Blogger Intervention: Milblogs and anti-government rhetoric

by Craig Hooper on May 22, 2010

This weekend, as the nation mourns the loss of two dedicated law enforcement officers–shot at the hands of anti-government extremists (one suspect served in the  Army Reserves), I want to take a minute to address certain milblogs and anti-government rhetoric.

We milbloggers have a responsibility to be good stewards of civic behavior.  Anti-government rhetoric, “wink-wink” anti-government incitement and calls for violence must not find a place in America’s milblog community.

Please join me in calling out those milbloggers who traffic in anti-American rhetoric.

A few days ago, Chris Carter (aka Crush), part of the collective who post at the popular milblog (a regular finalist in the annual milblog awards), posted this, a creepy anti-government screed:

The IMF suggests our national debt will surpass 100% of our gross domestic product in 2015.

Also states that our debt began sharply increasing in 2006. Wasn’t that when our beloved Democrats took over both houses of Congress?

At some point we must begin to ask ourselves – what is treason? The federal government has done more damage to this country than if the Soviet Union had invaded during the Cold War. Now if we captured members of the Red Army, there would be military tribunals and they would be shot. I am NOT advocating such treatment for our elected officials. However, we should realize the gravity of the situation our nation finds itself thanks to their lust for power.

Is the destruction of our republic somehow more palatable if it is perpetrated by domestic enemies rather than foreign ones?

Creepy, huh?  Not only is the post factually wrong, it’s a thinly-veiled call for violence.

Being concerned, I wrote the publisher/founder of the site, Matt Burden, and expressed my feelings about the post.  What I got back was not something I’d have expected from a patriotic American.  Matt, for those who don’t know, is a former vet. He ran for elected office. He visited the White House. He serves on the Warrior Legacy Foundation.  He is a trustee of Soldiers’ Angels and is a member of Team Rubicon’s Board. Matt even claims he “is currently consulting with the Obama administration on behalf of military a

nd veterans affairs.”

In short, Matt is a guy who makes a good living by dressing up in the U.S. Flag.  And I thought he’d be more than just a little worried.

Instead, Matt waved away my concerns:

“I haven’t checked the site today.  I might not agree with him.  I don’t censor the authors….”

Yes.  Robust Constitutional fare.  All good.  But, you see, a publisher sets and maintains civic standards.

Matthew Burden has chosen his.

And now, two law enforcement officers are dead.  Egged on by the violent anti-government rhetoric sites like Blackfive spew every single day.

Blackfive’s anti-government rhetoric speaks for itself.

And Matthew Burden owns the site.

Let me say again: Promoters of anti-American rhetoric must own their content.

A lot of good veterans serve in law enforcement and in other non-elected governmental roles. Today, two are dead, two are wounded. And with sites like helping, more and more law enforcement and government workers are going to die at the hands of guys misguided by net-based calls to anti-government violence.

I’m worried that guys who find community and strength in’s stock-and-trade of anti-government rhetoric will act upon what they read…

Upset, I wrote the author of the post, Chris Carter, a “warrior” firefighter who directs the Victory Institute, a so called “Christian Organization” that, at present, has a front page story up about how the “UN is pushing for global government through environmental control.”

What did I get from Chris Carter?

I got ignorance seasoned with cowardice.  Here’s what the man wrote to me:

“I write at so many places, and just ripped that out in a matter of about 90 secs while working on another project. Actually I forgot about it entirely until you emailed…”

I can’t believe it.

The guy incites violence and then…forgets it?  At least, back in the day, when folks like Lenin were out there extolling the masses to rise up in global revolution, the men behind such dastardly plans stood by what they wrote.  Old school villains put their lives on the line, quoted their work, and stood their ground.

But a guy like Chris Carter–no revolutionary there–he skittered for cover the moment the spotlight turned to him.  These erstwhile mullahs of the American Taliban…they’re like mushrooms, healthy only in the darkest of corners.

We, as milbloggers and patriots, can’t afford to ignore this talk.  We can’t continue dismissing this unpatriotic behavior as insignificant exuberance.

It is time for veterans, service members, interested law enforcement officers, milbloggers and others to express their concern when they see anti-government, pro-violence behavior on milblogs.

If we–the responsible people–don’t do anything now, how will we feel when a vet in government service (or one of us, even) is killed by a vet who consumed too much of the stuff produces?  Intervene.  Join me.

Cheerleaders for uncivic behavior must be called on the carpet now, today, before somebody translates

this misguided rhetoric into action.



Skippy-san July 24, 2011 at 9:51 am

You are 100% right. It is easy in the one dimensional world of the internet to go too far and it happens all the time. That does not make it right. I support you and accept that we all must be more temperate.

Graphomaniac! May 27, 2010 at 9:14 pm

“Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.”

Keep it the good work, Craig.

Never mind the crazy wing-nuts who wish to portray themselves as legitimate and more numerous than they are by posting helluva lot of textbook ad hominems.

Craig Hooper May 27, 2010 at 10:41 am

Hey, yeah, wow….I’m shaking.

