threats of violence attached to the letters.

The group behind the letters has a "Restore America Plan" that calls for the removal of any governor who fails to comply, the intelligence note said.

<SNIP>

[Lurker]

LOL. Quit within three days. Funny guys. I doubt a single governor will pay any attention to these loons.

Really what they are sending out is an implied threat. Left unanswered is what happens when the governor does not quit within three days. I'll assume the letter writers are just being childish and making unreasonable demands and have no idea what they will do next - most likely nothing except whine and complain to each other.

Can you imagine the ridicule leftists would get if they had demanded Bush and Cheney to step down within three days. Heck, even I would be laughing at them.

So much for respect for our democratic processes.

[BenBurch]

I really hope they are full of hot air and will not start making attempts on people's lives.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

LOL. Quit within three days. Funny guys. I doubt a single governor will pay any attention to these loons.

I hope some of them do.

[theprestige]

I'm having a hard time figuring out how, in a world where people frequently express their ideas though suicide bombings and armed resistance, a letter asking someone to resign is considered "extreme".

I mean, was there a ninja hiding inside the envelope with a blowgun?

[BenBurch]

I'm having a hard time figuring out how, in a world where people frequently express their ideas though suicide bombings and armed resistance, a letter asking someone to resign is considered "extreme".

I mean, was there a ninja hiding inside the envelope with a blowgun?

It wasn't "asking."

That's the issue.

[Roadtoad]

I do find this extreme, in spite of our fear of suicide bombers and the like, and perhaps a bit because of it. The notion here is that there is a non-specific threat: "We're going to get you, and we aren't going to tell you how." No "Resign or we're going to start a recall campaign," or "Resign or we're going to start demonstrating in the State Capital." It's designed to create an atmosphere of fear by leaving the threat open. That's simply not acceptable.

If anything, I find this whole thing even more disturbing, and less acceptable. Sorry, but this is a good time for everyone to take their meds and chill out.

[Chris Hegarty]

Ech. These guys are some type of crazy. I blagged about it (http://hegartyblog.wordpress.com/2010/04/02/restore-america-plan-more-domestic-terrorism/). (shameless self-promotion!)

Here's their website. (http://www.guardiansofthefreerepublics.com/front-page.html) Their plans look ill-informed, especially since they refer to things such as driving a car a "sacred right". Ech. They're more stupid than dangerous, I'd think.

[Unabogie]

I'm having a hard time figuring out how, in a world where people frequently express their ideas though suicide bombings and armed resistance, a letter asking someone to resign is considered "extreme".

I mean, was there a ninja hiding inside the envelope with a blowgun?

How can you possibly defend this or apologize for it? It's a blatant attempt at intimidation by use of threats. If you got an anonymous letter demanding that you vacate your house in three days or else, I doubt you'd be so sanguine.

I truly thought the right had limits, and that we all shared a certain moral compact, but judging by the applause for Hannity's "Tim McVeigh wannabees" comment, the torture apologia rampant in the right and on this board, and the minimization of threats of violence, it seems like that compact is broken.

Sickening.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I hope some of them do.

Yeah. Not that they should even consider resigning, but they should consider extra precautions for themselves and their families for a while (unless or until the people making the threats are identified and caught).

[INRM]

There was no explicit threat of violence. From what it would seem, they simply asked them to resign or they'd vote them out. If it becomes a crime to contact politicians and tell them what you think and vote them out if they don't do what we want, than what rights do we have?

[JoeTheJuggler]

There was no explicit threat of violence. From what it would seem, they simply asked them to resign or they'd vote them out. If it becomes a crime to contact politicians and tell them what you think and vote them out if they don't do what we want, than what rights do we have?

I'd like to see the actual text of these letters. Your characterization of them is in stark contrast to the headlines I'm seeing.

The news stories I've been reading say the group demands they resign and vacate their offices within 3 days, and says nothing about "or we'll vote you out in the next election". The way the news stories I've read are presenting it, it sounds very much like a non-specific threat if they don't resign within 3 days.

ETA: According to CNN, the FBI and Homeland Security say that "there do not appear to be credible or immediate threats of violence attached to the letters." Linky (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/02/governors.extremists/index.html?hpt=T2). To me that implies that there are non-specific (not immediate) or non-credible threats of violence.

[Brainster]

Ech. These guys are some type of crazy. I blagged about it (http://hegartyblog.wordpress.com/2010/04/02/restore-america-plan-more-domestic-terrorism/). (shameless self-promotion!)

Here's their website. (http://www.guardiansofthefreerepublics.com/front-page.html) Their plans look ill-informed, especially since they refer to things such as driving a car a "sacred right". Ech. They're more stupid than dangerous, I'd think.

Weird stuff. They sound like a bunch of conspiracy theorists.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The last of the bullet points on their home page:
Do all of the above, and more, peacefully, discreetly, quietly and honorably, behind the scenes, without public proclamations or provocative actions against a general public that is mostly unaware of the hijacking of their free de jure American republics, and their hapless media.

First of all, how is their website not a "public proclamation"?

And it seems that they have no problem with "provocative actions" against governors, just not "the general public" (you know--all of us who are too dumb to be aware of the hijacking of our free will).

And yeah--the idea that they will "Issue orders to the military and police powers to enforce the Peoples’ divine rights of birth" is especially ominous sounding.

[Ladewig]

There was no explicit threat of violence. From what it would seem, they simply asked them to resign or they'd vote them out.

Where did you get the "vote them out" part?

If it becomes a crime to contact politicians and tell them what you think and vote them out if they don't do what we want, than what rights do we have?

Given that none of the group members were arrested or charged, I think you are worrying about the criminalization of free speech unnecessarily.

[Ladewig]

From their website

End the use of covert contracts such as Form 1040, car registrations, birth certificate applications, and bank signature cards which confess the signer to be a legal fiction subject of the

End the hijacking of automobile ownership through DMV registrations which covertly exchange the divine rights of travel and ownership for the state-issued “privileges” of “driving” and “title.”

