But Will We Ever See Hannity-North Slash Fiction?

Reader Jeff Patterson passes along this alternate history:

America's future has become an Orwellian nightmare of ultra-liberalism. Beginning with the Gore Presidency, the government has become increasingly dominated by liberal extremists.

In 2004, Muslim terrorists stopped viewing the weakened American government as a threat; instead they set their sites on their true enemies, vocal American conservatives. On one dark day, in 2006, many conservative voices went forever silent at the hands of terrorist assassins. Those which survived joined forces and formed a powerful covert conservative organization called "The Freedom of Information League", aka F.O.I.L....

The F.O.I.L. Organization is forced underground by the "Coulter Laws" of 2007; these hate speech legislations have made right-wing talk shows, and conservative-slanted media, illegal....Rupert Murdoch's decision to defy the "Coulter Laws" hate speech legislations, has bankrupted News Corporation. George Soros has bought all of News Corps assets and changed its name to Liberty International Broadcasting. LIB's networks have flourished and circle the globe with a series of satellites beaming liberal & U.N. propaganda worldwide.

That's the setup for Liberality for All, a comic book set in 2021 featuring a biologically superendowed Sean Hannity, G. Gordon Liddy, and Oliver North as its heroes. The synopsis doesn't say what new powers they might have, but I assume that Hannity has been granted the ability to speak without first consulting a talking points fax from the GOP.

The whole thing promises to be a camp classic. Read a five-page preview here.

Comments

theCoach | August 1, 2005, 2:42pm | #

In these confusing times I am not sure whether the comic is parody, or if it is truly intended as a silly kind of support for its heros.
Normally, this would obviously be a dig at these clowns, but we live in interesting times.

madpad | August 1, 2005, 2:43pm | #

Camp classic? or future revisionist history.

ASIDE: Interesting that, Liddy, a confessed admirer of Hitler, would be associated with Liberty.

joe | August 1, 2005, 2:44pm | #

"Al Gore, ultraliberal" is no goofier a premise than the bite of a radioactive spider giving you superpowers.

Jesse Walker | August 1, 2005, 2:44pm | #

I am not sure whether the comic is parody, or if it is truly intended as a silly kind of support for its heros.

I'm inclined to guess that it's sincere, since it's being promoted on the Hannity and Liddy radio shows. But maybe that's just part of the joke.

madpad | August 1, 2005, 2:49pm | #

Right up there with the George W Bush "action" (as in didn't see any) figure - complete with flight suit and kung fu grip.

Nobody Important | August 1, 2005, 2:49pm | #

Anybody remember the Liberal Man comic books from the mid-1990s?

STEP ASIDE SUPERHEROS - No one is more politically correct. No one has the power of his compassion. No one's heart bleeds more profusely. It's Liberal Man. Faster than the average white European male. More powerful than a tax-package locomotive in a Democrat controlled Congress. Able to leap tall buildings when requested by special interest groups. His motto -- I fight truth and justice for the Democrat way.

Brian | August 1, 2005, 2:51pm | #

Does Liddy still do his "Babes with Guns" calendar? A lot of those babes would only look good if you'd done a stretch in the poky though.

Is that Hannity with the laptop and eyepatch? Looks like this terrifying distopia caused him to lose about 50 pounds.

madpad | August 1, 2005, 2:55pm | #

Looks like this terrifying distopia caused him to lose about 50 pounds.

No...per his biography, her "will"ed it off...after he willed himself to stop aging.

Hakluyt | August 1, 2005, 3:01pm | #

madpad,

Some of his statements about Hitler border on the erotic.

Chris Puzak | August 1, 2005, 3:04pm | #

Can a crossover with Reagan's Raiders be far behind?

madpad | August 1, 2005, 3:11pm | #

Haklyut,

No doubt. He even went on to name his group "Odesssa" of all things.

Don't get me wrong, "Will" was a fascinating book. I read it in college years ago and Liddy certainly made an impression.

But anyone not at least a little creeped out by it doesn't get my ear when they start prattling on about "freedom & liberty."