As I have said before, the rhetoric that gets trafficked on certain milblogs is bad for the country, and folks (like defendusa–a somewhat frustrated, likely lonely guy who has spent at least three years building an internet community by, in large part, wishing ill-will and misfortune on his fellow citizens) eat it up. But it’s not defendusa I worry about. He’s loud, but impotent–talks a good game. But….Some readers may even act on the sentiment expressed in many of these milblogs and hurt citizens–even vets in government service.

Continuing to do that, in my book, is un-American. I think milblogs can do better by dampening down the seditious talk in favor of working to impose their vision at the ballot box.

I wish ’em the best. Seriously. Good luck with that. But if Matt Burden’s electoral fortunes are any indication (the guy, when he ran for elected office got 500 votes–less than 5%–in a GOP primary. Came in dead last.) they ain’t gonna get far. Which, I fear, is just gonna lead to more fever-dreams of changing the nation without the ballot box–by using violence or any other means they deem necessary.


DefendUSA May 27, 2010 at 6:06 am

You’re a fucking idiot, Hooper. Go and pick on those who won’t fight back. That’s really what you want so you can continue to believe how superior you are to the rest of the world.
And, in case that link is going to Yon’s Facebook page, we don’t give two shits. It shows me you are still acting like a five-year old.
Matt’s credibility has long since outweighed Yon and the ability he had to be objective. That is, before he sought to make it all about himself.

The one thing you don’t ever do, is try to gain credibility and be a hero by attacking someone else’s credibility. You see how that works, now, don’t you? The same followers of Yon’s would probably come to you because they don’t really think about that part of the equation. They only think about “knowing” an alleged famous reporter. Oh, wait. You’re just pretending to be one and Yon is. That explains why I don’t see anyone jumping on your intervention wagon.
You still owe Matt an apology, and it would still suck to be you.

Country Singer May 27, 2010 at 5:48 am

Hey Craig, congrats on your PHD from Harvard! I read somewhere that you have one.

Craig Hooper May 26, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Philbob May 26, 2010 at 1:01 pm

speaking of cheer leading extremist, did you protest loudly when the city of San Fransisco took all the steps it took over the past decade to appear so blatantly anti American? did you go to the city council meeting and explain to them why it was a bad idea to get rid of the JROTC programs at the local schools (a program that benefits lower class minorities in a city like S.F.), did you go and talk protest how declaring the city a sanctuary city in protest of the rule of law would look to many people across the country? you probably did not in fact on occasion when you could of called out the extremist leadership of S.F. with something as simple as a newspaper editorial you didn’t. What I’m getting at is all of your anger towards Blackfive and most other defense bloggers is because they made some clunky insult to S.F. that you have not been able to let go of. There is a massive prescient of bitterness in your city not being considered patriotic and it bothers you that the city is looked down on because of that.
That is really what this is about when you digg through the posts.

So drop the sanctimony and start acting like a professional that you want to be taken as, because if you keep this up S.F. will never be the counter balance to the beltway defense analyst hub you want it to be.

McQ May 26, 2010 at 12:43 pm

Just wondering, Skippy – how many others have chosen to join your “intervention”?

We “extremist cheerleaders” would like to know?

Craig Hooper May 26, 2010 at 12:26 pm

Did anybody see the election results from the Illinois 41st District House GOP primary?

Look it up. Matt got 5% of the GOP vote. Five percent.

My point is this. I’m worried that the extreme rhetoric and extremist-leaning community generated by sites like are going to encourage violence against other Americans.

To be a political figure, Matt needs to ask himself if his internet constituency can be translated to a victory at the ballot box. His first try–to put it mildly–was a disaster. The GOP electorate (nary an ankle-biting knee-jerk moonbat amongst ’em) looked at Matt’s candidacy, recognized the ugly thing internet-based extremism is, and ran away.

If Matt wants to be a national figure for charities that are trying to become “mainstream,” the same rules apply. Do on-the-make charities want to be associated with a person so intimately tied to extremist, potentially violent anti-government instigation? I doubt it. It’s a PR disaster in the making.

Management skills are important too. How does he deal with issues? Does he manage customer concerns head-on, or just fire up the surrogates to yell, scream at and bully those who dissent? The Warrior Legacy Foundation is important–it’s Matt’s baby. If it is managed poorly or can’t get it’s IRS non-profit status, then, well, would you want that guy running your charity?

But I digress. Blackfive is Matt’s Falstaff. It’s up to him to decide if he wants to wallow in the mud with his extremist cheerleaders or do what is right for the country.

Warrant Diver May 26, 2010 at 10:37 am

I don’t have a problem with “inflammatory”, I am fairly inflammatory and proud of it :)….I have concerns with labeling others “un-American” and “anti-American” off the cuff with little supporting documentation.

Now I do think it’s ok to do so if you define what makes it un- or anti-American without twisting their words around (i.e. Crush **clearly** did not advocate for violence against elected or unelected government servants, so don’t say he did.)

So Craig, define un-American for me, please.

