Thoughts on the "threat" of tyranny

In the gun control debate, opponents of gun control often justify ownership of assault weapons in the name of self preservation in the rare chance that the government becomes tyrannical and oppressive. They believe that in order to stand up in the face of tyranny, they must have firepower strong enough to fire back against the military forces that would impose tyrannical rule. However, that hypothetical scenario has some serious flaws, flaws where the reality of the military and our government are in direct conflict with the idea of liberal tyranny.

There are two key features of this scenario which simply do not add up, but seldom will you hear anyone discuss either one because the gun control debate never has a chance to evolve beyond simple sparring. The first is that I firmly believe an American conservative government is more likely to impose tyrannical rule by force than a liberal government. The second point to make is that, should the government use its arm of the military to impose its rule, one has to remember that those who belong to the US military are often conservative.

The first point is the more important one to understand. I concede that a liberal government is equally prone to tyranny by way of legislation as a conservative government might be. In that instance, I would urge you to proceed to the second point I've made. Still, in terms of what we are faced with right now, the Republican party has been hijacked by gun-toting religious fanatics. The militaristic nature of the Republican party alone validates my claim that they are more likely to impose tyrannical rule than Democratic leaders. The funding for the military is more likely to increase under a Republican administration. If anything, a liberal administration would weaken the US military force (if you listen to any conservative talk radio pundit). As a liberal, I should be more afraid of tyranny via Republican rule than Democratic rule. Religion is a powerful player in government all around the world. From Iran to Saudi Arabia, oppressive regimes rely upon religious doctrine to control the population within their boundaries. If a religious movement comes about, it will be of the conservative ilk, not liberal.

The second point, then, is to realize the members of our military are heavily invested in conservative politics. Go to any veteran or currently enlisted member of our military. Ask them if, when ordered to fire upon their fellow American citizens, would they follow those orders or resist?

Then, as a liberal, I have to ask whether I should be more worried about a conservative member of the military shooting me or if a conservative should be more worried about a conservative member of the military firing up on them. Given the rhetoric present in our current political environment, I strongly feel that the threatening language present on the Right would motivate a conservative marine to off me without a second thought, whereas a conservative marine would be sympathetic to a fellow conservative and refuse the order to shoot. Do you see now how a conservative administration is more likely to impose tyrannical physical force upon the populace?

Almost instantly, arguments related to that last question would soon devolve into tangents about how the government has used the military and the FBI to attack certain groups at home. One such example would be the Waco siege in Waco, Texas. What that argument fails to recognize is, the group in question was led by a crazy person. If you are identified as a threat to our security, yes, you very well could face a military force at your doorstep. If you think that the military is going to attack your Constitutional right to organize, then perhaps the organizing you are planning is a tad on the crazy side. You might just be a threat to our way of life at this very moment if your level of paranoia makes that much sense to you.

But if you follow the current conversation over secession, or worse yet, revolution, you will find that rednecks will put down their uniforms and loyalties to the President of the United States and cross the battle lines to fight on behalf of their brothers.

So what I'm saying is, even if tyrannical rule were to be imposed, the safeguard is built in by your own political brethren who serve in the military. You should be more worried that your own elected officials are plotting to impose rigid tyranny. If you want to continue arguing that the Obama administration is tyrannical in its proposed legislation, again, I will refer you to point #2. Your arsenal will be of little necessity since conservatives in the military aren't going to shoot fellow conservatives. You don't need an assault rifle to defend against a military force because you hold much of the military force already.

But paranoia like yours prevents us from having a serious discussion about gun control. We have to entertain arguments like what I just described just to nudge the door of conversation open. We have to entertain ludicrous hypotheticals to simply move on to propose limitations like background checks, mental health restrictions on firearms, and access to firearms that were designed for military use, not civilian protection or recreation. No serious debate can be had until you move beyond these two paranoid delusions I have just discussed above.

The Problem With Leaders: OWS

The Occupy Wall Street movement has acquired a significant amount of attention over the past few weeks, but the most common criticism, perhaps improperly applied, has been that the movement lacks a cohesiveness. There are no prominent leaders or big names which come to mind when you think of OWS. The question then, is, should OWS have a leader or leaders?

At first glance, the obvious answer would be Yes. Creating a figurehead to lead the movement would silence the critics who have demanded clarity in the OWS movement. It would be an easy fix.

Or would it?