Interesting side note: I read the "Will" reviews on Amazon just now and there's a fella who basically calls Liddy on so much B.S. It's kinda funny.

Jeff | August 1, 2005, 3:12pm | #

It's the "biologically enhanced" conservatives that I love. Given the Right's bioconservatism and anti-transhumanist stances lately, I wonder if this will cause friction.

madpad | August 1, 2005, 3:16pm | #

Spot on Jeff!

Stephen Kriz | August 1, 2005, 3:19pm | #

We already live in a Bizarro world, not unlike that depicted in Superman comics, where bad is good, down is up and a drunken, cokehead neer-do-well deserter is portrayed as a great hero and moral paragon.

How could comics make the Orwellian conservative nightmare we are currently living through, seem any less wacked out than they already are?????

Mo | August 1, 2005, 3:26pm | #

Wait, I don't get it. If liberals control the country and have forced conservatives (OBL's "true enemy"), why would he want to nuke NYC? I can suspend disbelief and believe that's Hannity with the eyepatch, but I can't ignore a plot hole that big.

Born Again Iconoclast | August 1, 2005, 3:27pm | #

Unfortunately, by the way that Sean Hannity is drawn as some lithe-bodied provocateur I realized it wasn't a parody, but a sickening fan worship from some retard with a little drawing ability.

No thanks, I'll stick with the late 1960s DC Comic "The Hawk and the Dove", if I want punditry mixed with superpowers ....

Mo | August 1, 2005, 3:28pm | #

forced conservatives = forced conservatives underground

Is NYC the new bastion of hidden conservatism in this alternate universe?

Jeff | August 1, 2005, 3:32pm | #

And another thing: The "first conservative comic?"
I'd give that title either to the Thatcher years of Judge Dredd, or perhaps Frank Miller's Give Me Liberty (although not the subsequent Martha Washington books.)

Nobody Important | August 1, 2005, 3:37pm | #

We already live in a Bizarro world, not unlike that depicted in Superman comics, where bad is good, down is up and a drunken, cokehead neer-do-well deserter is portrayed as a great hero and moral paragon.
Comment by: Stephen Kriz at August 1, 2005 03:19 PM

Ten years ago, the Left believed that criticizing the president encouraged terrorism. Now hating the president is Patriotic Dissent.

What changed?

thoreau | August 1, 2005, 3:41pm | #

Nobody Important-

The symmetry is even more perfect than that, because the right used to have no problem going after the President, and now they believe we need to rally around the Leader in a time of war.

theCoach | August 1, 2005, 3:48pm | #

"Ten years ago, the Left believed that criticizing the president encouraged terrorism. Now hating the president is Patriotic Dissent."

We did?

Now, in defense of the sentiment, I can certainly imagine criticism of a President that does encourage terrorism (although I do not remember anyone making that argument*). For example, if you went around saying that Clinton had a secret plan to nuke Mecca, that might increase terrorism -- it would be an empirical question.
And one thing that has changed is that the current President really is incompetent. His bungling actually makes us less safe.

The only thing I can think of is the militia situation, and the right's language tending to encourage those sentiments (Jack Booted Thugs, etc.)

madpad | August 1, 2005, 3:52pm | #

Prez 1: Hated for screwing an intern.

Prez 2: Hated for lying to get us into war.

Sorry...don't see the connection.

joe | August 1, 2005, 3:54pm | #

Ten years ago, the Left was calling the president a corporate sellout, the betrayer of gay rights and the social safety net, and "the greatest Republican president of all time."

dhex | August 1, 2005, 4:05pm | #

"The only thing I can think of is the militia situation, and the right's language tending to encourage those sentiments (Jack Booted Thugs, etc.)"

which is what i assume is driving this. then again, i remember people crying about "hate on the airwaves" in regards to rush and company on the am dial, so maybe this is what people are talking about?

this all falls into "what? ideology driving one's view of reality? people sticking up harder for their team than the opposing team? and water is wet? holy shit!"

a | August 1, 2005, 4:08pm | #

Maybe it’s not a good idea for a libertarian to be elected president. Nothing else could bring Dems and Repubs together, just like gays can bring agreement between Muslims, Christians, and Jews.