Maggie May 26, 2010 at 10:19 am

Amd still no apology for your baseless accusations that Matt Burden does what he does to profit himself.

You want to have your arguements taken seriously? Man up! Admit that was wrong. Admit it was inflammatory. Apologize.

Steve is correct, you are trying to get attention by unfairly attacking an honorable person.

Warrant Diver May 26, 2010 at 9:38 am


define for me please, “anti-American”. You have used it a lot, and I wonder what it means to you.

Here’s how I would define it-“actions or beliefs that support the destruction of the ideals of democracy, free market capitalism, and the sanctity of individual rights as laid out in the Constitution.”

Steve May 26, 2010 at 8:27 am

After reading your post and some of your arguments to the commenters, I must say that you come across as an ankle-biter yapping at a much bigger, more successful and respected blog, i.e. While I commend you for punching above your weight, your reasoning falls far short of what I would expect from a putative Harvard PhD. Next time, do try to start from a valid point of contention.

TSO May 26, 2010 at 6:57 am

This has to be the most intellectually vapid PHD in the history of man. He sees threats where none exist, he slimes a man with no evidence (since there can be none) he gives a pass to those on the left explicitly advocating violence, and he can’t defend an argument about the marketplace of ideas. I don’t know what the PHD was in, but damn dude, demand your money back.

Estragon May 26, 2010 at 6:07 am

Since the post which prompted all this anguish explicitly did not call for violence, what is the point?

“Also, is it wise for any young, eager-for-the-mainstream nonprofit to tie themselves to a prominent supporter of folks who hold radical out-of-the-mainstream views?

(Oh…and..I’m right in assuming the blackfive-heavy Warrior Legacy Foundation will be getting it’s non-profit status finalized soon? Would hate to see that not happen in a timely manner.)”

Is this some sort of threat? Do you “know people” or something? Can you make big trouble for moose and squirrel?

And they said Harvard Ph.D.s have been degraded . . .

DefendUSA May 26, 2010 at 5:59 am

Gee Craig,
You had to did deep for that, did you? What was that column about? I believe I was expressing my opinion, and anger, about an anti-military issue. You fuck with that, and yes, indeed it pisses me off. The bigger question is how many people did I recruit to carry out such an atrocity?? None! I wonder why I have not been arrested for that…Oh wait. You read that literally! How old *are* you? Because at your age, with a PhD and all, taking something like that literally would be scary!!
By your own standards whomever isn’t taking their civic debate to *your* level-We’re all radicals according to you!! Spoken like a true, close-minded and *educated* leftist looking down on veterans and the milblog community.

You apparently still missed the point of why you are the target of the beat downs, which by the way, is also typical of most left-minded thinkers. You believe you are right and that’s the way it will stay, so Matt gets no apology, and you’re still dropping the insults.

Keep your head in the sand, won’t you? Our house is in order and if the shit hits the fan, you’ll be glad there are people like us around who will take care of fellow Americans if need be, even the idiots with PhD’s.

Craig Hooper May 26, 2010 at 12:23 am

I think this is a good time for any eager-for-legitimacy newbie politico (particularly one who lost his first go at it) to re-evaluate…Does a guy who gives succor and a sense of community to folks who harbor violent anti-government, anti-American views belong in politics?

Also, is it wise for any young, eager-for-the-mainstream nonprofit to tie themselves to a prominent supporter of folks who hold radical out-of-the-mainstream views?

(Oh…and..I’m right in assuming the blackfive-heavy Warrior Legacy Foundation will be getting it’s non-profit status finalized soon? Would hate to see that not happen in a timely manner.)

And finally, you angry milbloggers had best tend to the internet houses ya’ll hang out in. The rhetoric is getting out of hand, and when a reader does translate the heady calls for violence–that some of ya’ll seem to favor–into ACTION, the blood is gonna be on your hands.

Let’s not have that happen. (I think we can all agree on that as a good, bipartisan goal, no?)

I urge ya’ll fellow milbloggers….before it is too late, to put your houses in order, calm the rhetoric and strive for a higher standard of civic debate. Who knows…with it, you kids might even win at the ballot box the next time it comes around….

Craig Hooper May 25, 2010 at 11:57 pm

A pleasure Defendusa…Ahh…the same defendusa who wrote the following, I presume:

Defendusa said…

Well, anyone who is a true patriot will be sickened by the f-ing bs of the left coast. I say we just create detonation points starting at the left most border of CA/OR over to NV/CA and come down along that border to CA/AZ and load up the TNT all around. Call oout the minutemen and a few explosive experts and simply seperate the left coast from the US.
Maybe then they will have their wunderbar utopia at their own expense. I get so pissed when I hear ths crap….Tom, Go to hell.
June 09, 2007 at 08:53 AM

You have a lot of anger to work out, my friend. Three years is a long time to hold such an eloquent passion for your chosen area of expertise…

DefendUSA May 25, 2010 at 6:02 pm

Well, Mr. Piled high, deeper…you really don’t get it, do you? You attack and we give you the shit, but you whine like a typical liberal in your mother’s basement and you’re a phucking *PhD*. Big friggin’whoop, asshole. You needlessly entered the lion’s lair. We are having none of it.