You see, just like any other movement which originates on the Left, no amount of positioning, messaging, or symbolism will appease the critics, especially those on the Right. Asking for leaders to rise up out of OWS is simply one more straw man argument in a long line of straw men. No matter what OWS does, the media critics and the Right Wing Machine will stop at nothing to delegitimize OWS. At least those of us on the Left gave credence to the Tea Party, even if we did criticize them. We accepted their complaint that the federal government was broken. We accepted that government spending was out of control. We just didn't agree on the solutions.

OWS has not been provided the same courtesy, nor will it.

Established leaders in the OWS movement will become nothing more than lightning rods, people faced with an onslaught of insults and dismissal, the likes of which have been illustrated in Right Wing responses to Elizabeth Warren, Rachel Maddow, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and yes, Barack Obama. Mention unions to a right winger and watch how fast they choose to ramble on and on about how evil they are. OWS will evoke the same response. The lazy/welfare/hippie stigma is applied to anything on the Left as a way to invigorate the Right Wing base. It's almost as common as their idea that tax cuts will fix everything. Conservatives only know how to think in those two terms. They won't deviate from the flock. It is better to keep OWS decentralized and broad based than to put someone in charge. As long as OWS remains broad, it will be symbolic of the American people, not "liberal" as used in the derogatory sense.

After all, the Right Wing pundits have to feed their dogs frothing at the mouth somehow, right?

The Childish Behavior Extends Beyond Congress

One of the things that is bothering me right now about the debt ceiling debate is not that we are at an impasse at the level of the Federal Government, but that we are regularly at odds across America. Right now, every news outlet is playing up the idea that Obama and Boehner are behaving like children. They even bring in reasonably sounding Americans to chastise the bickering. At face value, it looks as though the problem is with government. Americans recognize that the rest of the world is looking at us and shaking their heads.

But that's not entirely true. Reasonable Americans are not commenting about this stuff in forums. They aren't talking about this reasonably on Facebook. They can't bring it up on Craigslist without being flagged. The ideology is a systemic problem at the voter level. As I've said before, the inability to compromise is not a symptom of government, but a result of our own inabilities to compromise. The American people are turned against each other right now.

I don't think I can name one conservative leaning person last night who didn't piss and moan about Obama blaming Bush so early in his speech. Their heads exploded all over the internet with blame that was deserved.

I don't think I saw one conservative on the internet say we should raise the debt ceiling.

I saw many throwing out the talking point that the rich pay most of the tax revenue in this country.

I mean, people...come on. You're regurgitating the same thing over and over again. The problem isn't Boehner. The problem isn't Obama.

It's us.

We cannot come together to compromise. I cannot have a conversation with a conservative anymore. It goes nowhere. It's the same argument day in and day out. It always ends in the same place. All the same things keep being said. It's almost like clockwork. We are at an impasse at the national level because we refuse to compromise at the local level.

Blame yourselves. It's our fault. We're the children. There are no more compromising conservatives anymore. That's what needs to be fixed.

How do you feel about the Koch brothers?

If there's one incongruent thought floating around out there in conservative voter's minds, it's that while politicians are all the same, governed by private interests and corrupt money, when it's a Republican politician receiving the boost, it's okay. Yes, it's an extension of the IOKIYAR problem. In order to remain consistent, one would have to be opposed to corporate influence on the political process.

So here's my question and I'm asking it only to conservative voters.

What is your opinion of the Koch brothers?

Are you proud of them? Do they just belong to your "stick it to liberals" club? Are you okay with their money influencing your candidate just because you want your candidate to stick it to any and every liberal out there?

Or do you find their influence to be equally deplorable? How do you feel knowing that your candidate is not chosen by voters, but bought?

Let me know. I'd be curious to see just how angry you are at government corruption. After all, the Tea Party is nothing more than a Koch brothers' production. This isn't about unions. This isn't about Democrats. This is about your personal ethical standards by which you choose to live by. This is about what it is you are willing to support and what you refuse to put up with as a voter in America.

Why secession no longer equates to leaving

Via a podcast download, I am currently watching Rachel Maddow from 4/12/2011. At this moment in the show, Rachel is covering secession, the Civil War, and state sovereignty. Like many liberal pundits, what Rachel fails to see is the reality behind the words being used by Conservatives. As a rational person, it makes sense to her that when Texans scream for secession, we should see it as a sign that these Texans want to leave the United States of America. What I must do in this post, however, is to introduce the idea that something else is going on that has nothing to do with the old world meaning of secession and more to do with the Confederacy which no longer resides "in the attic."

