A Vicious Report and A Just Comeback

Anyone who knows me, knows I'm a pretty calm, un-irate kind of guy. "Mellow" seems like a good word. Not a lot gets under my skin. However, "mellow" does not translate well into Weblog World; too much back and forth without clearly-defined opinions and stances on issues can seem wishy-washy in print. And since I have no intention of appearing in that manner, I have decided to only write about subjects that have thoroughly worked their way beneath the outer layer of flesh.

That said, I want to step down from the federal-level issues of my last post, and look at a state-level issue I find of interest. I'm sure most everyone has heard of it by now: "The Modern Militia Movement" report issued by the Missouri Information Analysis Center and the Missouri State Highway Patrol.

I know the report was issued February 20, so this isn't exactly breaking news or anything. In fact, MSHP has halted distribution entirely. So why do I feel the need to comment on this at all? Well, no one would even accuse me of being entirely "normal."

Before I get into the thing, I want to make perfectly clear that I support law enforcement agencies being up-to-date on potential threats and being knowledgeable of extremist activities. Domestic terrorism is really almost worse than foreign terrorism; a house divided cannot stand. (Plus, it seems like people on the inside would find it easier to disappear than someone who has to come to our country, blow something up, wreak a little havoc, and then try to escape.)

But even in that light, I (and many others) find this specific report to contain ludicrous statements and borderline-heinous assertions.

In addition, there's that fact that our Missouri Governor, Jay Nixon, claims no one in his administration or in the MSHP or in the Department of Public Safety even reviewed the report. But, of course, Highway Patrol Superintendent Col. James Keathley and Missouri Public Safety Director John Britt plan to review all future reports. That makes me feel good; knowing they'll be reviewing their own reports "in the future." It makes the world seem so much brighter, doesn't it? I could digress further, but I shall restrain.

Anyway, the first issue I want to look at is this: A lot of people have complained and criticized this report for being completely biased toward "right-wing conservatives" and not mentioning any forms of militant left-wing anti-war groups (note the irony), or other domestic threats from extremists on the far left, of which I'm sure there are many. There was also no mention whatever of domestic terrorist groups beyond the radical skinheaded WASPs. I guess we're lucky there are not any other terrorist-like groups in Missouri; if the militia group had been, say, Islamic extremists on domestic soil, cops would be losing their jobs right and left if they carried out the kind of profiling in this report!

Personally, I was able to look past that when I read the report, because I went into it thinking, "This report is supposed to be focused on right-wing extremism, it intentionally looks that way, and if the Missouri Information Analysis Center has any integrity they will soon produce a report on left-wing domestic terrorist traits and any known militant non-white activities."

(I doubt highly they really have that level of integrity, but it kept my head from exploding over the amount of one-sided bias in the report.)

And back to the "ludicrous statements and borderline-heinous assertions": If you look at page four, under "Ideologies," the first thing you'll find is "Christian Identity." Other than being a smack to the face of Christianity, it more or less implies that other extremist beliefs, such as Jews being the Satanic offspring of Eve and the Serpent or that non-whites are descendants of "mud people" created before Adam and Eve, are somehow part of the Christian belief system. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but that's what it looks like to me. And that sort of thing is insane. As in capital 'I' 'N' 'S' 'A' 'N' 'E'! As in padded room, straightjacket, take-his-shoelaces-for-fear-he-will-strangle-himself INSANE!

(At least, if you were to ask me, I'd probably disagree with the Eve + Serpent = Jewish people way of thinking. But I suppose we'll just have to turn the other cheek, as it were.)

On top of that, third-party members, supporters, and candidates have been peeved (to put it lightly) by an inclusion on the seventh page of the eight-page report. Under "Political Paraphernalia," there is the blatant statement that "Militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups. It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitutional (sic) Party, Campaign for Liberty, or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former Presidential Candidate: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr."