I tried to be nice, but no more. As someone asked, aside from wanting accountability of our Gov’t, limited even, and the use of the Constitution as the law of the land, there is not a single time I can recall that those of us who are regular B5 readers, Farm Team TAH included that ever incited anyone to go out and commit violence. But good God the power of the Tea Party people and using a computer or ballot to cast that “violence” makes you shake in your topsiders, does it? Wah.

Our violence begins at the ballot box, you twisted freak, with a fucking vote, got that? Ever heard the phrase “My N word is November?” Nah, you probably haven’t, seeing as you point the finger at Matt, alone. No matter. You are still blind as a bat and nothing we point you to will change how you think.

I call that the definition of insanity. Or, maybe I call that a dumbass who thinks he’s smart because he can sign “Craig Hooper, PhD” who has nothing but his own shit model of projection to work with. In psych, that’s not a good thing, Craig. (May I call you Craig?)

In order to feel self-important (because *you* have a PhD, of course) you must take something you think or feel and bash- in this case Matt Burden and try to take an entire community with you due to your own perceived inadequacies.

Surprise!! As the first Bush once lamented- you are “not gonna do it”! Like I said earlier, get out the mirror and ask who is the one being un-American? Find the people you think exist in the milblogging community over at Huffpo, Kos, DU and LGF. And I dare you to find one single incident that shows Matthew Burden to be of lesser moral character than yourself.
You know, I hear that war is hell. Make no mistake that *I* will fight to keep our Republic from the road that the Pied Piper is paving to hell. If it cannot be done via “violence” at the ballot box, then by God, I did swear to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, no matter who starts it. Live it, love it, die by it. Is that what you mean by incite violence?
Yeah. Huh. It would suck to be you.

TSO May 25, 2010 at 4:40 pm

I don’t care what he thinks of the posts, what offends me most is his unsupportable attack on Matty O’Blackfive, a man who goes out of his way to help Joe. It’s just unconscionable to me that he would malign his efforts and say that he is making money off of them. And he has yet to address that aspect of this.

John of Argghhh! May 25, 2010 at 3:22 pm

Craig, c’mon. You want a hard bright line – I can’t draw one for you.

And the one I might draw would be different from what AW1Tim might draw.

Or Lex.

I get your point, but, like many here, I find your proposed solution, which amounts to “anything I don’t like, shouldn’t be allowed, and accountability must be had!” to be a dangerous mindset for government to adopt.

That said, you are free to do so on your own, and, as you are via this post, attempt to hold people accountable.

Okay. We don’t agree with your assessment of the danger.

Ruck up and soldier on.

But you also fall into the trap of you are essentially demanding that everybody who has something to say must only say things in such a way that no lunatic will add it to the bubbling turmoil in their brain such that it sets them off.

Is Crush guilty of over-the-top speech? Then so is Governor Patrick, who essentially accused people who don’t agree with whatever the President wants as guilty of sedition.

Well, if the Governor of a state says I’m engaged in sedition, I guess he’s defined the bright shining line, and someone ought to be doing something about it.

Or, is he engaged in unfortunate hyperbole? Where is the line that defines the difference.

And one other thing – the idiot in the gun battle in Arkansas was in the Reserves in the 80’s… what’s the relevance of that? I played college football in the 70’s… will that be relevant to something I do today, if I snap because I’m tired of how both parties conduct their business and I want to overthrow the Illuminati?

You “contribute” to a well known naval blog – can I blame them for this post?

Mark Stanovich May 25, 2010 at 3:14 pm

So Craig,

NOW the idea that a “milblogger” is expressing what you consider to be violent overthrow of our government (and it is after all a matter of what YOU consider. Nice of you to help us with issues too complex for us) is a source of concern?

You mention anti-Government “rhetoric” and anti-American “rhetoric” as if they are the same thing. Having spent all my adult life in service to my country, sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, can I not have an opinion that the “usurpation” that Tucker spoke of makes my GOVERNMENT anti-American?

Or is that one of the viewpoints that will make me an “extremist”, then a “violent extremist” and then make me fair game for Napolitano’s merry band to take away more of my Constitutional guarantees?

Craig, you run very handsomely to type. Draconian powers to arbitrarily stifle free expression and deny other Constitutional guarantees seem to be okay with you because you will of course be fair and objective in how you determine whose freedoms are taken away.

Many of the men whom you criticize so readily have worn a uniform for much of their lives. They have pledged their lives to defending a Constitution and a way of life. Have you ever once in your life pledged your life to anything except Craig Hooper?

Craig Hooper May 25, 2010 at 3:00 pm


No trap at all. Really, honestly trying to define the extremis. I think there are a goodly number of people out there who read this stuff and define extremis very differently than you or I might. Failing to define that point is a cop out.