I won't delay my point until the end. Let's get right into it. When Rick Perry talks about secession, he speaks to a population of people. When Georgia, South Carolina, and Kentucky all propose laws which nullify anything issued by the U.S. Federal Government, they are collectively sending a message to the rest of us. This is not about leaving. This is about retaking the country. This is the South rising again. I have covered this multiple times in previous posts, but I've been ignored, predictably so, because my blog does not represent a much needed wider epiphany on the Left, and to a lesser extent, the Right.

These states are unified. They speak in one voice, not individual voices. The real irony is, they clamor for individualism, but speak as a collective group.

So while Rachel Maddow is spot on when pointing out how serious considerations regarding secession include loss of military protection, loss of Social Security, loss of financial funding from the Fed, and the risk that comes with going it alone, the reality she will not approach is this idea that collectively, these states will align themselves, essentially forming a new nation that likely resembles the old North/South paradigm, if not all out domination of the entire United States.

This is not about leaving. This is one group ready to take control of the entire country. It's the 2004 and 2008 election rhetoric come to life. There are two Americas. It's the flyover state angst. It's the middle America angst. It's the racism that is no longer under wraps.

In 2000, when George W. Bush was appointed President by the Supreme Court, that same morning, a wave of fear, apathy, and shame overwhelmed me. That morning, I predicted hard times, a situation we are currently enduring. In 2004, with his election, a new prediction was made. I said we were on the verge of a second civil war, although the term "civil war" may be inappropriate by definition. In the symbolic sense, it is fitting and serves to highlight what it is I'm afraid awaits America's immediate future.

So while my previous post has concerns over big business and the arrival of a fascist state, the alternative that I am much more afraid of is where the blood does indeed refresh a tree, but it won't be a tree of liberty. Blood could be spilled, our nation left in ruins. The reality is, this future will drive this nation into the ground and we will likely never recover from such a disaster of ideas.

Cash is King - The Paladino Trend

I don't know a whole hell of a lot about New York politics, but I probably know just as much as you do about the race for governor in New York thanks to very basic news coverage. What has me perplexed is how anger has supported a character which represents the same corrupt structure they are angry with. Voters are specifically angry with lobbying special interests, greedy politicians, and money grubbing dirtbags.

Well, Paladino is a rich dirtbag.

Why support him? I know you're angry, but why pick that guy? Pick someone better.

I am seeing this across the country at all levels of government. People are angry with the elected officials who presently hold office, but the challengers are all spread out among wackjobs, well financed campaigns, and less than kosher souls even Bernie Madoff could win against in a popularity poll. That isn't going to result in change. I don't see how it could. Replace one dirtbag with another dirtbag? You've got to be kidding.

People demand common sense politicians. Where is our common sense? Where is the real outrage? What I am seeing is a bandwagon that rides on anger, but is fed by money. You're a Tea Party candidate, yet you're not an every day man or woman. You aren't an every day American. You're either someone who upholds fringe beliefs, works the system, or makes a hell of a lot of money in the process.

So where are the noble challengers? If you're tired of spending and corruption, don't replace one asshole for another. That doesn't make any sense. People are still voting with a lesser than two evils mentality when what we need are more good men and women running for office.

At the local level, there are small time campaigns with individuals scrapping at each other in the name of revenge, not for building up a community. Local residents know these candidates have dirty pasts, yet they fully support them. I can cite the election going on in Camden, Arkansas as an example. Everyone in that town should know that Stan Kendall has a questionable past as a dirty cop and even more unsavory pastimes prior to his career. Dirty. Chris Claybaker is also no angel and critics throw many of the same unsatisfied remarks in his direction. Only recently has a slightly more noble candidate appeared on the ballot, a local reporter by the name of Ed Parham. While Parham might have a reputation as a gossip reporter in some instances, he certainly has more of a reputable history and could definitely turn a crap town around. This is but one example, but I'm sure there are towns all across American where voters are picking sides and playing favorites, not voting for the betterment of their community. The dangerous alternative is to pick a candidate who holds crazy ideals simply because you don't like the other two main stream candidates (And Parham did hold some wacko beliefs).