(You know, in light of the fact that to become a member of the Libertarian Party, one must "certify that (one does) not advocate the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals," it seems odd to say Bob Barr's supporters would be related to domestic violence and militia-style terrorism. I also seem to recall signs reading "Ron Paul REVOLUTION" with the "L" turned around and the "EVOL" highlighted to read "LOVE" in the word "REVOLUTION." Now why would people highlighting "love" as opposed to "revolt" in their "revolution" be violent right-wing extremists? Hmm. Now, I don't know too much about the Constitution Party, which is not the "Constitutional" Party as in the report, but obviously neither do the authors of said report. Just a few points to ponder.)

Other paraphernalia listed in the report include the Gadsden Flag (the yellow flag with the coiled rattlesnake reading, "Don't Tread on Me"). While the Gadsden Flag, also known as the Hopkins' Flag, has become a symbol of rebellion since its debut as a emblem of colonial pride during the American Revolution, to make the assumption that anyone and everyone who uses that symbol is a militia member and potential domestic terrorist is nothing short of preposterous.

I came across an analysis in the Columbia Missourian April 6 (link: http://www.columbiamissourian.com/storie... that addresses several issues and also notes that the ACLU and GOP have finally found common ground in opposing this report.

A Washington-based ACLU policy counselor on national security issues, Michael German, said, "This is part of a national trend where intelligence reports are turning attention away from people who are actually doing bad things to people who are thinking thoughts that the government, for whatever reason, doesn't like."

Bully for you, German!

Here's how the report says the movement started: "Academics contend that female and minority empowerment in the 1970s and 1960s caused a blow to white male's sense of empowerment. This, combined with a sense of defeat from the Vietnam War, increased levels of immigration, and unemployment, spawned a paramilitary culture." It then goes on about Soldier of Fortune Magazine and Tom Clancy novels, which in all honesty probably didn't help (nothing against Tom Clancy or his books).

Some people have said this refers to Vietnam veterans. And while the report doesn't make a clear distinction, it shouldn't be referring to Vietnam vets, because as History.com says, "91 percent of Vietnam Veterans say they are glad they served; 74 percent said they would serve again even knowing the outcome; Vietnam Veterans are less likely to be in prison -- only 1/2 of one percent of Vietnam Veterans have been jailed for crimes; 97 percent were discharged under honorable conditions -- the same percentage of honorable discharges as ten years prior to Vietnam; 85 percent of Vietnam Veterans made a successful transition to civilian life; Vietnam Veterans' personal income exceeds that of our non-veteran age group by more than 18 percent; Vietnam Veterans have a lower unemployment rate than our non-vet age group."

Not every veteran of the Vietnam War ended up like John Rambo, okay?

So most likely it was people states-side who DIDN'T fight in the war at the time who felt defeated (even though technically, according to History.com, America did not lose the war, we simply pulled out), and since their unemployment rate is higher than that of veterans of the war, they felt they had to become some kind "American rebels," or whatever. Either that, or the sources of info for this report are off their academic rockers. But we'll give the benefit of the doubt on that issue.

So who did write the report? Well, the Southern Poverty Law Center, for one. The SPLC has a smoldering reputation of being extremely anti-white in their fight against racism (notice the irony once again). Upon close examination and comparison, one can also make a clear connection between info from the Anti-Defamation League's website and merely reworded paragraphs in the report itself. Coincidence? I think not.

The SPLC and ADL are in fact political organizations, with stated political goals and agendas that are contrary to the candidates, political parties, and millions of Americans targeted in the report. And as William Gheen of ALIPAC said, "In the past, these groups have served a helpful role in America by providing information about racist and potentially violent groups like the KKK and Neo Nazis. Unfortunately, their mission has drifted into political efforts to paint almost any American or group who opposes their broader political agendas as being associated with racist or potentially violent groups ..."

Bully for you, too, Gheen!

So by now, I'm sure everyone is about tired of this lengthy rant, so in summery: If the criteria in this report were applied to me, I (a moderate political centrist and racial equalitist) could be considered a hard-right leaning, Jew-hating, crazy third-party supporting, tax system-abhorring, inward-skinhead white freak. Which I am not; have never been; and will never be. And therein lies the fault of The Modern Militia Movement report.

Here's the best link I could find to a digital copy of the report (but it takes a while to load): http://www.thefalseoswalds.com/wp-conten....

Hoka Hay!