In place of all of the above, substitute sovereign identification, diplomatic immunity and sovereign passports to facilitate safe passage throughout the world free from corporate State molestation and terror.

Restore the People’s money and wealth from the banking institutions, war profiteers, and international loan sharks.

Instantly vest all mortgages, auto loans and personal business loans “issued” by members of the Fed. The state shall hold no paper on, or debts against, the sovereign People, directly or through its agencies and licensed banking institutions.

Instantly end all non-consensual and unlawful taxation including all taxes on the sacred rights of labor and privacy.

End the perverse act of requiring the People to pray to “courts” as is now required under corporate rules and traditions.

That last one has me baffled. Does anyone know what they are talking about?

[Roadtoad]

From their website



That last one has me baffled. Does anyone know what they are talking about?

This is more of the "Admiralty Flag" BS.

[dudalb]

Yeah,this group has "Freeman On the Land Kooks" written all over them.

[theprestige]

How can you possibly defend this or apologize for it?
Good question. But since I'm doing neither, I don't really see why it's relevant. I certainly don't have an answer to it.

I do, however, wonder how you can justify a strongly-worded letter as "extreme".

It's a blatant attempt at intimidation by use of threats.
What threat, exactly? How "extreme" is the threat?

If you got an anonymous letter demanding that you vacate your house in three days or else, I doubt you'd be so sanguine.
"Or else"? Or else what, exactly?

You're right, I probably wouldn't be so sanguine. In fact, my sanguinity would diminish in proportion to the extremity of the threat. Is the letter written by an armed insurgency? Is it written by suicide bombers? Is it written by drug traffickers?

Does it threaten armed insurgency, or a suicide bombing campaign, or mafia hits?

How extreme, exactly, is this letter? How extreme, exactly, are the people who wrote it?

I don't doubt that these people are a threat. I just don't see how this letter rates as "extreme" on the scale of things people do to get their way.

I truly thought the right had limits, and that we all shared a certain moral compact, but judging by the applause for Hannity's "Tim McVeigh wannabees" comment, the torture apologia rampant in the right and on this board, and the minimization of threats of violence, it seems like that compact is broken.

Sickening.
And maximizing threats of violence upholds the compact how, exactly?

[Redtail]

Yeah,this group has "Freeman On the Land Kooks" written all over them.

Yep.

[JoeTheJuggler]

How extreme, exactly, is this letter? How extreme, exactly, are the people who wrote it?

Did you look at their website?

[theprestige]

Did you look at their website?
Unless their website includes a list of the states or provinces they're currently contesting by force of arms, a list of the mass murders they've committed through suicide bombings, or a list of the journalists they've kidnapped and beheaded (with downloadable video records, of course), I doubt it will rank them very high on my Extreme-O-Meter.

"Did you look at their website?" Seriously? That's what it takes to be "extreme" nowadays?

[BenBurch]

FoTL and Tea Party are related by overlapping membership in many cases.

[dudalb]

Unless their website includes a list of the states or provinces they're currently contesting by force of arms, a list of the mass murders they've committed through suicide bombings, or a list of the journalists they've kidnapped and beheaded (with downloadable video records, of course), I doubt it will rank them very high on my Extreme-O-Meter.

"Did you look at their website?" Seriously? That's what it takes to be "extreme" nowadays?

I would say that saying the Driver Licences are against "God's Law" is pretty extreme.

[Chaos]

There was no explicit threat of violence.

Neither was "Nice shop you have here. Would be a shame if something... happened to it." Are you perhaps naive enough to assume that those gentlemen are trying to remind you of basic accident prevention?

From what it would seem, they simply asked them to resign or they'd vote them out.

Funnily enough, you seem to be the only person around here who read anything about voting in there. Nor does the three-day ultimatum in any way correspond to any electoral cycle anyone here could come up with.

If it becomes a crime to contact politicians and tell them what you think and vote them out if they don't do what we want, than what rights do we have?

If, one day, you answer the doorbell, and there´s that skeleton in a black robe, holding a big scythe, I suppose you are naive enough to assume he´s here to trim the hedges, right?

[Denver]

Last I heard from NBC, the wording seemed to be that the recipients resign in three days, or they would remove them.

I gather the FBI has interpreted "remove" as voting out or some other valid process.

But I have still not seen an actual letter, so this is still all second hand to me.

[SnuggleSmacks]

If you look at the website, they do stress non-violence. That, to me, seems to mitigate any implied threat of violence which might be interpreted in the letters.

However, this part gave me a giggle. At the bottom of the "You are not alone" page, there appears a link to "sign up." Further down, there is the following disclaimer:

FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY - NOT LEGAL ADVICE. PLEASE BE CAUTIOUS. MOST PROBLEMS ARE SELF-CREATED

[Unabogie]

Good question. But since I'm doing neither, I don't really see why it's relevant. I certainly don't have an answer to it.

I do, however, wonder how you can justify a strongly-worded letter as "extreme".

I am merely pointing out that it's an implicit threat.

What threat, exactly? How "extreme" is the threat?

Any direct threat is extreme. Don't you know even the most basic elements of a civil society? When you threaten with any kind of vague "or else", you're relying on fear. And yet, here you are apologizing for this.


"Or else"? Or else what, exactly?


Exactly. That's what's so intimidating about it. But you knew that.

You're right, I probably wouldn't be so sanguine. In fact, my sanguinity would diminish in proportion to the extremity of the threat. Is the letter written by an armed insurgency? Is it written by suicide bombers? Is it written by drug traffickers?

Actually, threats from clearly unhinged wackos are disturbing enough, considering how murders have been committed by right wing wackos since President Obama took office. Do I need to list them again?

Does it threaten armed insurgency, or a suicide bombing campaign, or mafia hits?

How extreme, exactly, is this letter? How extreme, exactly, are the people who wrote it?

They're nuts. That's the point.

I don't doubt that these people are a threat. I just don't see how this letter rates as "extreme" on the scale of things people do to get their way.