David Vitter is still a viable candidate here in Louisiana. Why is that? Faith. Sure, he loves himself a good hooker, but he's a Republican Christian, so he's the lesser of two evils...and he's the only one running with an R on his sleeve. His challengers didn't survive.

I stand by my belief that government is not the root of the problem. We are. Our elected officials really do represent us. They mirror the dirty people who put them in office. We don't demand more from them, so they only put in the least amount of effort so we don't complain. You want change? Start with yourselves and work your way to the top. Otherwise, you'll just keep getting more of the same. Anyone who thinks otherwise is only in this to say their side won.

Fuck sides, man. What we need here is a little solidarity against big money.

Oust the Blue Dogs

There are two things I am fed up with in the Democratic Party. Both involve our elected officials. The first is that predominant Dems in power are wishy washy pansies. The second is that conservative Democrats, the Blue Dogs, do not vote party line when it matters. The argument against Democrats this year is that we hold the power. We could pass whatever we wanted. Those are two big arguments against us this election season. Unfortunately, we just don't have any solidarity like Republicans do. There is too much individuality within the Democratic Party. We need to get rid of some dead weight.

While I admit it is a good point to argue against rank and file conservatives by saying our tent covers people who may not agree and vote as a matter of principle over party line, times are dire right now. Things need to get done. Don't Ask Don't Tell is on the table and it may get botched up because of one vote, a Republican from Maine. The health care debate was screwed up by conservadems like Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu. Dems can whine all they want about Republican obstructionists and they'd be right, but our own house needs to get cleaned out too. The notion of an inclusive tent is a ruse and only serves as eye candy so those on the Left can have a talking point. Blue Dogs do not represent us. They are not liberals. They are moderates with problematic conservative stances.

On the flip side, Democratic voters tend to vote their conscience in addition to being party line. For instance, it's usually nothing for a staunch Democrat to cast a protest vote. Democrats are likely going to struggle this fall, so the last thing Democratic elected officials will want to do is piss off voters who have no qualms over voting someone out for being a douchebag who can't get DADT and other key agenda items through Congress. Just like the Tea Party, if you don't vote for what we want, we will get rid of you. We should be doing this to all of the Blue Dogs. Oust them so we can get some work done. On both fiscal and social issues, they are seldom progressive at all. They might as well be Republicans.

Blue Dogs are naively considered the compromising souls between the Left and the Right. Unfortunately, our system does not work under the notion of compromise and legislation winds up getting watered down into ineffectual nothingness or becomes ushered into the wasteland that is a bill that goes nowhere at all. Conservadems are right in the middle of this mess, but in terms of ideas, they should not be considered moderate. Oddly enough, conservative groups run slanderous campaign ads touting most Blue Dogs as Leftists when they are nothing of the sort. Their records show us this much.

If the Tea Party can put the screws to the GOP, surely liberal voters can hang conservative Democrats out to dry. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Tim Kaine, and yes, even Barack Obama can all start cracking some skulls. We cannot rely on moderate Republicans to vote in our favor. The Republican leadership has them on a short leash. On the Left, there is no leash. We need to crack the whip and then strap a choker chain on some of these Democrats. If they don't want to be chained, suggest to them that they should retire their political career so we may vote in someone new.

America, where we do not learn from our mistakes.

Part of the problem I have with the Left-leaning main stream media is the disconnect it has with the goings-on among the real Right-wing electorate. When pundits sit at their desks discussing the power struggles going on in this country right now, they direct most of their focus at the elected officials who wear an R on their sleeve. The Left-leaning media does not hone in on their supporters. These pundits put things in context of an America which does not want to dive back into the ditch of the Bush years. A vote to the Right in the mid-term elections most likely will send us back into the old habits which got us into our present predicament to begin with.

The notion that we know where the mistakes were made cannot be any clearer. Those of us in the Center and on the Left seem to find solace in that ever popular quote, "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." It's a good soundbyte. It does make sense. The problem is, the real world doesn't think that way, especially if the eyes looking out on the world are firmly planted in the head of someone Right-leaning. There is an alternate universe with a skewed version of reality chomping at the bit, hungry for control of this country.

Pundits need to take a vacation. They need to spend some time living in disguise among the entrenched Right wing zealots. Shreveport is just such a place, as is East Texas. I say, pack your bags and come on over here. You'll be shocked at what you learn after only a day or two among these southerners.

