An AP article claims “Militia movement resurfaces across U.S.” (link here; though this story differs from the one I read in the San Jose Mercury News).
How did they come to this frightening view? They were told it was so via a press release (devices which save reporting time) generated by Political Research Associates, a group whose tag line is “Researching the Right for Progressive Changemakers.”
Presumably, “Changemakers” are those graduates of left-wing gender or ethnic “studies” programs that you see working at, inter alia, Taco Bell.
Anyway, the PRA publishes a journal called Public Eye, in which you can find such revelatory articles about how the Catholic Church is getting “meaner”, or how American Christians are influencing African preachers who then go on to protest “LGBT equality.” Another study argues that public anti-union sentiment is due to “corporate repression of workers.” Or something. Ho hum; just what you’d expect from a “progressive” organization.
I was unable to discover on their site the report that claimed that militias are growing in frighteningness, and so must rely on the AP version of the story.
To be clear: many militia members are nutty and over the edge, and support paranoid and loony conspiracy theories—a little like the PRA, perhaps, except that militias are armed and potentially dangerous. To be clearer: I do not support these militias.
What bothers me is the implication in the AP story that the “growth” in the number of militias (they could only point to one a two-man team in Alaksa; but never mind) is because of (1) racism, (2) a Democrat president, and (3) like in the 1990s “Veterans were returning from the Persian Gulf War.”
PRA claims that Obama’s election (which combines points 1 and 2) has been “harnessed” as a “recruiting tool.” Maybe that’s so for a few men especially close to the limits of sanity, but I would guess that the rotten economy has more to do with any actual increase in militia numbers. That is, if that increase is genuine.
Few numbers are provided to support the theory that there is an actual growth in militias. We hear that one “civil rights organization” tallied a few new groups in the USA. But they never told us how many old militias disbanded, an occurrence that must be commonplace. Nor do we ever learn the absolute number of people involved. All we are left with the vague nervousness of PRA’s connect-the-dots guesses.
But stuff them (I’d use more colorful language if this weren’t a family blog) for hauling out the discredited leftist party line that all veterans are ready-to-snap time bombs. “Stay away from him, Joey! He’s a veteran and will almost certainly join a militia!”
We’re all supposed to have terrible nightmares from which we wake shaking and sweaty. We smile at our neighbors during daylight, but in the dark we start at loud noises which bring on our “flashbacks”. These, in turn, generate our popular murderous rages. Just see any non-John-Wayne-starring-post-1960 Hollywood movie and you’ll get the idea.
When I see this kind of thing, it makes me so mad that I am ready to take up arms and act like I am expected to.
Which, when you contemplate it, is not a bad idea. The “progressives” would get the pleasure of confirming that all those who served their country are renegades, and I get the pleasure of slapping them silly.
It’s a win-win situation.
Militias are protected by the 2nd Amendment, and current US law, however.
I’ll hold your coat!
Richard,
True. Just as I do not support them, I do not seek to outlaw them.
Perhaps, it’s time that Glenn Beck let his audience know what he is saying is mostly fiction.
yall look up the definition
of militia
“The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms”.
i dont see anything threatening about that
ret Navy Chief
3 tour nam vet (swiftboats)
JH,
I’ve seen Beck’s show a little under three times. On two of those occasions he wept. Since I am an emotional guy, this caused me to reach for the tissue box. I haven’t watched since.
John Stevens,
Yes, sir. That is the dictionary definition, and there is nothing threatening about it. There are some kooks out there, however, who aren’t equipped with dictionaries. Anyway, most militia members—I’m guessing—are perfectly reasonable and non-frightening.
Matt,
As a video gamer, it’s kind of nice to know that I’m not the only threat to American security. I mean, I’m just as much a ticking time bomb as you are, if the news media is to be believed.
You might want to avoid the new movie “Brothers”
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/11/30/prior-to-release-brothers-director-blames-americas-state-of-denial-for-flop/
just the trailer was enough to tick me off
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLlpabVRnyc
Matt sez: “The “progressives†would get the pleasure of confirming that all those who served their country are renegades, and I get the pleasure of slapping them silly. It’s a win-win situation.”
Aren’t “progressives” big on “victimhood”? If so, the situation should be “win-win-win”. Go for it, professor. They’ll love you all the more once the pain subsides.
Come to think of it, you’ve got it all wrong.
Liberals would never work at Taco Bell. Especially not changemakers. They’re at classier establishments. Like Starbucks, or Barnes and Noble.
What you’re saying is: an apocryphal tale was fabricated by loony neo-Marxist hate-and-fear mongers and then broadcast by the Associated Press as real news. Your first reaction is to smack around the loons, which is understandable and even admirable, but I sense no animosity for the AP.
Which group is the most dangerous? Which one can actually do you and your community real harm?