I actually don't think I used that term to describe this letter, did I? I'm pointing out that there is nothing that won't be defended by right wingers. Nothing. Name something horrible, and there's a right winger defending it.

Exhibit A. Bill Donohue and the Catholic pedophilia scandal.


And maximizing threats of violence upholds the compact how, exactly?

The compact says we all condemn evil together. I notice you won't do that. Half the country thinks they don't have to, as long as the evil is conservative enough and is done by Real Americans.

[WildCat]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/02/governors.extremists/?hpt=T2
That's appalling. Just 30? All 50 should resign. :p

[quarky]

Stuff like this makes me nostalgic for the Indian Wars of the early U.S.
Ideology extremes had some balls back then.

Ever get the feeling that opposite extremes in civilized nations watch the same dumb movies and eat cheese puffs?

Free speech can get boring.
When are these people going to snap?


And all those guns going to waste.

[BenBurch]

That's appalling. Just 30? All 50 should resign. :p

:dl:

[FlamingMoe]

Actually, threats from clearly unhinged wackos are disturbing enough, considering how murders have been committed by right wing wackos since President Obama took office.
lolzero.

(And, of course, by "lolzero" I mean there has been no statistically significant increase in the number of murders committed by "right wing wackos" since January 2009, nor is there a non-trivial disparity between the number of murders committed by "right wing wackos" and the number of murders committed by "left wing wackos". This is, obviously, only my perception and I remain open to evidence showing the contrary. In the meantime, I shall keep with the null hypothesis.)

[BenBurch]

lolzero.

(And, of course, by "lolzero" I mean there has been no statistically significant increase in the number of murders committed by "right wing wackos" since January 2009, nor is there a non-trivial disparity between the number of murders committed by "right wing wackos" and the number of murders committed by "left wing wackos". This is, obviously, only my perception and I remain open to evidence showing the contrary. In the meantime, I shall keep with the null hypothesis.)

source?

[theprestige]

source?
The null hypothesis is a default hypothesis. It proposes, in essence, that there's nothing going on.

In this case, the null hypothesis is that there's no measurable increase in murders by right-wing wackos since Obama took office, and no measurable difference in the murder rate between right- and left-wing wackos.

There's no source for the null hypothesis because it's not really a claim at all: It's a default state against which claims can be made, and evidence can be presented.

For example, unabogie has made affirmative claims which purport to contradict the null hypothesis--he thinks there's something going on. You should really be asking him for sources.

And in the mean time, of course, you should assume the null hypothesis yourself.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Last I heard from NBC, the wording seemed to be that the recipients resign in three days, or they would remove them.

I gather the FBI has interpreted "remove" as voting out or some other valid process.

But I have still not seen an actual letter, so this is still all second hand to me.

It would be nice to have the text of the letter. Unless there is an election scheduled in 3 days, I don't see how a reference to wording like "or else we'll remove you" could possibly mean voting them out.

At any rate, I trust that the FBI and Homeland Security are right in their assessment that the letters didn't contain a credible or immediate threat of violence. It still sounds like a non-specific threat, and I'm sure the group will, rightfully, get lots of scrutiny at least for a while.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Unless their website includes a list of the states or provinces they're currently contesting by force of arms, a list of the mass murders they've committed through suicide bombings, or a list of the journalists they've kidnapped and beheaded (with downloadable video records, of course), I doubt it will rank them very high on my Extreme-O-Meter.

"Did you look at their website?" Seriously? That's what it takes to be "extreme" nowadays?
Yes, looking at a website is sufficient (though not necessary) to determine that a group advocates extreme measures or views.

I suspect you're using an unconventional definition of "extremist". Merriam Webster defines extremism as "advocacy of extreme measures or views" and gives as a synonym "radicalism".

There are plenty of extremist groups who have websites expressing extreme measures or views that do not fit your standards of extremism. I don't think, for example, the Aryan Nation's website has any of the things you require, yet they are conventionally considered to be an extremist group. In fact, very few groups would fit your definition.

And language works by convention, so if you're using the term "extremist" in some unconventional way, it's up to you to make clear what you're talking about, and you should expect to have miscommunication when you use words unconventionally.

[theprestige]

It would be nice to have the text of the letter. Unless there is an election scheduled in 3 days, I don't see how a reference to wording like "or else we'll remove you" could possibly mean voting them out.
This seems like a profound failure of imagination on your part.

For example, I had resolved to "remove" my Representative if they didn't vote the way I wanted on the recent healthcare legislation. And yet, even thought that vote has already happened, I still have to wait until November to effect a removal by voting them out.

Did you really fail to see such an obvious possibility?

Anyway, the note was dated Monday, and it's now Saturday, so we're squarely in the vast realm of removal options you can't imagine--including voting them out of office at the next elections.

[Thunder]

forgive me, but i think these guys are absolutely meaningless.

[Unabogie]

lolzero.

(And, of course, by "lolzero" I mean there has been no statistically significant increase in the number of murders committed by "right wing wackos" since January 2009, nor is there a non-trivial disparity between the number of murders committed by "right wing wackos" and the number of murders committed by "left wing wackos". This is, obviously, only my perception and I remain open to evidence showing the contrary. In the meantime, I shall keep with the null hypothesis.)

Well, let's take a look at the list (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/the_obama_eras_top_ten_flare-ups_of_anti-governmen.php?ref=fpblt), since for some disturbing reason, Teabaggers refuse to read the news if it doesn't confirm their twisted world view.


1. The Hutaree: Nine members of the Christian militia group, which says it's preparing for the arrival of the Anti-Christ, were charged (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/feds_release_details_in_hutaree_arrests.php) this week with plotting to kill law enforcement and "oppose by force the authority of the U.S. government." The Feds acted after one member posted online that the group was "ready for war."

2. Joe Stack: In February, the embittered software developer rammed a plane into the IRS building in Austin, Texas, killing himself and one IRS employee. Stack had recently posted online (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/crash_pilot_wrote_anti-irs_anti-corporate_screed.php) a lengthy anti-government screed, charging among other things that the government had "left me to rot and die while they bailed out their rich, incompetent cronies WITH MY MONEY!"

