Free Speech or Inciting a Riot?

I've become increasingly disturbed by the chatter that's been floating around among the right wing hate mongers. Don't get me wrong here; their whacked out ideas and propaganda are truly laughable. What concerns me is the number of misguided-misinformed-head in the sand-pick your own label- folks out there who have or may buy into their bullshit. Does anybody recall a dude by the name of Timothy McVeigh? The "ideas" being tossed around by right wing pundits as of late are the very same "ideas" that McVeigh acted out upon when he destroyed the Alfred P Murrah building and ended the lives of innocent men, women, and children.

More recently, a disgruntled individual in Tennessee went on a rampage and burned down a church after being incited by the rants of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glen Beck. I tire of those who defend these blowhards, accusing myself and others of trying to silence free speech. I will stand beside them and defend their right to free speech, but I would also caution them that screaming "fire" in a crowded theater crosses a line from constitutional right into criminal activity.

Here's a taste of what these folks have been up to recently:

First up, from greenisthenewred.com, is roundhouse-kicked-in-the-head-too-many-times nutjob Chuck Norris. Good guys wear black, that's why we generally see Norris in any color but:

Chuck Norris says it may soon be time to violently overthrow the U.S. government, and he’s organizing “cells” around the country. In his column at the far-right WorldNetDaily, he cites the national debt, Obama administration, and a lack of religious values, as reasons for putting out his call to action:

How much more will Americans take? When will enough be enough? And, when that time comes, will our leaders finally listen or will history need to record a second American Revolution?

A popular viral urban legend has been circulating around the "internets" that purports to explain how strong and powerful Chuck Norris is via silly boasts. An example: "Chuck Norris's tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried." That one might be true, I could see him holding back his tears because "cancer patients need to suck it up and pull themselves up by their bootstraps"! Norris says that Texas will be leading the new revolution that he calls for; he quotes Sam Houston, he remembers the Alamo, he promises to “run for president of Texas,” and… wait, it keeps getting better! He says he and Fox’s Glenn Beck (who says the Obama administration will put conservatives in FEMA internment camps) have organized a telecast called “We Surround Them,” in which “thousands of cell groups will be united.”

And, from inside the beltway, comes the congresswoman from outside of reality, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Uranus). In response to legislation that she opposes, Bachmann compared Washington, D.C. to “enemy lines” and urged her supporters to become “armed and dangerous” and fight a “revolution” against cap and trade legislation:

BACHMANN: And really now in Washington, I’m a foreign correspondent in enemy lines. And I try to keep everyone back here in Minnesota know exactly the nefarious activities that are taking place in Washington. […]

I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing, and the people — we the people — are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.

I seem to recall several recent years where peaceful war protesters were attacked and arrested by the police for non-violent protests against the actions of their own government. I wonder what would have happened if they had made statements similar to the ones above? On second thought, I'm pretty sure that I already have the answer to that one. . .

Did Rush Limbaugh actually impact the Democratic primary?

That's what Sam Stein wants to know:

The loud-mouthed radio talk show host has been encouraging Republicans to vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton to continue the "chaos" in the Democratic race. And a sampling of some key exit poll information suggests he may, to a certain extent, be having an effect.

Thirty-six percent of primary voters said that Clinton does not share their values. And yet, among that total, one out of every five (20 percent) nevertheless voted for her in the Indiana election. Moreover, of the 10 percent of Hoosiers who said "neither candidate" shared their values, 75 percent cast their ballots for Clinton.

These are not small numbers. By comparison, of the 33 percent of voters who said Sen. Barack Obama does not share their values, only seven percent cast their ballots in his favor. Basically, more people who don't relate to Clinton are, for one reason or another, still voting for her. These are not likely to be loyal supporters.

On a broader level, among the 17 percent of primary goers who said they would choose Sen. John McCain over Hillary Clinton in a hypothetical general election match-up, 41 percent of that group came from Clinton's own camp. In essence, roughly seven percent of Clinton support in Indiana (40 percent of 17 percent) said they would defect to the Republican should she end up the nominee. That would be a difficult punch to stomach in November. In 2004, nearly 1 million Indianans voted for John Kerry. A seven percent defection rate would have meant 70,000 less votes.

By contrast, if the general election is between Obama and McCain, 19 percent of the Indiana Democratic primary goers said they would support the Republican. But only 12 percent of that group (2.28 percent) would come from Obama's camp.

The numbers suggest one of three things: A) Clinton's support in Indiana, while clearly there, is not entirely solid; B) a large swath of Indiana primary goers simply didn't like the nominees and thought of Clinton as the lesser of two evils; or C) Limbaugh's hatchet plan could be having political ripples.

Perhaps it's a mix of all three.

10 Most Dangerous American Associations

Right Wing bloggers comically came up with the 10 most dangerous American organizations. Pay particular attention to who they placed in the #2 slot:

Ann Coulter - Behind the scene

A Night with Ann Coulter

"Pinhead" 16-Year-Old Schools O'Reilly