They do want the Bush years back and it has nothing to do with paying attention to the mistakes of the past. The mistakes are forgivable in their mind. Why? Because it fed into their paranoia. They could sleep at night knowing there was someone in the White House who wanted to kick some ass and who wouldn't let some Liberal pantywaist bring homosexuals into their churches and blacks into their neighborhoods. For them, our strength lies in our military, not our populace or our resilience. W gave them the out of sight, out of mind comfort. On top of all of that, the angst right now is deeply associated with the loss of an election, stirring up emotions only seen when two college football teams face off in the Southeastern Conference. They don't have the cajones to stand up against the corporate corruption and greed ruining our communities. They would rather have a job that kills them from the inside out than a government who fights for them to make the workplace safer and holds big business accountable for their misgivings. Our Left-leaning media does not know this group of people all that well. Unfortunately, I'm living among these kinds of people, distraught at the notion that I am living in some sort of personal Hell. We need to stomp these people out and shout them down the same way they go about handling us. The fight is on and we need to step up our efforts.

So while it might sound nice to be optimistic about the Democratic agenda and our success in previous elections, it has no bearing on what this country really wants, even if they want to drive us into a wall. It's a wishy washy way of thinking. The gloves need to come off. Barack Obama said it best in his speech the other day when he endorsed Harry Reid.

"We know how the movie ends when the other party is in charge. You don't have to guess how they'll govern, because we're still living with the damage from the last time they were governing...and they are still singing from the same hymnal. They haven't changed. They want to do the same stuff."

Unfortunately, Barack Obama still has faith in the American people. I do not. He thinks that Americans know that the policies of the previous administration will be remembered. He needs to recognize that the dialogue has been hijacked by the Tea Party and the spin has already begun on history barely even old enough to grow mold yet.

But even his quote targets elected officials and not the electorate. Don't get distracted, folks. We are up against more than a few idiots advocating chickens in exchange for health care and making lemonade out of children born out of incest. Their followers spew the same crap. We are up against the threat of idiocracy.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

And repeat we shall.

Again and again.

Until we learn our lesson.

Or until we poison ourselves and our planet in the name of our own selfish interests.

But by then, it's probably going to be too late.

Hitler, Fascism, Extremism, and How it All Started on the Right

The dialogue present in today's politics among the people, not our elected officials, is that of a divided finger-pointing banter aimed at advancing opinions of oneself and not of historical fact. While I admit at face value, the title of this post can be seen as unbalanced finger-pointing aimed at continuing the nonsense, I would ask readers to indulge me for just a moment out of the spirit of listening, not waiting for me to finish talking so you can interject the thoughts welling up inside of your head. Take ten deep breaths and continue reading.

When journalists these days talk about all the extremism and violent rhetoric on the Right, "true conservatives," "patriots," and the tea party ilk have one very common response that comes in a few different flavors.

The Democrats did it first.
The Democrats do it too.
The Democrats are a bunch of hypocrites.

While the second on that list might be true and violent behavior most certainly has been exhibited by groups on the Left, Democratic party leaders have not stood out in front of said groups, egging them on to elevate their own ideals. The lines on the Right between activist and politician have been blurred. Democrats have kept a clear separation between their own statements on the Hill and the protesters down below. Only media outlets and talking heads on the Right attempt to merge the two. Just because some on the Left resort to violence certainly does not excuse anyone else to do the same. I openly criticize violent actions, regardless of the cause.

However, if it were true that Obama, for instance, were a radical, I would not condone it. I know that wingnuts will cling to things like Ayers and Obama at this point, claiming close ties, but that simply isn't true. Google the terms Factcheck, Obama, and Ayers. Let's move on beyond the obvious stalemate to the real meat and potatoes. Distraction is their game, no matter how much they believe themselves to be true and those people cannot be reasoned with. They need to face that lots of misinformation has been flat out debunked. Move on to the next topic already.

But Hitler comparisons? Do you realize where the accusations of Fascism, Communism, and Socialism originated?

The exchange over Hitler and Fascism did not originate with Democrats. The sentiment originated on the Right and the defensive posturing explaining the absurdity was situated on the Left.

Go back to before Obama was elected. Go back to the Bush years (No, this isn't about blaming Bush). Look at some of the book titles that were circulating at the time. Several compared Liberalism to Fascism. On discussion boards, Right-leaning individuals opened up the flood gates by calling Liberals Fascists and Socialists at the same time. Astute Liberals on these forums stepped up to point out the idiocy in such a comparison.