Tom Crick | August 1, 2005, 4:14pm | #

"The F.O.I.L. Organization is forced underground by the "Coulter Laws" of 2007; these hate speech legislations have made right-wing talk shows, and conservative-slanted media, illegal..."

I would never want to see Coulter on the run in real life, but, really, is there anything wrong with fantasizing?

Legate Damar | August 1, 2005, 4:14pm | #

They can say whatever they want about the Prez and the Senator, but when they start mocking Chelsea in print... THEY'VE GONE TOO FAR.

Also, I'm a big fan of how everyone appears YOUNGER in 2021 than now. Just as I'm a fan of how there's no turnover at the top. That'd be like writing in 1985 that Bill Cosby and Michael J Fox would named Overlords of Entertainment by now. I mean, I understand why they did it, but they couldn't have have thrown in a 20-something sidekick? Preferably a hot spandex-wearing lady or a smartass, or both? Or is this subject matter too "serious" to bother with such distractions?

joe | August 1, 2005, 4:14pm | #

Seems to me there's a pretty big difference; namely, the major terrorist acts that were committed on American soil ten years ago (OKC, Olympic Park, the murder of Dr. David Gunn) actually were ideological comrades of the American right - antiabortion, anti-gun control, anti-federal government, anti-gay and anti-liberal.

Today, the people responsible for the major terrorist act committed on American soil are motivated by anti-semitism, anti-pluralism, anti-secularism, anti-democracy, anti-feminism, puritanism, and theocracy. They simply do not represent a variant of the American left, not even as a radical manifestation.

Herman | August 1, 2005, 4:30pm | #

"Hannity/North Slash fiction", "Coulter" and "fantasize" all appeared in this thread. I will leave for a more decent place.

digamma | August 1, 2005, 4:31pm | #

"Ten years ago, the Left believed that criticizing the president encouraged terrorism. Now hating the president is Patriotic Dissent."

I handled that topic here, and Reason handled it here.

One of my favorites: Sen. Robert G. Torricelli (D-N.J.) said lawmakers who raise doubt about Clinton�s motivation are inviting further defiance by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. He called their remarks �as close to a betrayal of the interests of the United States as I�ve ever witnessed in the United States Congress. It�s unforgivable and reprehensible.�

badger3k | August 1, 2005, 4:33pm | #

This would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. This sounds like the comic I heard of on The Daily Show, with Muslim superheros defending their land from the thinly-disguised zionist invaders. I like my comics to be different from reality, but this is like reading a Chick tract.

dhex | August 1, 2005, 5:06pm | #

"They simply do not represent a variant of the American left, not even as a radical manifestation."

depends on who you talk to. i've read and seen plenty of out the side of the mouth cheering about 9/11 from anti-capitalist types.

madpad | August 1, 2005, 5:16pm | #

dhex,

I call bullshit...Ward Churchill and his ilk don't count.

Anyone "cheering" about 9/11 isn't mainstream enough to be even a caricature of the left. I don't know anyone - even on the left - who's "cheering" about 9/11.

They may be saying "we had it coming." But that doesn't mean they're happy about it.

R C Dean | August 1, 2005, 5:19pm | #

They simply do not represent a variant of the American left, not even as a radical manifestation.

That would explain why the forces of left-wingery in this country are so firmly on the side of defeating them decisively.

Why, just the other day there was a massive rally on numerous campuses, all in favor of driving the jihadis out of the Middle East, giving Middle Eastern women equal rights, throwing out the various theocrats and thugs, and generally supporting US involvement in radical, destabilizing change in the Middle East. It was all over the news, right?

Oh, isn't this the bizarro world thread?

gaius marius | August 1, 2005, 5:34pm | #

this sort of thing has to be viewed for what it is -- as a fiction of fantasy, it reflects directly the political and philosophical views of a certain segment of our society. what can you say about them based on these fragments?

they are proletarian. they are nationalist. they are darwinian. they are hero-cultists. they have a severe persecution complex, fully paranoid. they see conflict and violence in the name of freedom/freiheit as heroic and romantically virtuous. they are interested in "peace" only if it is "won through strength (read: war), not negotiated through appeasement" (pg 8) -- that is, they are not interested in any form of actual compromise.

i can see why these people would also admire hitler. the comic could be about him.

Bizarro Churchill | August 1, 2005, 5:37pm | #

I call bullshit...Ward Churchill and his ilk don't count.

Anyone "cheering" about 9/11 isn't mainstream enough to be even a caricature of the left. I don't know anyone - even on the left - who's "cheering" about 9/11.

They may be saying "we had it coming." But that doesn't mean they're happy about it.

I call bullshit..._______________ and his ilk don't count.

Anyone "cheering" about Oklahoma City isn't mainstream enough to be even a caricature of the right. I don't know anyone - even on the right - who's "cheering" about Oklahoma City.

They may be saying "we had it coming." But that doesn't mean they're happy about it.

Steve | August 1, 2005, 5:50pm | #

Anybody remember the Denny O'Neill (?) days of Green Lantern/Green Arrow? Before my time, but I read back issues, and always enjoyed the interaction between the two characters there. Certainly, this new 'Liberality for All' will live up to that standard.

Tom Crick | August 1, 2005, 5:55pm | #

"this sort of thing has to be viewed for what it is -- as a fiction of fantasy, it reflects directly the political and philosophical views of a certain segment of our society. what can you say about them based on these fragments?"

I could agree with you on that G., but only if by "segment" you're talkin' about radio propagandists as opposed to the people who find such propagandists appealing.

...There's some overlap--I'm sure--but I suspect the people who find these propagandists appealing are simply ignorant.

Jeff | August 1, 2005, 6:32pm | #

Anyone wondering if this book will have the Comics Code Authority stamp on it?

dhex | August 1, 2005, 7:04pm | #

"I call bullshit...Ward Churchill and his ilk don't count."

why not?

if g. gordon liddy counts, why not ward churchill? they're similarly matched, intellectually, and both deeply invested in their fiction suits.

joe | August 1, 2005, 8:01pm | #

Ha ha ha.

RC Dean thinks he just landed a punch with "If you're not with us, you're against us."

Ha ha ha

joe | August 1, 2005, 8:12pm | #

dhex,

The whole "cheering" issue is a sideshow. Even most pro-lifers don't cheer the murder of women's clinic staffers. But both the terrorists who do it, and the "sidewalke counsellors" and Republican officeholders who denounce them as psychotics, are anti-abortion political activists.

Similarly, the Militia of Michigan, Pat Buchanon, and lots of libertarians and right wingers deplored, were horrified by, the Murrah building bombing. Yet Timothy McVeigh was a radical federalist, a gun nut, an anti-liberal red American. The ideals that he killed for, they write letters for, and blog about, and feature in campaign ads.

This type of relationship between the left and the Islamists. Nowhere will you find Atrios endorsing laws about modest dress for women. Matthew Yglesius has never once advocated for the destruction of the State of Israel. Dennis Kucinich would rather lie down in front of a tank than have Shria imposed as the civil code. The two philosophies have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

Loonie idiots cheer about atrocities. Fred Phelps holds up signs saying "Thank God for 9/11." Pat Robertson said we had it coming, too. As did Ward Churchill, kinda sorta. Such statements are not an indication of a political philosophy, but of hateful fanaticism in whatever form.