3. James Von Brunn: The 88-year old shot and killed (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/james_von_brunn_a_profile.php) an African-American guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC last June. Von Brunn, who recently died in prison, had long moved in neo-Nazi circles, and in 1981 he tried to hold hostage an employee of the Federal Reserve at gunpoint. In recent writings he had expressed support for Birtherism, and had praised Sarah Palin.


4. Richard Poplawski: This Pittsburgh man allegedly shot and killed (http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/19096134/detail.html) three police officers last April, after telling friends he feared that President Obama planned to confiscate weapons. He also had recently expressed alarm about a supposed plan by FEMA to herd people into concentration camps, which he had seen discussed by Glenn Beck on Fox News.

5. John Patrick Bedell: He traveled from California in February, to shoot two Pentagon police officers (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/pentagon_shooter_praised_private_property_rights_d .php) before being mortally wounded himself. In an online video manifesto posted in 2006, Bedell had railed against the government's ability to "confiscate the resources of their citizens to fund schemes that need only be justified by lies and deception."


6. Joshua Cartwright: This Florida man killed two sheriff's deputies (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/27/joshua-cartwright-cop-kil_n_191929.html) at a gun range last April, before police officers shot him dead. His wife told police he was "severely disturbed" by Obama's election, and "believed that the US government was conspiring against him."

7. John Gimbel: This California man was charged (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/california_man_indicted_for_kill_the_president_ema .php) in October after sending a racist, profanity-filled email that called for the death of President Obama and for the words "Fed ****" to be written on his chest. The email, which can be read here (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/10/indictment-for-kill-the-president-email-101609.php?page=1), called for the murders of Michelle Obama and the couple's two children "in front of" the president.

8. Steven Anderson: The Phoenix pastor told his congregation (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/pastor_of_gun-toter_at_obama_event_day_before_even.php) last summer to "pray for Barack Obama to die and go to hell." The next day, one of his congregants showed up at an Obama event with an assault rifle and a handgun.

9. Greg Girard: The Massachusetts software consultant and sometime Tea Party activist was charged (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/police_ma_man_stockpiled_weapons_feared_armageddon .php) in February with stockpiling weapons, and possessing explosive devices including tear gas and pepper ball canisters. His wife told police that he feared Armageddon was imminent, and that martial law would soon be imposed. Girard had recently written online that Sarah Palin is on a "righteous mission from God."

10. Norman LeBoon: This Philadelphia man was charged (http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/man-threatened-to-kill-cantor-in-youtube-video.php) Monday with threatening to kill Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) in a profanity-strewn Youtube video. LeBoon has also posted previous videos making threats against Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and other leaders.


And let's not forget the guy building the dirty bomb (http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/99263.html).

BELFAST, Maine — James G. Cummings, who police say was shot to death by his wife two months ago, allegedly had a cache of radioactive materials in his home suitable for building a “dirty bomb.”

Or Bill O'Reilly's friend who killed Dr. George Tiller.

Now, perhaps you can point me to the murders committed by "left wing wackos" (and let's stay current, shall we?) and we can compare the list.

As I said, there is nothing that a Teabagger won't apologize for. The social and moral contract is broken. Teabaggers will not condemn violence if it's perpetrated by a fellow wacko. They will excuse literally anything.

[BenBurch]

The null hypothesis is a default hypothesis. It proposes, in essence, that there's nothing going on.

In this case, the null hypothesis is that there's no measurable increase in murders by right-wing wackos since Obama took office, and no measurable difference in the murder rate between right- and left-wing wackos.

There's no source for the null hypothesis because it's not really a claim at all: It's a default state against which claims can be made, and evidence can be presented.

For example, unabogie has made affirmative claims which purport to contradict the null hypothesis--he thinks there's something going on. You should really be asking him for sources.

And in the mean time, of course, you should assume the null hypothesis yourself.

No, you made a specific quantitative claim re: numbers of events. Such claims require a source.

[Travis]

If this wasn't intended as a threat then why include a specific deadline for resigning?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Yeah. Not that they should even consider resigning, but they should consider extra precautions for themselves and their families for a while (unless or until the people making the threats are identified and caught).

No, I hope some of them resign.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Well, let's take a look at the list (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/the_obama_eras_top_ten_flare-ups_of_anti-governmen.php?ref=fpblt), since for some disturbing reason, Teabaggers refuse to read the news if it doesn't confirm their twisted world view.



And let's not forget the guy building the dirty bomb (http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/99263.html).



Or Bill O'Reilly's friend who killed Dr. George Tiller.

Now, perhaps you can point me to the murders committed by "left wing wackos" (and let's stay current, shall we?) and we can compare the list.

As I said, there is nothing that a Teabagger won't apologize for. The social and moral contract is broken. Teabaggers will not condemn violence if it's perpetrated by a fellow wacko. They will excuse literally anything.

Your list has three left wing whackos on it.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

FoTL and Tea Party are related by overlapping membership in many cases.

You'll find in a nation of ~300 million people, it really doesn't take much for a group or movement to reach the magic number of "many".

[Unabogie]

Your list has three left wing whackos on it.

Which ones? And how are they "left wing"?

[MattusMaximus]

Here's their website. (http://www.guardiansofthefreerepublics.com/front-page.html) Their plans look ill-informed, especially since they refer to things such as driving a car a "sacred right". Ech. They're more stupid than dangerous, I'd think.

Try taking a look at their Rationale page (http://www.guardiansofthefreerepublics.com/rationale.html):

For those who are concerned about opening the door to satanic forces, permit me to reassure you. The Guardian Elders deliberated with great sobriety the wisdom of sitting on our hands while the march to World War III continues. We asked ourselves if we could continue, in good conscience, to do nothing while so many of our friends and colleagues are suffering hardship. We asked ourselves if we are enjoined by the Book of Revelation from acting on behalf of freedom and mankind. After much prayer and soul-searching, we concluded unanimously that the need for action was self-evident. We are called to action. ...

