Here is the line up of the Christian Militia group. These people are misfits. Just looking into their eyes–something isn’t right. Were these people so isolated from the rest of the population that they turned to violence. Help me understand what possessed the Hutaree to want to kill police officers and start an uprising against the government.
Hutaree supposedly means Christian Warrior, according to a spokesperson for the group. No one else claims to have heard of the term. These are scary looking people. They supposedly want to fight the Anti-Christ. They also want court appointed lawyers. Hypocrites.
Maybe Holder will appoint the same Gitmo Seven as bro bono like they did for the terrorists.
They look like a bunch of goons that probably fantasized to what they thought was a compatriot but was actually a government informant.
They just don’t look right. It makes you wonder what came first, the chicken or the egg.
I’m curious to find out exactly how the FBI managed to break this case. I noticed in one report that neighbors had seen these people previously gathering at a nearby residence dressed in camouflaged military gear and acting strange. Those neighbors opted to say nothing to authorities because they were fearful of retribution. We live in dangerous times. People have to get past this business of not reporting possibly unlawful actions out of either fear or simply a traditional dislike of playing the role of a “snitch.” There are so many ways of alerting the authorities without even identifying yourself to them. You call an anonymous hotline and even the cops don’t know who you are. They just want the leads — the more the better. Once they get a lead, they can do the heavy lifting.
“Christian warriors” my rear end! If they want to start a fight, they can go to Iraq or Afghanistan. There’s plenty of folks over there to pick fights with.
Further, no American should start a violent uprising with duly elected officials of our government. They are neither Christians nor Americans. They are no better than the terrorist scum of Al Qaeda.
And they sure are an ugly-looking bunch.
The civil wars in Central and South America all happened in countries that experienced rapid declines in standards of living. Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua populations’ standards of living declined. Meanwhile Honduras was already poor and remained peaceful. Scholars have noted this trend in other cases. Will anyone dare deny that the anger level increased in our own country as the economy tanked?
Young guys in Michigan saw their fathers and grandfathers make good livings in the auto industry with pensions and health benefits. When they come of age, those sweet jobs aren’t available. Some of them get angry. All they need is a Tyler Durden to come along and convince them that violence is the answer.
These folks appear to be dangerous, delusional, undereducated wingnuts based on their web site and their statements, but I would strongly hesitate to judge them by their appearances. One thing I’ve learned through 25+ years of dealing with regular people all over the world is that smarts come in all sorts of packages.
Explanatory slight digression: One reason I love “Dirty Jobs” is that it demonstrates the intelligence of people who take on, enjoy, and are proud of work that some would consider yucky (and therefore, by extension, only yucky people would think of (get stuck) doing it).
I shudder to think how well I would photograph in a prison jumpsuit without access to blush, a blow dryer and flattering lighting. I suspect I’d look like a cop-eating goon, too.
El guapo, and everyone needs an enemy?
Gotta agree with Starry.
Wolverine, that idea of not tattling is so pervasive. I don’t know how you convince people it is so wrong. Young people are particularly at risk because of it.
@El Guapo
The civil wars in Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua were also exacerbated by the fact that communists from Nicaragua were attempting to spread through the region. I’ve spoken with Navy Seals that were based in El Salvador that helped Guatemala and El Salvador in the fight.
The wars were not about a drop in standards of living. Guatemala’s standards actually went UP after the Carter administration stopped assistance because Guatemala would not stop fighting the communists. It forced them to develop their industries.
Honduras was also fortunate not to go down the path of having an autocratic dictator and stayed on the path of democracy.
I think that those losers probably blabbed about their “holy war” to the wrong person which turned out to be an informer.
Never mind that communists also spread through Costa Rica and Honduras and didn’t cause civil wars there or that the civil war in Guatemala had already begun long before the Carter administration. Maybe it’s just a coincidence that the civil wars only happened in places that experienced quick and dramatic drops in standards of living.
The guy that got the most votes in the 1985 elections in Honduras DIDN’T win. The election was given to someone else. Is that your path of democracy? It’s not mine.
But despite the off-topic comments by cargosquid, the point remains. When a population’s standards of living decline, people want to blame someone, and it’s usually the government. And some people who are a little off balance to begin with get even more off balance.