Pick one, but they can't be both.

Followed by...

History lessons on Hitler, Mussolini, Fascism, and Socialism.

Followed by...

If you really want to see Fascism and Hitler like behavior, look at some of the Bush policies, the Religious Right, and the notion that if you don't like America, you can leave it. Nationalism. Blind patriotism. Corporate control.

These were defensive comments against an already implied statement that Fascism (read Hitler) and Socialism (read Mussolini) were all Liberally held tenets, not the other way around. I'm not denying that Liberals used the Hitler comparison. What talking heads on the Right fail to disclose is the timeline and series of events which lead to these comments. Those on the Right were directly comparing Liberals to Fascists and Socialists. You can't talk about either without understanding Hitler and Mussolini.

No. I'm afraid the stones being thrown over Hitler and Fascism came from the Right, not the Left. Only the keen eye accustomed to reading how debates arise will be able to spot it. I suspect wingnuts who go back to read the exchanges will see only what they wish to see and not the text in black and white on the page of their web browser.

And therein lies the real problem.

One group is compromising and living in reality. The other is uncompromising and living in some world of magical thinking. One side recognizes a difference between what you hope will happen and what will actually happen. Nuance is something only those on the Left seem to understand. Nuance is scoffed at by those on the Right.

We will never again see reasonable debate and that is unfortunate for this country. We are on the down and out. It was nice knowing you. The arguments used by the Left for so many years are now being incorrectly employed by those on the Right to project an unrealistic series of events leading up to what we are facing today. We can't fix our country if we botch up the story like a bad game of telephone. Sad, indeed.

I hate to say it, but as a Liberal, I fail to see any benefit from indulging ideas from those on the Right spewing vitriol, favoring those who are ready to work to get things done and casting aside those who would prefer to mangle everything in sight.

...At least for the time being. Once we get back on track, maybe we can start talking again. I welcome that day, but I do not see it happening. There is no arena of ideas when misinformation dictates half of the public opinion. When Democrats are no longer considered legitimate leaders by those on the Right, those on the Left will question the legitimacy of ideals held by those who stand on the Right.

Our best option is to put our ideas and laws into place and watch them succeed just to show the nuts that they were wrong. We cannot continue to argue over matters of reality and imagination. Put common sense back in the hands of those who actually have it and not those who toss the term around in a stump speech to win votes and support.

Welcome Back, Domestic Terrorism

Joseph A. Stack flew 25 miles to an IRS building off of I-83 this morning. He then dove straight into it, Stack, the only death so far. Investigators are still searching for more casualties. Associated with the tragedy was an approximately 3000 word manifesto expressing his thought process for such an act along with the events which lead to his decision.

He repeatedly edited and finally posted a 3000 word manifesto leading up to this morning's disaster. The letter, a rant about taxes and the government, spurred from years of hassles with the IRS. Unfortunately, the language in the document was more than your basic gripe about the IRS.

"Desperate times call for desperate measures."

Desperation and anger sums it up. That is the disturbed paranoia on the Right which has triggered some to consider behaving violently. To deny the existence of such an element is to deny the serious nature of the accusations anti-government groups have made. Those accusations are not without consequence.

The strange part in the tirade was that I could not pin down which side of the fence the guy sat on. Much of his suicide note is obviously anti-government and anti-taxes, yet at the end of the document, he invokes Communism. The letter is peppered with Tea Party style language and other phrases which hint he leans more Right than Left. Strange, indeed. But we should not attempt to rationalize the ravings of a lunatic.

Moments after his name surfaced, Tea Party enthusiasts jumped at the opportunity to use the attack on the IRS to elevate their own anti-government position. The real question to ask then is, will Tea Partyers mistakenly take this act of violence as a green light to take action against the government in a violent manner themselves?

What troubles me even more is how Tea Party supporters and Limbaugh/Beck listeners will sympathize with this man. These same people call critics of the war terrorist sympathizers. I'm sure they feel that this man's violent response represents a legitimate message being sent to the Obama administration. They will defend is insane suicide note as something that represents a growing source of frustration in this country. The problem is, there is no IRS squeeze being put on Joe Taxpayer. The notion has been manufactured and perpetuated via ideology and fear. The Obama administration cut taxes for people in this group.