Ummm... I'm going with bat**** crazy for $1000, Alex. I was wondering if there was going to be a fundamentalist religious component to these whackos, and it looks like there is such a component. I wonder if the reference to WWIII is some kind of tie-in to Judgment Day & the Book of Revelations? I wouldn't be surprised if it was.

Ya gotta love those nuts who have "God On Their Side" :rolleyes:

[MattusMaximus]

If you look at the website, they do stress non-violence. That, to me, seems to mitigate any implied threat of violence which might be interpreted in the letters.

True enough, but my main concern is that some other nutballs/extremists out there will use this whole thing as yet more fuel for the fire, and then there will be more violence. A concern shared, apparently, by the FBI.

When there is so much extreme rhetoric flying around, it's only a matter of time before someone gets trigger-happy.

[MattusMaximus]

forgive me, but i think these guys are absolutely meaningless.

Good point. Their website pretty much screams "PAY ATTENTION TO US!!!11!" :jaw-dropp

Sadly, I think they're getting far too much publicity.

[INRM]

Weren't some of the people asked to resign republicans as well as democrats?

[theprestige]

No, you made a specific quantitative claim re: numbers of events. Such claims require a source.
Please re-read this thread; it was Unabogie who made the specific quantitative claim. Flaming Moe pointed out that without supporting evidence, the claim fails and the null hypothesis remains the hypothesis of choice.

You then asked Moe to provide a source--for what, I'm not sure. A source for the null hypothesis? A source for rejecting Unabogie's specific quantitative claim without supporting evidence?

I never made a specific quantitative claim, because I don't know the specific quantities. I did, however, agree with Moe's preference for the null hypothesis in cases where such claims are made without supporting evidence.

Anyway, this may all be moot, as Unabogie has since produced some quantities--though not all of his data may support the conclusion he's already arrived at: The only Hutaree member with a known party affiliation is a registered Democrat (http://toledoblade.com/article/20100401/NEWS16/4010369).

[theprestige]

If this wasn't intended as a threat then why include a specific deadline for resigning?
Why not include a specific deadline?

"Dear Mr. Governor, please resign sometime between now and November, but no need to rush. Whenever is convenient for you is acceptable to us."

[Unabogie]

Anyway, this may all be moot, as Unabogie has since produced some quantities--though not all of his data may support the conclusion he's already arrived at: The only Hutaree member with a known party affiliation is a registered Democrat (http://toledoblade.com/article/20100401/NEWS16/4010369).

Oh, come on. Their website has links to the Michigan Militia. You know, the same group that brought us Tim McVeigh (you know, Hannity's guy).

http://hutaree.com/misc.htm

Do you honestly, honestly want to posit that a wacko, uber-Christian, gun crazy group of people who love the Michigan Militia are liberals who voted for President Obama, love Nancy Pelosi, and enjoy Michael Moore movies?

I know that talking point is making the rounds, but it's such obvious ********, how can you repeat it here? Doesn't reality matter to you, or is it all just about scoring points?

[JoeTheJuggler]

This seems like a profound failure of imagination on your part.

For example, I had resolved to "remove" my Representative if they didn't vote the way I wanted on the recent healthcare legislation. And yet, even thought that vote has already happened, I still have to wait until November to effect a removal by voting them out.

And did you write to them demanding that they resign within 3 days or else?


BTW, do you now accept that "extremist" is a deserved characterization of this group?

[JoeTheJuggler]

True enough, but my main concern is that some other nutballs/extremists out there will use this whole thing as yet more fuel for the fire, and then there will be more violence. A concern shared, apparently, by the FBI.

And that sort of claim (that they stress non-violence) doesn't make me feel especially assured that they are a non-violent group. I just looked on the Aryan Nation to see if they fit theprestige's requirements to qualify as "extremist" (they don't, by the way), and they've got a slogan on their splash page that says, "Stop the hate -segregate!"

I don't believe for a second that the Aryan Nation is a hate-free group. In fact, I think they're quite the opposite--a group that actively encourages and promotes hatred.

[BenBurch]

Please re-read this thread; it was Unabogie who made the specific quantitative claim. Flaming Moe pointed out that without supporting evidence, the claim fails and the null hypothesis remains the hypothesis of choice.

You then asked Moe to provide a source--for what, I'm not sure. A source for the null hypothesis? A source for rejecting Unabogie's specific quantitative claim without supporting evidence?

I never made a specific quantitative claim, because I don't know the specific quantities. I did, however, agree with Moe's preference for the null hypothesis in cases where such claims are made without supporting evidence.

Anyway, this may all be moot, as Unabogie has since produced some quantities--though not all of his data may support the conclusion he's already arrived at: The only Hutaree member with a known party affiliation is a registered Democrat (http://toledoblade.com/article/20100401/NEWS16/4010369).

Apologies since it was Flaming Moe who said "there has been no statistically significant increase in the number of murders committed by "right wing wackos" since January 2009" which really does require a source. I incorrectly attributed that to you in haste.

[MattusMaximus]

Weren't some of the people asked to resign republicans as well as democrats?

Yes. The nutbars don't seem to be playing any partisan favorites... they are, apparently, against the government in all of its forms.

'Tis entertaining :popcorn1

[theprestige]

Apologies since it was Flaming Moe who said "there has been no statistically significant increase in the number of murders committed by "right wing wackos" since January 2009" which really does require a source. I incorrectly attributed that to you in haste.
Thanks; all is forgiven. :)

But really, in context it's clear that Moe was responding to Unabogie's specific quantitative claims that there by offering the null hypothesis. His concluding sentence makes it explicitly clear that this is what he means.

Since you skipped right over Unabogie's claims, to which Moe was replying, may I conclude that you accept Unabogie's claims without requiring that he source them, but insist that Moe provide sources to support the null hypothesis?

[Unabogie]

Thanks; all is forgiven. :)

But really, in context it's clear that Moe was responding to Unabogie's specific quantitative claims that there by offering the null hypothesis. His concluding sentence makes it explicitly clear that this is what he means.

Since you skipped right over Unabogie's claims, to which Moe was replying, may I conclude that you accept Unabogie's claims without requiring that he source them, but insist that Moe provide sources to support the null hypothesis?

I did source them. I did five minutes of Googling and found 12 violent acts by Teabaggers. Then, I asked for a comparable list of left wing violence to see if it could be found.

Here is more support for the idea that threats have increased.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/dramatic-increase-threats-irs-9918228

And another link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/01/threats-against-irs-emplo_n_481455.html

[Slayhamlet]

If this wasn't intended as a threat then why include a specific deadline for resigning?

Those who make demands through threats usually specify a deadline for their demands to be carried out. Think of hostage takers.

[BenBurch]

Thanks; all is forgiven. :)

But really, in context it's clear that Moe was responding to Unabogie's specific quantitative claims that there by offering the null hypothesis. His concluding sentence makes it explicitly clear that this is what he means.

Since you skipped right over Unabogie's claims, to which Moe was replying, may I conclude that you accept Unabogie's claims without requiring that he source them, but insist that Moe provide sources to support the null hypothesis?

"There has been an increase" requires as much support as "there as been no increase."

The correct hypothesis is "it is unknown if there has been any change."

[leftysergeant]

Unless their website includes a list of the states or provinces they're currently contesting by force of arms, a list of the mass murders they've committed through suicide bombings, or a list of the journalists they've kidnapped and beheaded (with downloadable video records, of course), I doubt it will rank them very high on my Extreme-O-Meter.

They have killed people a few at a time already.

Time to round them up and haul them away...

...on the short yellow bus back to the group home.

[theprestige]

BTW, do you now accept that "extremist" is a deserved characterization of this group?
Not really, no.

I mean, sure, okay. Argument by dictionary, you win. Congratulations. We have to characterize them somehow, I suppose, and "moderate" or "mainstream" don't quite seem to fit. "Extremist" seems to be the settled convention. As a term of art among law enforcement agencies, I have no objections to it as a broad categorization of a whole spectrum of activist organizations, to which this group undoubtedly belongs.

But do they deserve to be characterized as "extreme"? No, I don't think so. You may think their ideas are much wackier than most, but I stand by my initial analysis: As "extremists" go, these people don't strike me as very extreme at all.

To me, "extreme" is committing violent acts to get what you want. Suicide bombers. Armed insurgencies. Drug cartels. Those are groups whose extreme talk is entirely overshadowed by their extreme actions.

This group, whose extreme talk includes a website advocating peaceful methods? The most "extreme" thing they've done so far is write a letter. A vaguely threatening letter. They're pretty much at the opposite end of the "extremist" spectrum.

Merriam-Webster notwithstanding, I think that characterizing them as "extremist" without distinction or nuance is simplistic and obfuscatory.

Are they extremist? Sure, if you like. Are they very extreme? I don't think so.

[theprestige]

"There has been an increase" requires as much support as "there as been no increase."

The correct hypothesis is "it is unknown if there has been any change."
Thanks, that's a good point.

[theprestige]

Those who make demands through threats usually specify a deadline for their demands to be carried out. Think of hostage takers.
But this isn't quite a two-way street: people specify deadlines all the time, without threatening violent action if the deadline isn't met.

[Dancing David]

Stupid jerks, time to buy a gun.

They are arguing that the Fed since the Civil War is illegal.

Yeah, unelected Guardians of the Republic. ********.

[MattusMaximus]

Stupid jerks, time to buy a gun.

They are arguing that the Fed since the Civil War is illegal.

Yeah, unelected Guardians of the Republic. ********.

It's kind of funny how little nutbar groups like this always claim to be speaking for "the people" or "the country" or "the Republic" yadda-yadda-yadda, yet nobody seems to know about them until they go all schitzoid in public.

So if nobody knows about them, how can they claim to "speak for" anyone?

Note that my question assumes a certain level of rationality among folks like the so-called Guardians; probably a bad assumption :)

[JoeTheJuggler]

Not really, no.

I mean, sure, okay. Argument by dictionary, you win. Congratulations. We have to characterize them somehow, I suppose, and "moderate" or "mainstream" don't quite seem to fit. "Extremist" seems to be the settled convention. As a term of art among law enforcement agencies, I have no objections to it as a broad categorization of a whole spectrum of activist organizations, to which this group undoubtedly belongs.

But do they deserve to be characterized as "extreme"? No, I don't think so.
I say yes they do because they fit the definition of extremist.

You may think their ideas are much wackier than most, but I stand by my initial analysis: As "extremists" go, these people don't strike me as very extreme at all.

So you're saying that comparing them only to other extremists, they're not so extreme. That's like saying that if you compare a 6'3" tall man to NBA players, he's not exceptionally tall. But it would be entirely appropriate to call him a tall man, even though among tall men, he isn't so tall.



To me, "extreme" is committing violent acts to get what you want. Suicide bombers. Armed insurgencies. Drug cartels. Those are groups whose extreme talk is entirely overshadowed by their extreme actions.
Yes, I suspected you were using some unconventional definition of the term.


Merriam-Webster notwithstanding, I think that characterizing them as "extremist" without distinction or nuance is simplistic and obfuscatory.
I disagree. But I understand why it might seem that way to someone using an unconventional meaning of the term "extremist".

Similarly, if I redefined "tall man" to be only men who are at least 7 feet tall, I would find someone referring to a 6'3" tall man as a "tall man" without nuance to be "simplistic and obfuscatory". That's exactly the problem with using words as if they had meaning other than what is conventional.

[JoeTheJuggler]

They have killed people a few at a time already.

Time to round them up and haul them away...

...on the short yellow bus back to the group home.

The Guardians of the Republic have? (Or are you maybe confusing them with the Hutaree or someone else?)

[theprestige]

I say yes they do because they fit the definition of extremist.
Like I said, if it's going to be argumentum ad lexiconium, you win. Congratulations.