Perhaps we could all agree, given our current economic and budget situation and our jobless recovery, that this was not the time to inflame all of those normally latent predjudices and concerns for big government with an in-your-face response — from passing Obamacare without any Republican suppport, withdrawing from immigration control, gun control – a whole laundry list of things. Obama is not ruling from the center and the Congress is clearly to the far left of him. What do you expect — comity?
To a large extent, the Tea-Party explosion and the liberal media’s reaction to it relects a failure of leadership on the part of the President. Its one thing for the President or a Congressional leader to move the country foreward and influence public opinion, its another to tell the majority to eat it.
“On Tuesday, Mr. Obama will sign what has been billed as a package of fixes to the health-care bill, approved under rules that required only a simple majority vote to pass in the Senate. That nullified Republicans’ power to block it through a filibuster.
Democrats attached to the bill a major overhaul of student-lending laws, which eliminated a federal subsidy for private tuition lenders, federalized most student loans and plowed the savings into expanded federal higher education aid. Republicans say the bill will destroy the private student-lending market.”
Taxpayer, do you realize that the expression ‘Obamacare’ does exactly what you are imploring us not to do? I feel it is inflammatory. I will live to fight another day. However, perhhaps that is all it will take to push some winger, to quote bill the dog catcher, over the edge.
How is ObamaCare inflammatory? He’s the one pushing it and touting its wonderfulness. The label reminds everybody who gets the…..credit. If it was highly welcomed, the word would be on the letterhead. It is the responsibility of the majority to protect the rights and interests, if only by a hearing. The Democrats did nothing of the sort. Their attitude was, “we won. Get used to it.”
Politics in America is increasingly becoming a winner take all war. Our government has overreached into so many areas that society is incapable of everyday life without some sort of federal law or regulation affecting it. That is not what the Founders envisioned. If the power/influence of the Federal gov’t was lessened, political battles would become more civilized. When the election of one politician over another means that huge portions of previously private enterprise are taken over by the government, we have a problem.
protect the rights and interests of the minority, oops,
Because it is said pejoratively. Show me one person who thinks it is ok that it passed who calls it ‘Obamacare.’
But you knew that…;)
Cargo, you think the winner takes all started with this past elelction in 2008?
Not sure I disagree with you but it isnt a new concept and it didn’t start with the Obama election. Not by a long shot. I see some high water marks as I look back that clearly explain some severe animosity.
Moon, no I think that it has progressively gotten to be a winner take all situation. Each year that the federal government gets more intrusive, more power is centralized and the elections matter more. Its not just this administration. I think that the last administration that did not encourage this was Eisenhower with Reagan as a minor reinforcement.
Maybe Eisenhower. REagan was just as bad as the others and certainly grew the government and the income taxes.
It was the nature of the growth. And don’t forget, the Democratic Congress did the growing. Reagan wanted spending cuts. But, his priority was the rebuilding of the military and the roll back of communism, so, he did not veto the bills.
How did Reagan grow the income tax by dropping it?
So, if our goal is to reduce this problem, shouldn’t we start kicking some of these guys out?
I actually don’t know. Every time we have taxes done I get told that whatever it is came in under Reagan. We get pinched by it all the time, even now. And Mr. H and I both voted for him. Well, me once.
Reagan was good at making people feel good about themselves and their country, even if he was acting.
Moon, I was once privileged to have a vantage point which allowed me to see personally what kind of man Ronald Reagan really was. It is my considered opinion from that experience that this man cared far more about all of us than he did about his own legacy and place in history. You can never convince me that he was only acting.
Religion enables this kind of behavior.
Another view better stated than I could. Overall my sense is that this is not over yet. Remember how awfull everyone felt when Texas “rescued” some 400 children. There has only been like one indictment and all – all – the children returned to their parents. It takes time to sort these things out.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/31/enemies-of-the-state/
I don’t know if he was acting or not when he spoke to the American people. I think all of them are, in some ways. But Reagan did have that knack to make people feel good no matter what else was going on.
I will never feel good about what is happening to those FLDS kids. They are Stockholm syndrom in many respects. The real cruelty is done to the boys. They are basically turned into veal. I mean how many bulls are needed?