What they won't say, however, is that the manifesto has clues which suggest Stack may have not been all that kosher when it came to his taxes. I'll get to that in a minute. First, let me focus on the Tea Party reaction to this act.

Search Twitter for Stack sympathizers. These are just some of the gems you'll find.

Mixed feelings? Main stream media misinformation? Well written and poignant manifesto? Tea Party martyr?

Some folks on the Right are even claiming Stack was a wacko from the Left. They claim to have read his manifesto, yet aside from a jab at George W. Bush and a small tirade about health care being a crisis, nothing about his manifesto stinks of straight Liberalism, only Tea Party anti-government angst. Those on the Right consider anyone who criticizes Dubya or our "wonderful" health care system a Leftist. Part of his manifesto actually hinted that he was possibly weaseling around tax laws in order to evade paying. See the part where he talks about tax law readings with neighbors and lawyers and the section where he had undocumented income. He made himself out to be a patriot of all things. Draping oneself in a flag definitely belongs in the Right corner, not the Left. He also made it relatively clear he had a negative impression of unions and of a Democratic politician, Patrick Moynihan. I would personally love to get my hands on some of the letters he claimed to have written to politicians in the past. Perhaps they might shed some light on his thought process and how this dreadful day came into fruition.

So let's give these sympathizers the benefit of the doubt and say Stack wasn't a member of the Tea Party movement. Take all his angst and make a list. All of it resembles things said at speeches during the Tea Party convention. Someone with anti-government angst focused against the IRS does not fit a Leftist profile at all. On the contrary, self proclaimed "true Conservatives" post this kind of nonsense on the net minute by minute. "No taxation without representation" is a tag line of the Tea Party movement, a quote elevated with some importance in the Stack manifesto. Tea Party jargon inadvertently justifies his state of psychosis.

What Tea Party folks need to realize is that their choice of words resonates with more than their own protesters. Talk of revolution and oppression by way of taxes speaks to these lone wolves with psychotic tendencies. It speaks to those carrying signs with swastikas on them and those who play the Socialism card far too often than is necessary. All of those signs we see at Tea Party protests are not the least bit light hearted. They have a clear message directed at a clear target. The Tea Party marks the target. The crazy ones use a scope and fire away. Then the Tea Party gets to act as though they aren't to blame.

Speaking out against the entire US government with vague complaints leaves the uninformed to come to their own ridiculous conclusions. You've fired up the wrong people and now we've suffered as a result. Time to tame your own followers. Time to keep your volatile language in check.

What is ironic is how things are looking to become a self fulfilling prophecy. What do I mean by that? The Tea Party movement and several wingnuts claim the US government will turn into a police state, the likes of which we haven't seen since Communist Russia. I don't think they realize that by advocating revolution and trigging men and women to wage attacks on US soil, they will actually justify actions which would police our freedom.

Some additional points:
He became a Texan, although it would appear he has roots in Pennsylvania. Texas does strange things to people. It's why I really try to avoid driving into Texas altogether. I do give him credit, however, for noticing the over-inflated ego present in Texans.

He complained about all this money lost, yet he had a small plane. Doesn't seem to be hurting that bad. Although it appears that in his younger years, hard times were upon him, real poverty and hard times, he knew not. Who among you owns a plane? Who among you facing hard times owns a web site? That also means he owns a computer and has a decent internet connection. If money is an issue, I certainly wouldn't be throwing it away on a plane and a hosted domain.

My final word:
If his message resonates with you, I am scared of you. I wonder if you will be the next to take your own life and possibly many innocent others. I worry that members of our military will act out in a similar fashion. B52's fly training exercises above the city I live in. Imagine what kind of disaster could ensue should one of our own who swore to defend this country drove a plane like that into the ground. I wonder if I will become a victim of your angst. A body count is nothing to be proud of. You really do terrify the rest of us. Whether you post at FreeRepublic, NewsMax, InfoWars, or any of the many other "Conservative" leaning sites, comments which endorse violence and sympathize with revolution need to be weeded out. Freedom of speech only gets you so far before you become a threat to the rest of society.

I should not fear for my own life on this scale. That is terrorism. Are you a threat? If your answer is yes, you deserve to be on the FBI watch list and no-fly list. It's not oppression or police state when we come after you. You seek to cause physical harm to fellow Americans. Nothing excuses that kind of behavior. Nothing.