Saying you’re for revolution at some “undefined” point…It’s like ya’ll are a bunch of penguins jostling about on the edge of an ice floe–all eager to jump into the turbulent waters of revolution (cue “Wolvereeeeeens!”) but not wanting to be the first one into potentially shark-infested waters. This sort of coy call for revolt (but not really!!) rhetoric I’m worrying over….to me it just induces the stupidest–or the most hungry or most desperate–penguin amongst ya’ll to jump in (shoot a cop, fly a plane into an IRS building and so forth..).

And if a sufficient number of the dupes survive, I guess you’ll jump in along with ’em, no?

Whatever happened to simple calls to win at the ballot box? Or is that simple, honest call to good civic-strengthening behavior no longer sufficient to rally up the base?

John of Argghhh! May 25, 2010 at 2:46 pm

If by Tim’s vision you mean a “corrective” to how the government operates, absolutely.

Blood in the streets? Hardly. I prefer to shoot my politicians with ballots.

But now you’re trying to lay a rhetorical trap which is juvenile.

No, I don’t support armed revolution.

Except in extremis. The devil is in the details of defining extremis, of course.

So, Craig – have you stopped torturing puppies yet?

Same level of argumentation.

Craig Hooper May 25, 2010 at 2:36 pm

So…you guys are for an America where it’s ok for political change to happen outside the ballot box? Even at the cost of a few fellow citizen’s lives?

TSO May 25, 2010 at 2:30 pm

Craig, would something along these lines earn your approbation:

Here’s to the Greeks. They know what to do when corporations pillage and loot their country. They know what to do when Goldman Sachs and international bankers collude with their power elite to falsify economic data and then make billions betting that the Greek economy will collapse. They know what to do when they are told their pensions, benefits and jobs have to be cut to pay corporate banks, which screwed them in the first place. Call a general strike. Riot. Shut down the city centers. Toss the bastards out. Do not be afraid of the language of class warfare—the rich versus the poor, the oligarchs versus the citizens, the capitalists versus the proletariat. The Greeks, unlike most of us, get it.

Mark Stanovich May 25, 2010 at 2:28 pm

Craig, why is it you seem to insist on YOUR rules for what is acceptable for “opposition”?

Wasn’t it Paine who told us that “society in all its forms is a blessing, while government, in its best, is a necessary evil”?

Those of us who have studied and lived a bit of history become concerned with the expansion and planned expansion of government powers, because we have been around long enough to see what governments do to their citizens, as often as not “for their own good”.

We see the same trend here, the setting aside of Constitutional rights, erasing limits of authority by the Federal Government, and an increasingly arrogant political “ruling class”

Do you disagree with the rights of the people to resist, as St George Tucker called it, “the inroads of usurpation”?

Or George Mason’s assertion that “to disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them”?

If you do, say so. Such a view would put you in direct opposition of men like Hamilton, Madison, Noah Webster, Patrick Henry, and Sam Adams.

Whether you think such usurpation is occurring or not is your opinion alone. Others think differently. And some of what they fear is that the Government will make illegal the holding or expressing an opinion that is unauthorized or forbidden, as the tenor of your post seems intent on doing.

TSO May 25, 2010 at 2:19 pm

Craig, here is decision from the 9th crcuit from earlier this week. I am wondering how MIlblogs are to be held to a stricter scrutiny than the Constitution. Are Milbloggers to be held to a stricter level for something a commenter says than a school district is for an email sent through the school email system? And as that is the case, and we have no guindance, could you put together the new rules?

Indeed, precisely because Kehowski’s ideas fall outside the mainstream, his words sparked intense debate: Colleagues emailed responses, and Kehowski replied; some voiced opinions in the editorial pages of the local paper; the administration issued a press release; and, in the best tradition of higher learning, students protested. The Constitution embraces such a heated exchange of views, even (perhaps especially) when they concern sensitive topics like race, where the risk of conflict and insult is high. See R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 391 (1992). Without the right to stand against society’s most strongly-held convictions, the marketplace of ideas would decline into a boutique of the banal, as the urge to censor is greatest where debate is most disquieting and orthodoxy most entrenched. See, e.g., Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 667 (1925); id. at 673 (Holmes, J., dissenting). The right to provoke, offend and shock lies at the core of the First Amendment.

artemis May 25, 2010 at 2:08 pm

What I want for this country is for people like you, who are all too willing to advocate force to stop dissenting viewpoints, to enact all the laws you dream of… and watch in horror the next time a republican gets elected and you find yourself suddenly the less than loyal opposition.

TSO May 25, 2010 at 1:55 pm

But wait Craig, I am having problems following your superior logic. Milblogs incite, and we know that because commenters on those sites comment with inciteful comments. Ergo, we know that blogs cause it. And yet…..I can’t grasp how a commenter at Defensetech would say that and it not be the fault of Defensetech. I mean, if he espoused such feelings there, they had to have been caused by that posting right? i mean, no one comes onto a blog with any preconceived notions. They are all emoty vessels in which to pour our collective stewardlike wisdom.

It’s a real conundrum for me, and I am begging you Obi Wan Hooper, help us work through this logic.