Akira MacKenzie | August 1, 2005, 9:10pm | #

And these people WON the last election. No one likes a sore winner.

dhex | August 1, 2005, 9:34pm | #

"Such statements are not an indication of a political philosophy, but of hateful fanaticism in whatever form."

yeah, that's the larger point, but applied to both directions. i just don't think there's much connection either way. we can staple a phrase like "american imperialism" and compare random village voice articles with some bin laden missive and find the connection you're pointing out with the abortion analogy; but why bother?

it's also what makes the whole "aid and comfort" and "if you're not with us..." high school football coach bullshit so tiresome. aside from the fact that it's super duper to the gaius maximus retarded.

dhex | August 1, 2005, 9:49pm | #

pardon me: i meant, "gaius to the maximus" there.

dhex | August 1, 2005, 9:52pm | #

in a good way, of course.

Born Again Iconoclast | August 1, 2005, 10:05pm | #

I like my comics to be different from reality, but this is like reading a Chick tract.

Man, badger3k, thanks for dredging up horrible childhood memories!!! Some Jehovah's Witnesses gave me a few of those comic books in grammar school back in the 70s, and instead of putting me on the path to God, it put me forever on the path to doubt and critical sarcasm.

As a child I found the scenes where naked people on their way to hell, were standing before a faceless god who recorded their every actions on a giant screen tv to be rather bizarre and creepy (great prep for Orwell's works). Even as a 7-year-old I thought it was funny that the supreme being would have Super 8mm film of everything I ever did. A celestial peeping tom!!

"My name is Jehovah ... and I like to watch ..."

Akira MacKenzie | August 1, 2005, 10:11pm | #

I would expect this sort of BS from a KKK pamphlet or a Jack Chick comic. Once upon a time, I thought conservatism has a little more class than this. For all their talk about culture and "rationalism" they sure did become quite vulgar over the last decade.

Sandy | August 2, 2005, 12:51am | #

joe--

You're misunderstanding the nature of the relationship in the comic. The right believes you guys (and, if they were aware of us, anti-Iraq libertarians) are easily duped by Osama and company into giving them what they want so they don't have to fight for it...letting them in so they can deal the death blow of a nuke in NYC (because it's a bastion of Red State values? errr....). So it doesn't really posit that Osama is Stalin, but rather that the left is so blinded by "hatred of America" that you'll make common cause/be apologists for anybody who shares your dislike of Western capitalism.

It's pretty much the view of the Film Actors' Guild as displayed in Team America: World Police, only with none of the balancing criticism of terrorizing the world to save it from terror, I mean, uh, violent extremism.

Kevin Carson | August 2, 2005, 1:10am | #

"I'm inclined to guess that it's sincere, since it's being promoted on the Hannity and Liddy radio shows. But maybe that's just part of the joke."

Or it could be that it's parody, and Hannity's just too fucking stupid to realize it.

My own favorite political comic-superhero parody was NatLamp's "G. Gordon Liddy: Agent of CREEP." CREEP was fighting an evil conspiratorial organization called THEM, headed by the evil Dr. Ellsberg: dedicated to "overthrowing the government of the United States by defeating the President in an election."

Barry P. | August 2, 2005, 5:41am | #

Just from reading the quoted excerpt, this book looks a lot like The Turner Diaries, in both its general writing style and its paranoid hero-worship.

thoreau | August 2, 2005, 7:58am | #

Kevin-

Good to see you back!

Andrew | August 2, 2005, 9:55am | #

Say, aren't you Dr. Thoreau, the famous PhD who is either ripping his employer off by spending hours and hours posting drivel here, or is unemployed, or, most likely, is a high school dropout with a big imagination? I've heard of you.

gaius marius | August 2, 2005, 2:25pm | #

only if by "segment" you're talkin' about radio propagandists as opposed to the people who find such propagandists appealing.

...There's some overlap--I'm sure--but I suspect the people who find these propagandists appealing are simply ignorant.

mr crick, it's always a small group with some notion they're selling to a massive crowd of the ignorant. that's a basis for real power in a rootless, revolutionary society.

serial catowner | August 2, 2005, 3:04pm | #

Well, you never can tell. Who could have guessed that the old Wonder Warthog comics would be even truer and more topical 40 years in the future. And now, look up in the sky!- It's Wonder Warthog, he's come back to fight pot and the pipes that smoke it again!

Even if you read history, you may be doomed to repeat it.

puzzled | August 2, 2005, 8:29pm | #

I don't get it, I thought those guys *wanted* NYC nuked. And why would the bad guys blow up the UN when they could get all sorts of decent American cities?

Anonymous Coward | August 3, 2005, 11:44am | #

Loonie idiots cheer about atrocities. Fred Phelps holds up signs saying "Thank God for 9/11." Pat Robertson said we had it coming, too. As did Ward Churchill, kinda sorta. Such statements are not an indication of a political philosophy, but of hateful fanaticism in whatever form.


Michael Moore was upset that the 9/11 attacks happened in discricts that "did not vote for Bush!"


I call bullshit...Ward Churchill and his ilk don't count

Why not? Ward Churchill is a tenured professor at a major university. The mainstream media and several hundred of his co-workers support him.

chingachook | August 3, 2005, 4:32pm | #

Ten years ago, the Left believed that criticizing the president encouraged terrorism

Please name me one prominent liberal who said anything like that in 1995 (or thereabouts).

Provide a link.

And no, that hippie librarian who worked at your high school doesn't count.

Jimmm | August 4, 2005, 9:56am | #

My question is this: If the Neo-Comix trio are cyber-enhanced and all that, why is futuro-Hannity sporting an eye-patch? Couldn't the guy who gave Hannity titanium arms and the like also have given him a convincing glass eye?

elonbaa | August 4, 2005, 12:16pm | #

I look at this comic as a a wacked out conservative's way of trying to put things "in perspective" for Joe American out there. Sure Iraq was a mess, for that matter Afghanistan is a mess, the economy is been poor, congress is a mess, the Bush admin hasn't an effective domestic legislative agenda...but just IMAGINE if Gore had been in Bush's shoes! Can you imagine how bad that would have been?!?!

It's a fucking sad, sad reflection of how far the supporters of this Administration have imploded.

duus | August 4, 2005, 1:34pm | #

The leadership of the American right has had real associations with Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden unlike the left's depicted in this comic, which are fiction. Reagan gave money to Osama back in the day, supplied him and his men with extensive weaponry, taught them how to fight and win against a superpower. Rumsfeld met with Saddam back in the day, supporting him with weaponry and supplies. The unfortunate truth is, the rank and file right who voted for the pro-america message of Reagan's campaign ended up setting the stage for Osama Bin Laden's attack on america. Not in some vague, hypothetical way, but in a real, tanglible way. I submit to you that, were Reagan not elected, Osama would not have gotten the boost in power from the U.S. that he did, and would have been at least less likely to be a position to co-ordinate the attacks that he did.

The leadership of the American right has a compelling history of winning control and arming those who become America's enemies.

I think the rank and file on the right, like some of those posting on this page, need to take a look at history, and look at the leaders who claim to represent them. Are these people really doing what you want? Do you really want to support these people who armed Osama Bin Laden? Saddam Hussein? I mean, who are they arming right now who will be the enemy in fifteen years? Which one of our dubious allies will the one to set of the dirty bomb that kills your children? It probably won't be Chalabi, he's too much of a beaurocrat, but there are any number of Afgani warlords or small-time leaders in Iraq that the leadership of the American right are arming and assisting right now who will turn on us in fifteen years and become the household names associated with evil, that will help get the next leader of the American right into power.

You have to wonder whether the leadership of the American right really has the best interest of the rank-and-file right in mind.

I think the rank and file, like those posting here, need to think carefully about if the people who pretend to lead them really represent them, or if they are being used. I think it is difficult to admit when a relationship has become abusive. I think it hurts, and requires being couragous and standing up for what you honestly believe, and taking a stand, and saying that you will not support this kind of deep duplicity that happens in your name. It's not easy. But it won't get any easier. And your children won't end up any less dead by waiting.

Good luck.

Nobody Important | August 7, 2005, 9:55pm | #

Ten years ago, the Left believed that criticizing the president encouraged terrorism

Please name me one prominent liberal who said anything like that in 1995 (or thereabouts).

Provide a link.

And no, that hippie librarian who worked at your high school doesn't count.

Comment by: chingachook at August 3, 2005 04:32 PM

President Clinton:

May 5, 1995:

. . .

I would like to say something to [those of you] who believe the greatest threat to America comes not from terrorists from ... beyond our borders, but from our own government.

. . .

I believe you have every right, indeed you have the responsibility, to question our government when you disagree with its policies. And I will do everything in my power to protect your right to do so.

But I also know there have been lawbreakers among those who espouse your philosophy.

. . .

But the Weathermen of the radical left who resorted to violence in the 1960s were wrong. Today, the gang members who use life on the mean streets of America, as terrible as it is, to justify taking the law into their own hands and taking innocent life are wrong. The people who came to the United States to bomb the World Trade Center were wrong.

. . .

How dare you suggest that we in the freest nation on Earth live in tyranny.

. . .

[T]here is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government. There is nothing heroic about turning your back on America, or ignoring your own responsibilities. If you want to preserve your own freedom, you must stand up for the freedom of others with whom you disagree. But you also must stand up for the rule of law. You cannot have one without the other.

. . .

June 1, 1995:

. . .

But do not condemn people who work for the government. That's the kind of mentality that produced Oklahoma City.

. . .

And I think the most important thing we can do to make your father safer is to have everybody in this room, whatever their political party or their view, stand up and say, it is wrong to condemn people who are out there doing there job and wrong to threaten them. And when you hear somebody doing it, you ought to stand up and double up your fist and stick it in the sky and shout them down. That is wrong. It is wrong.

. . .

December 30, 1995:

[W]e can't love our country and hate our government.

This topic was covered in the July 1995 issue of Reason by Virginia Postrel.

Nobody Important | August 7, 2005, 10:02pm | #

As for the assertion that the Left does not align itself with terrorists:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/080205C.html

With the recent bombings in London, most concerns about terrorist strikes on the US focus on the jihadist movement. But the next major terrorist strike in the US could come from an unexpected direction -- the extremist animal rights and environmental movements.

According to FBI Deputy Assistant Director John Lewis, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) are "one of today's most serious domestic terrorism threats." Skeptics, including The New York Times editorial page, argue that this threat is over hyped as these groups have confined themselves to property crime, unlike the well-established record of deadly right-wing terrorism. But waiting for terrorist groups to turn to murder is pre-9/11 thinking and the growing violence and sophistication of ALF and ELF are worrisome.

I should point out that the anti-abortion terorrists started with firebombing clinics in the middle of the night, back in the mid-1980s. There were "mere" property crimes.

Equally troubling, the internal rhetoric of the movement is shifting. Traditionally ALF freed lab and farm animals, insisting that they would never purposefully harm a human. But affiliated groups in Europe have beaten opponents, and Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn's assassin was an animal rights activist. At an August 2003 Animal Rights Conference in Los Angeles, an ALF spokesman, Dr. Jerry Vlasak, stated:

"I think there is a use for violence in our movement. And I think it can be an effective strategy. Not only is it morally acceptable. � I don't think you'd have to kill -- assassinate -- too many vivisectors before you would see a marked decrease in the amount of vivisection going on."

When an audience member stated that this was the same as the pro-life movement killing abortionists, Vlasak responded, "Absolutely, I think they've had a great strategy going."

According to CNN (May 18, 2005):

John Lewis, the FBI's deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, said animal and environmental rights extremists have claimed credit for more than 1,200 criminal incidents since 1990. The FBI has 150 pending investigations associated with animal rights or eco-terrorist activities, and ATF officials say they have opened 58 investigations in the past six years related to violence attributed to the ELF and ALF.

In the same period violence from groups like the Ku Klux Klan and anti-abortion extremists have declined, Lewis said.

random surfer | August 9, 2005, 2:05pm | #

Huh, how about that. Insane terrorists come in all flavors.