So you're saying that comparing them only to other extremists, they're not so extreme. That's like saying that if you compare a 6'3" tall man to NBA players, he's not exceptionally tall. But it would be entirely appropriate to call him a tall man, even though among tall men, he isn't so tall.
Well, yes. You're the one insisting that they be grouped together with other extremists for the purposes of discussion--a point which I have (grudgingly) conceded.

My argument--the one I've been trying to make all along, though obviously not very well, since you still don't seem to understand it--is that compared to other extremists, they're not very extreme.

It's as if you told me "an exceptionally tall basketball player had twenty-four rebounds in his last game", and then I find out he's actually only 6'3". Yes, he's taller than the average, but as basketball players go his height isn't all that exceptional after all (which makes his rebound number that much more impressive, by they way).

You can't really bring up his height in the context of basketball, and then complain when I compare his height to that of other basketball players. He's not playing the "Average Dude Game". He's playing basketball.

After insisting so strenuously that these people must be playing the extremist game, are you seriously complaining because I'm judging them according to the rules of the extremist game, rather than the Average Dude Game?


Yes, I suspected you were using some unconventional definition of the term.


I disagree. But I understand why it might seem that way to someone using an unconventional meaning of the term "extremist".

Similarly, if I redefined "tall man" to be only men who are at least 7 feet tall, I would find someone referring to a 6'3" tall man as a "tall man" without nuance to be "simplistic and obfuscatory". That's exactly the problem with using words as if they had meaning other than what is conventional.
Really? It's conventional to consider vaguely threatening letters by otherwise peaceful people as being just as extreme as mass murder or armed insurgency?

It's so conventional, in fact, that in spite of plentiful context clues and repeated explicit clarifications, you were entirely incapable of understanding what I meant?

[leftysergeant]

The Guardians of the Republic have? (Or are you maybe confusing them with the Hutaree or someone else?)

They are part of an over-arching movement, and should as such bear all the stigma accruing to that movement. They arer signing off onto a doctrine ofrevol;ution which plays right into the hands of the white nationalists.

William Pearce called them "useful idiots."

[Dancing David]

My argument--the one I've been trying to make all along, though obviously not very well, since you still don't seem to understand it--is that compared to other extremists, they're not very extreme.




Did you read their web page?

To be clear, this is not a typical patriot “remedy.” The four step Restore America Plan was proposed by high-ranking members of the military who are tired of taking orders from a corporate CEO, and who recognize the People as the last chance to avoid a third world war. In fulfilling the call to action, the Guardian Elders who wrote the Declaration and designed the implementation plan are prepared, with your assistance, to

restore the one true sovereign authority on the land

once and for all, as the only lawful government of the United States of America in truth and in the eyes of the military commanders. As you will see when you read the one page Declaration and the Warrants and
Orders attached thereto, the remedy is already won, even before it begins. By its very nature, the mere act of re-inhabiting the de jure institutions of law creates the victory we have all been seeking. Actors throughout the United States Federal Corporation understand they must ultimately defer to the de jure authority. The remedy is self-actualizing.


http://www.guardiansofthefreerepublics.com/introduction.html

You do know that they are talking about setting up an extra-legal governmen?

[INRM]

Dancing David,

If I read that quote correctly, doesn't that mean the military wants to hijack and dismantle political institutions and establish control over politics in the way they see fit? A silent military coup d'etat if you will?


Hope I don't get a heart attack, die mysteriously or suspiciously, get blown up by a car bomb, contract some incurable disease or cancer, get poisoned, or end up disappearing or arrested on bogus charges.

[Mark6]

Weird stuff. They sound like a bunch of conspiracy theorists.
They do? Who would have guessed!

[JoeTheJuggler]

Like I said, if it's going to be argumentum ad lexiconium, you win. Congratulations.
There is no such a thing as argumentum ad lexiconium. It sounds like an attempt to dismiss the point I've been making which is: if you want to use a word in other than the conventional meaning (which is what a good dictionary records), then you will fail at communication. Language only works by convention. There is no other meaning to words than the ones we conventionally agree on.

Remember, you are the one who objected to the widespread use of "extremist" with reference to this group. (I first saw that word used in a CNN headline, but I guarantee you, many many people used it to describe this group.)



Well, yes. You're the one insisting that they be grouped together with other extremists for the purposes of discussion
That's a lie. (I never insisted on any such thing.) I think that's what you are doing, and in a different way so is leftyseargent. I think that compared to the vast bulk of the population they are extremists. Their views are wacky and radical.

My argument--the one I've been trying to make all along, though obviously not very well, since you still don't seem to understand it--is that compared to other extremists, they're not very extreme.
I understand it perfectly well. I think doing that, for the purpose of arguing that they ought not be called "extremist" (which is your position--see post number 5), is a misuse of language. Again, see the analogy I made of trying to argue that it's wrong to call a 6'3" man "tall" because you can find a group of very tall men where he would be among the shortest. That's what you're doing, and it's not a legitimate argument against calling this group "extreme" or against calling a 6'3" man "tall".



After insisting so strenuously that these people must be playing the extremist game, are you seriously complaining because I'm judging them according to the rules of the extremist game, rather than the Average Dude Game?

You're confused. I think you should re-read the thread to get the sequence of events and who is arguing for what clear.
I've been "strenuously" arguing that what you said in post number 5 is wrong. And the reason is for that very reason: your argument is based on comparing them only to more extreme people rather than all people. Again, it all hinges on your using an unconventional definition of "extremist". As I've said, it would be like re-defining "tall" to say it only applies to people over 7'.



Really? It's conventional to consider vaguely threatening letters by otherwise peaceful people as being just as extreme as mass murder or armed insurgency?
Nobody said they're "just as extreme". Both are extremists, though. Similarly, even though a 6'3" man is rightly called "tall" it doesn't follow that calling him "tall" implies that he is just as tall as someone who is 7' tall.

It's so conventional, in fact, that in spite of plentiful context clues and repeated explicit clarifications, you were entirely incapable of understanding what I meant?
Yes. What you said in post number 5 was wrong. You argued that it's wrong to consider this an "extremist" group. Your supporting arguments made it clear that the reason you are wrong is because you are using an unconventional definition of the term "extremist". Again, if you re-define words, you're going to have a tough time communicating.

I could re-define the word "good" to mean "undesirable", and when I say something is "good" that is obviously undesirable, people would be correct in pointing out that my claim is wrong. It's wrong because I'm using an unconventional definition of "good".

[JoeTheJuggler]

They are part of an over-arching movement, and should as such bear all the stigma accruing to that movement.
Is there any evidence that they are part of an over-arching movement?

I don't think they are. In fact, they strike me as the kind of people who do not form coalitions with other groups very well because they are so dogmatic and unyielding in their beliefs.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Did you read their web page?


I tried that approach. According to theprestige, a website can only be evidence that a group is an "extremist" group if the website has:

a list of the states or provinces they're currently contesting by force of arms, a list of the mass murders they've committed through suicide bombings, or a list of the journalists they've kidnapped and beheaded (with downloadable video records, of course)

Which of course means that by the unconventional definition of "extremist" theprestige is using, very very few groups are extremist. (I pointed out that the Aryan Nation website would not be evidence that they are an extremist group, since their website doesn't have any of these things theprestige would need to see.)

He has sort of acknowledged that he's using an unconventional definition of "extremist" and is now merely arguing that while it's proper to call them "extremist" (right, theprestige?) they are not as extreme as other extremist groups.

This of course is a straw man argument, because no one (except maybe leftyseargent) is arguing that this group is as extreme as other extremist groups. In fact, for that position to be true, it would be the same as arguing that this is the most extreme group of them all. (If it weren't, then you could always find an extremist group that is more extremist than this one.)

[drkitten]

No, you made a specific quantitative claim re: numbers of events. Such claims require a source.

How about the US Marshal's office and the FBI (via the mainstream media (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2010/04/02/the-hutaree-arrests-and-the-new-militia-movement.aspx))?


Less well publicized has been a string of other incidents. In recent weeks an improvised explosive device was discovered outside the federal courthouse in Spokane, Wash.; a man wielding four knives was arrested at the Daley Center in Chicago; and members of a militant white-supremacist group called the White Wolves were arrested for allegedly assembling explosive devices in southern Connecticut. "We're seeing a continued escalation in threats," says Michael Prout, assistant director of the U.S. Marshals Service. The FBI is especially concerned about "lone offenders," who are hard to catch because they do not join known groups but are nonetheless moved to commit violent acts by the incendiary messages on extremist Web sites. The bureau has quietly set up a program aimed at identifying such characters by keeping a watch on Internet chat rooms and purchases of weapons and explosive devices.

The rise in extremist violence has a historical precedent: militia groups flowered in the early 1990s, only to wither after the Oklahoma City bombing.

[pgwenthold]

It would be nice to have the text of the letter. Unless there is an election scheduled in 3 days, I don't see how a reference to wording like "or else we'll remove you" could possibly mean voting them out..

How can "we'll vote you out if you don't resign now" be considered an ultimatum of any sort?

I mean, what are the options, even if it is true? Quit now, or be voted out of office later. Why would anyone chose to quit? That doesn't make any sense. No, "or else we'll remove you" has to mean something besides "we'll vote you out of office when your term ends."

[BenBurch]

How about the US Marshal's office and the FBI (via the mainstream media (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2010/04/02/the-hutaree-arrests-and-the-new-militia-movement.aspx))?

Data!

Thanks.

[SnuggleSmacks]

So...it's well past the 3 day time limit for the ultimatum. Has anyone seen information regarding "or else" yet?

[BenBurch]

So...it's well past the 3 day time limit for the ultimatum. Has anyone seen information regarding "or else" yet?

I think it was;

"Or else we smear grease all over ourselves while reading "Guns & Ammo" and eating cheez poofs in Mom's basement."

[FlamingMoe]

I did source them. I did five minutes of Googling and found 12 violent acts by Teabaggers.
Well, let's take a look at your "top ten list" of murders committed by "right wing wackos."

Of your "top ten", sixty percent have killed no one at all (entries 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10), making them invalid entries on lists of "right wing murderers."

Next, the airplane guy. By counting him as a "right wing wacko" you sound like you're totally ignorant of his rantings prior to his killing. Reading his manifesto would show much disdain for the left and the right in politics. He was really a quite centrist crackpot.

Reading the article about Cartwright leaves me with the impression that he was less "severely disturbed about Obama's election" than he was simply "severely disturbed." Someone who already thought the government was out to get him beffore the election is not a good candidate for your list.

So, from your list, we're left with two candidates for "right wing murderers." I could probably be convinced to concede the Poplowski incident, but you'd have a harder time convincing me the neo-Nazi was a "right wing" wacko instead of just a wacko. But even were I to concede that case, you're left with two cases. Two cases out of probably more than twenty thousand murders that have been committed in the US since Obama's election.

You'll need to supply more evidence to move any rational person from the null hypothesis that nothing unusual is going on.

[MattusMaximus]

The so-called Guardians are probably sitting alone in their basements wondering where all the "revolutionaries" went.

What a bunch of putzes.

[SnuggleSmacks]

And we will accomplish all of that – with your help – BEHIND THE SCENES, lawfully, peacefully, without violence and without risking civil war.
http://guardiansofthefreerepublics.com/immidiate_goals.html

This reminds me of reading Leaves of Grass. The beginning of the book tells you that in reading the book, you have doomed yourself, and you won't know when or where or how, but at some point in the future the book will come to get you!

[Dancing David]

I think it was;

"Or else we smear grease all over ourselves while reading "Guns & Ammo" and eating cheez poofs in Mom's basement."

Well he may be using the grease and cheesie poofs but Sam kennedy does not live in his mom's basement.

(Well maybe he does.)
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0402/Guardians-of-the-free-Republics-tied-to-Texas-radio-station