Craig Hooper May 25, 2010 at 1:54 pm

So John, is that what you want for this country? Something like Tim’s vision?

Craig Hooper May 25, 2010 at 1:51 pm

Did I say that? Nope. And certainly not now. Defensetech actually moved in what I believe was the correct direction for ’em–offering strong military-focused commentary on Tech. And I think the traffic numbers agree that the shift in focus was good for ’em.

So, going back to the question, are certain milblogs inciting violence against the government and government employees?

John of Argghhh! May 25, 2010 at 1:48 pm

What’s hilarious about some of this is that many of us, myself included, have been, or still are, career government employees.

Having seen the beast from the inside, we’re a touch more experienced, and informed, about the realities of life under bureaucratic fiat.

We put up with it while in uniform, because we understand the need. When we doff the suit, we like to think we’ve doffed the life under bureaucratic fiat. And get annoyed when people who swore an oath remarkably like ours take a seemingly very different view of it’s meaning.

Heh. As for what Tim said being a very un-American sentiment, it strikes me, as a people with two revolutions under our belt over the issues of governance, Tim’s presentation of the in-extremis options of the people are… almost uniquely American.

And reflected in the language of the Declaration of Independence, which, one would suspect Doctor Hooper, you would find to be a creepy and very dangerous and inflammatory piece of writing.

Which is a very… european sense of things.

TSO May 25, 2010 at 1:44 pm

Sorry bud, used the admin email addy.

Jonn Lilyea May 25, 2010 at 1:41 pm

Hey, TSO stole my avatar.

Jonn Lilyea May 25, 2010 at 1:41 pm

“Sigh, it’s the usual “attack the messenger” tactic.”

Well, when the messenger owns the message, yeah. If you can’t take the heat, don’t throw Molotov cocktails.

Maggie May 25, 2010 at 1:36 pm

“So, going back to the question”

No, you don’t get a pass.

TSO May 25, 2010 at 1:35 pm

So you are arguing that defensetech is inciting violence?

TSO May 25, 2010 at 1:30 pm

Shit, I made the mistake of assuming someone with a PHD could understand a minion like me, and assumed that my instruction of “OK, tell you what, point to a single military blog that has called for bombing the San Fran area. Not a commenter, a blog.”

I’m sorry. Let me clarify.

When it says “Bob Says” or “Bill C.” those are people commenting on a blog posting. We little folk refer to them as “commenters.” A blog entry would be the thing above it, wherein Lex or some other person would say we should bomb them. Now, I know this is all my fault, but i am not overburdened with the intellect that you have, which must put sufficient weight on that neck of yours as to cause severe pain. So, if you need to rest your gigantic cranium and come back tomorrow with a blog posting suggesting what you say they suggest, I will humbly wait.

Craig Hooper May 25, 2010 at 1:29 pm

So, going back to the question, are certain milblogs inciting violence against the government and government employees?

Sounds to me like the answer is yes.

TSO May 25, 2010 at 1:25 pm

Shame on you Maggie, insinuating that not launching ad hominem attacks on folks for their philanthropy is part of the milbloggers code of stewardship is a banning offense.

Craig Hooper May 25, 2010 at 1:13 pm

TSO—Strawman? Nope. Try fact. Take a gander–and at the links, you’ll find similar sentiment left by some of the very same folks who’ve been dropping by today…
Bill C
June 8th, 2007 at 3:11 pm · Reply
Re: SF

Screw em, if AIDS dosen’t get them, maybe a good 8.3 or better.
Don said…

Remember, it’s only a matter of time before the ‘Big One’ hits San Fran again. When it happens, not only will I not give to relief charities, but I will refuse to contribute in the future to any that have a knee jerk need to assist those who think themselves outside and act outside the common compact. Let them enjoy the experience of New Orleans without water, food, power, transportation, waste removal, etc and without sympathy. They can call upon those they provide aid and comfort and sanctuary for aid.
June 09, 2007 at 08:20 AM

And finally, from commenter KragCulloden, commenting on of old…

Don’t we need a new nuclear weapons test range? Forget the desert…we need to see how nuclear blasts stand up to modern day architecture. SF should be the ideal spot.

Read more:

These are deeply un-American sentiments. So TSO, think about ’em. Is this good for America? To wish ill on your fellow citizens? It’s become all to common for this kind of sentiment to find a home in milblogs, and, I think, if we’re patriots, we oughta talk about this stuff. As it is it’s ugly, unseemly and un-American. I think milblogs can do better.

Maggie May 25, 2010 at 1:12 pm

Perfect! You throw the bomb. You malign someone unfairly.

And now you turn around and accuse us of avoiding the salient points of your discussion and attack the messenger.

It’s not going to work. You aren’t getting off the hook. You need to retract the unjust accusations against Matt in this post. Starting with the vile accusation the he profits from his honorable work with and for veterans.

TSO May 25, 2010 at 12:48 pm

What about comparing Blackfive to Al Qaeda, does that fit in with the role of steward that we’ve been unilaterally assigned?