This is your "revolution"? You've made Americans afraid again. The language you choose to use to speak to your audience has consequences. They are preparing to take desperate measures. Time to rein in your fringe and send a clear message that this is not the way to solve problems.

"And the South shall rise again"

The morning George W. Bush was announced as the winner of the 2000 election, the first words out of my mouth were "We're going to have hard times ahead of us." In addition, I said we were going to have a war and that it would not be pretty. After eight years, I can honestly say we were put on the path towards hard times and we are now in wars that have not been ideal, not that any war is, but that things were done half-assed. Somewhere in between his first term and his reelection, I was someone who said a civil war was coming. Along the same lines, I was also hinting at the saying those below the Mason Dixon line know all too well.

"The South will rise again."

Only in the last few years have we seen a glimpse of this trend on the national stage with any regularity. Now we are seeing a large movement with principles coming from the old ways of the South. I'm speaking, of course, of the current Republican Party, but the Tea Party movement has benefited from these sentiments more than any other faction of the Conservative base.

A few of these signs rest in plain sight. The voting pattern in the 2008 election which put Barack Obama in office clearly had a slant towards McCain in southern states. The overwhelming caucasian demographic of the Republican party is another trend hiding in plain sight.

Let me toss out a few more.

The Tea Party movement specifically refers to their organized approach as a revolution. In recent history, there have never been more threatening words towards our own government by a group of people this large. They feel that as a party and as a people, they are at war.

Along the same lines, members of this particular flavor of the Conservative base feel as though it is their duty to take "their" country back. Let's set aside the fact that the 2008 election was democratic in nature and Obama ended up in the White House as a result of this democratic system. Let's set aside the fact that Americans are Americans, whether they sit Left, Right, or Center. Let's even set aside the possibility that many want to "take their country back" from a black man (who isn't completely black, but a mixed-race individual). There exists the same sort of southern "us against them" mentality which was around at the time of the Civil War. This North vs South thing is evident in the language chosen by the Tea Party movement.

These people are clinging to old ways. Whether it's a religious thing pertaining to gay marriage or a cultural thing related to race, people in the Tea Party movement are clamoring to return to the 50's. Suggesting that the notion is ridiculous by way of a question is simply asking the wrong question. I'll give you the answer. Yes, they do want the 50's. Why? "Simpler times." To a small town local yokel, that kind of life resonates.

As discussed by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, a speaker at the Tea Party convention suggested having to pass a civil literacy test in order to be able to vote. Instead of granting the rights of all citizens in this great country to vote, a test of this nature has been used specifically to prohibit any black person from having a voice in any election. The test wasn't designed so that the uninformed were not allowed to vote, a notion admittedly present in the minds of many Liberals after W was elected when dumb shits were clearly to blame. While I understand the sentiment, that is not the nation of ideals we were founded on. The literacy test was designed as a form of selection, allowing certain people (white) to vote and others (black) denied. The suggestion to use a literacy test in any form is simply wrong.

The Secessionist movement, or perhaps simply the sentiment, is rooted in the same mentality of southern pride. Even the notion of "Big Government" is related to this idea that the South has this unspoken sovereign power to withstand the northern influence.

Even gun ownership has its own flavor of southern spice. There is a very apparent preparedness of gun toting rednecks to take up arms in some grand stand against the government. The only way you'd know about this sentiment is if you spend any time living in the South or take some time out of your day reading posts online by rednecks who own guns. They are under the impression that since Liberals are for gun control, it would be a quick battle since they, as rednecks, have all the guns. I'd hate to be the bearer of bad news, but gun owners come from many different backgrounds. I can shoot. Rachel Maddow can shoot. If you come shooting, rest assured, there will be people ready to shoot back.

Whether it's elite vs middle of the country, white vs minority (a statistic that will change soon given the growing hispanic population), redneck vs city folk, or Liberal vs Conservative, all show signs of the South rising again.

Anyone who lives outside of the South who enjoys their way of life should be afraid of this movement. Anyone supporting the Tea Party movement should make themselves aware of the language they choose to use among its followers. Such a violent sentiment will rip our nation apart and leave both our economy and infrastructure in ruins. While the Right has a very paranoid element to it, I admit that this post has a paranoid quality to it as well. I'm sad to say that the language on the Right is more pronounced than what you might think and the reality of a revolution in a violent form is a distinct possibility.