Craig Hooper May 25, 2010 at 12:42 pm

Hey! Look! There’s more creepy rhetoric to be found out there!

“….You cannot call for a response such as “No Taxation Without Representation!” unless it is backed by the threat of force. It will be ignored, as have all of our citizen’s pleas to this Magisterial Presidency and it’s band of Congressional enablers and sycophants.

Calling for a repeal of the representatives will do no good because it will be tied up in the legislatures and courts for years, and by then it will be too late.

This Presidency, and this Congress MUST understand that though the people are loath to take up arms against them, and would, in almost every case eschew the use of arms to decide the issue, that these same citizens will, nonetheless, act in such manner as the situation may require to have their grievances honestly and completely redressed, and the Constitution and laws be restored to their rightful place.

Having seen the actions of the administration for the past year, and having suffered under similar imperial actions during the Carter, and Clinton years, the citizenry cannot be blamed for, at the very least, the consideration of taking matters into their own hands to restore the government to it’s proper, minimalist place in our nation, and to repeal those laws and institutions which, in all fairness and open consideration, have been emplaced without consideration of the Constitution.

My duty, as that of every citizen, is to the defense of our Constitution first, for without it, we are nothing. I do not now seek to defend that great document with force of arms, but if needs be, I will, and I expect that every other free man and woman will, and that our government must needs be placed upon notice that they tread on to dangerous grounds with the laws and institutions and agenda with which they seek to further shackle the citizenry.

I do not call for armed revolt, but I will not place it out of consideration should the time come when it is forced upon us by the actions of those who have forgotten their own oath.

I will live or die as a citizen and a free man, and NOT as a subject.”

For an American, this is some creepy sentiment.

TSO May 25, 2010 at 12:41 pm

You mean like if someone were to say “F* Them” about federal contractors killed in theater, you would scream and shout and denounce from the highest hilltop and demand that all those who play footsie with that person denounce it with equal aplumb, right?

OK, tell you what, point to a single military blog that has called for bombing the San Fran area. Not a commenter, a blog. Just one. No, I’ll wait…

Strawman, party of one, your table is now ready.

Craig Hooper May 25, 2010 at 12:37 pm

Sigh, it’s the usual “attack the messenger” tactic. That’s sooo old…

This is about how you guys feel about the United States. I feel like you guys are playing footsie with anti-government extremism–and the folks who will likely suffer will be the very vets ya’ll claim to support. The guy who served, went into the GAO, the IRS, the Sheriff’s Office….with the rhetoric I’m seeing out there, it concerns me. So, ya’ll go ahead and take umbrage.

But me, I’m gonna cheer for the guys who do the government’s business day in and day out—the guys who are, thanks to the sentiment I see on some of these blogs–face an increasingly dangerous work environment.

I’m all for change–but of the kind sanctioned by the Constitution–ye olde ballot box. The rhetoric I see points towards change via, oh, other less savory means. Crush doesn’t quite come out and say it, but…he’s advocating for a very different America than what the founders had in mind. I think it’s important to point that out.

I’ve watched you guys for years. I can’t tell you how many calls I see on certain milblogs to bomb San Francisco and the Bay Area or to leave the Bay Area unaided in the event of an earthquake. I find that a decidedly un-American sentiment.

But if you guys think that Crush’s sentiment is all good, and that, oh, bombing the Bay Area is cool and not worth getting riled up about, then forgive me if I take umbrage if those same people dress up in the flag and parade around.

DefendUSA May 25, 2010 at 11:05 am

Curiously, who made you the expert on what milbloggers guidelines are on what is anti anything? It seems to me you are simply jealous or your Piled, high and deep degree has not taught you much. Have you served in the military? Or does merely teaching in Monterey make you an expert on who should be called out based on *your* own personal guidelines of what is “anti-American” or violent?

And prey tell, what does money have to do with the promtion of violence you perceive to have been spewed forth by Blackfive himself? If you had a brain and used it to think instead of chestpuff about what you think you know it would be this- the tenets of Blackfive are such that “we” (as in I, a supporter, but not noted contributor, albeit a commenter) have a mission to care for the defenders. We do that by action, spiritual warfare, and staying abreast of the things that directly impact the troops.

“We” don’t promote violence or anything Anti- American. Nor do we circumvent anyone else’s thoughts or ideas. If necessary, I am positive that warnings have been given in situations that warrant it. All of the contributors to Blackfive have their own principles and beliefs and we respect them and sometimes disagree. But for someone like you to come along and try to insinuate perpetuating violence is an outright lie and you know it.

You have come off as nothing more than a pompous ass and you have wrongly made assumptions and accusations about an entire community of people. The backlash is coming. You picked the wrong group to go after. Better get out the mirror and then visit places like Huffpo, DU, Daily Kos, LGF…if you want to fight violence and anti Americanism.

Maggie May 25, 2010 at 11:01 am

“In short, Matt is a guy who makes a good living by dressing up in the U.S. Flag”

Craig, I am terribly disappointed and angered that you have needlessly and viciously attacked Matt in this way.

I am disappointed that to score points you have needlessly attacked a highly reputable person…..AGAIN.

This whole post is beneath contempt. You need to grrow up. There are things to discuss, points to be made, etc. However, intelligent mature people do it without libeling people.

When you play “Look at me! See how smart I am!” by making vile unfounded accusations against people who are out there doing good and useful things, you reveal just how insecure you are.

I am absolutely heartsick that you would pull this kind of stunt again. You didn’t learn anything last time, did you? You just don’t care who you hurt as long as you look smart.

John of Argghhh! May 25, 2010 at 9:52 am

Heh. Matt is a “former” vet, eh? What, did they revoke his DD214 and void his enlistment contract?

Okay, enough snarkage about usage, this is a blog, after all.

I let people post stuff at my place that I don’t agree with. I will step in with warnings and or disclaimers, but I only outright censor pointless ad hominems, pottymouth, and discussions of actual criminal activity, such as when an idiot decided to post instructions for converting AR15s to full-auto.

I’m kinda with philbob. Unless you’re going to make this place a blog-extension of the SLPC, in which case, where were you when the left was bashing Bush for his crimes against the citizenry?

No, you don’t have to be “fair and balanced” in that regard. But aside from some artful posing, this strikes me as a distractor from what you do better. But hey, we’re bloggers, and our egos oft get in the way.

philbob May 24, 2010 at 7:56 pm

perhaps you should worry less about other bloggers who for some reason you dislike and more about policy which you are fairly good at. It was your biggest problem at springboards and its not something you need to bring here

Craig Hooper May 24, 2010 at 3:11 pm

Anybody else notice that is working awfully hard today to put it’s best face forward?

Craig Hooper May 24, 2010 at 12:35 pm

Seems to me that the Soviets shot plenty of people after tribunals…and yet you find my urging that milbloggers begin discussion of standards of civic behavior to be “frightening”? But I get your point…

Crush’s analogy is bad and stupid. And I’m glad we’ve got some common ground here.

Look, I can only take what he says at face value. I can’t dismiss his analogy because I assume he might be a dolt. Tribunals and shooting people…that’s not good civic behavior. It runs against the foundations of America’s Constitution (and, coming as it did, after a lack-luster GOP showing at the ballot box…interesting timing, no?)….I think Milbloggers can do better.

But then again, if you (or the author) think a thinly veiled call for tribunals and shooting people is patriotic and an example of what good Americans should be prepared to do, then, well let me know. Tell me. Don’t hint about it. Say what you mean. Just like you have done in your correspondence.

In that regard, if you think trying elected officials for treason (versus winning at the ballot box) is patriotic and a great example of civic behavior, um…OK then, pal, I’ve got news for ya, buddy. THAT’S. NOT. AMERICA.

That’s a call to make this country some kind of tin-pot Banana Republic.

Warrant Diver May 24, 2010 at 11:52 am

Craig you dig your hole deeper-“And that sponsors/owners of these sites think about the difference between opposition and loyal opposition” Please, please, please explain what makes “loyal” opposition? Who decides what is “loyal”? You are really pouring out some Soviet era propaganda statements here.
Look, you make a valid point about forcing bloggers to stand by their statements, but the methods you speak of and the terms you use are quite frankly, frightening. You seem to be advocating that we call in government agents to keep an eye on those we don’t agree with. Scary.
And he *clearly* not talking about “taking a wack or two at the working guys who pull you over”. he is talking about charging elected officials with treason for their profligate spending and increasing federal power. His analogy is bad, stupid even. And I agree with cross-posting such blog posts and calling the author out-but his post isn’t unpatriotic or uncivic.

Craig Hooper May 24, 2010 at 10:55 am

I’m suggesting these people be called on the carpet, and forced to stand by their statements. And that sponsors/owners of these sites think about the difference between opposition and loyal opposition.

Look, to me, that comment is a thinly-veiled call to shoot government folks (not elected people–no! That’d be unpatriotic! And would get the writer in trouble with the Secret Service or something…) But putting the idea of taking a wack or two at the working guys who pull you over or collect your taxes…He seems OK with it. To me, that’s uncivic. It’s wrong. It’s un-American.

(And yeah, it’s borderline “call the FBI to keep an eye on the poor chap so he doesn’t hurt anybody when he goes over the edge.” This sort of stuff is a serious indicator of a serious hazard to public safety.)

And to conclude, in a Cold War battle, would we have called a tribunal for captured soldiers and shot ’em? Or…made ’em POWs? And…when did the Democratic Party take over Congress again??

Warrant Diver May 24, 2010 at 10:03 am

I disagree with you Craig-you use a lot of left-wing censorship rhetoric in your post-“anti-government”, “unpatriotic”, “uncivic”. Who made you the Federal Censor in Charge of Patriotic Statements?
His statement was not nearly as inflammatory as you made out. It was slightly tasteless, but that isn’t a crime (yet). Stop leading your charge against bloggers who don’t buy into your left wing mindset.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: