InvestorsHub Logo

F6

Followers 59
Posts 34538
Boards Moderated 2
Alias Born 01/02/2003

F6

Re: F6 post# 175186

Sunday, 05/13/2012 10:16:59 PM

Sunday, May 13, 2012 10:16:59 PM

Post# of 475438
Republican fear factor


Photo Credit: ShutterStock.com


Rush Limbaugh
(Credit: AP Photo/Chris Carlson)


Conservatives' paranoid alternate-reality can be explained by their brain chemistry -- and their media choices

By Joshua Holland, Alternet
Thursday, May 3, 2012 07:00 AM CDT

Consider for a moment just how terrifying it must be to live life as a true believer on the right. Reality is scary enough, but the alternative reality inhabited by people who watch Glenn Beck, listen to Rush Limbaugh, or think Michele Bachmann isn’t a joke must be nothing less than horrifying.

Research suggests that conservatives are, on average, more susceptible to fear than those who identify themselves as liberals. Looking at MRIs of a large sample of young adults last year, researchers at University College London discovered that “greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala” [ http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(11)00289-2 ]. The amygdala is an ancient brain structure that’s activated during states of fear and anxiety. (The researchers also found that “greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex” – a region in the brain that is believed to help people manage complexity.)

That has implications for our political world. In a recent interview [ http://www.alternet.org/story/154940/understanding_the_ideological_divide_between_liberals_and_conservatives%3A_is_it_possible_for_us_to_get_along/?page=entire ], Chris Mooney, author of “The Republican Brain,”explained, “The amygdala plays the same role in every species that has an amygdala. It basically takes over to save your life. It does other things too, but in a situation of threat, you cease to process information rationally and you’re moving automatically to protect yourself.”

The finding also fits with other data. Mooney discusses studies conducted at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln in which self-identified liberals and conservatives were shown images – apolitical images – that were intended to elicit different emotions. Writing at Huffington Post [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-mooney/want-to-understand-republ_b_1262542.html (next below)], Mooney explains that “there were images that caused fear and disgust — a spider crawling on a person’s face, maggots in an open wound — but also images that made you feel happy: a smiling child, a bunny rabbit.” The researchers noted two differences between the groups. The researchers studied their subjects’ reactions by tracking their eye movements and monitoring their “skin conductivity” – a measure of one’s autonomic nervous system’s reaction to stimuli.

Conservatives showed much stronger skin responses to negative images, compared with the positive ones. Liberals showed the opposite. And when the scientists turned to studying eye gaze or “attentional” patterns, they found that conservatives looked much more quickly at negative or threatening images, and [then] spent more time fixating on them.

Mooney concludes that this “new research suggests [that] conservatism is largely a defensive ideology — and therefore, much more appealing to people who go through life sensitive and highly attuned to aversive or threatening aspects of their environments.”

But those cognitive biases are only part of the story of how a political movement in the wealthiest, most secure nation in the world have come to view their surroundings with such dread. The other half of the equation is a conservative media establishment that feeds members of the movement an almost endless stream of truly terrifying scenarios.

The phenomenon of media “siloing” is pretty well understood – in an era when dozens of media sources are a click away, people have a tendency to consume more of those that conform to their respective worldviews. But there is some evidence that this phenomenon is more pronounced on the right – conservative intellectuals have had a long-running debate about the significance of “epistemic closure [ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/books/28conserv.html ]” within their movement.

So conservatives appear to be more likely to be hard-wired to be highly sensitive to perceived threats, and their chosen media offers them plenty. But that’s not the whole story because of one additional factor. Since 9/11, and especially since the election of President Barack Obama, one of the most significant trends in America’s political discourse is the “mainstreaming” of what were previously considered to be fringe views on the right. Theories that were once relegated to the militia movement can now be heard on the lips of elected officials and television personalities like Glenn Beck.

Consider, then, what it must be like to be a true-blue Rush Limbaugh fan, or someone who thinks Michele Bachmann is a serious lawmaker with a grasp of the issues – put yourself into that person’s shoes for a moment, and consider what a nightmarish landscape the world around them must represent:

The White House has been usurped by a Kenyan socialist named Barry Soetero [ http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/occidental.asp ], who hatched an elaborate plot to pass himself off as a citizen of the United States – a plot the media refuse to even investigate. This president doesn’t just claim the right to assassinate suspected terrorists who are beyond the reach of law enforcement – he may be planning on rounding up his ideological opponents and putting them into concentration camps if he is reelected [ http://lewrockwell.com/lazarowitz/lazarowitz36.1.html ]. He may have murdered a blogger [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/01/andrew-breitbarts-death-inspires-conspiracy-theories_n_1314988.html ] who was critical of his administration, but authorities refuse to investigate. At the very least, he is plotting on disarming the American public [ http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/09/26/328300/paranoid-nra-chief-obama-leaving-gun-owners-alone-is-conspiracy-to-take-away-guns/ ] after the election, in accordance with a secret deal cut with the UN [ http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp ] and possibly with the assistance of foreign troops [ http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/obama-in-colombia-plotting-us-gun-confiscation-using-foreign-troops/13735 ].

Again, these ideas are not relegated to the fringe of forwarded emails. Glenn Beck talked about FEMA camps on Fox News [ http://rightsoup.com/glenn-beck-says-fema-prisons-and-camps-are-real/ ] (he later debunked them, which only fueled charges of a media coverup); dozens of Republican elected officials [ http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/gop-lawmaker-stokes-birther-drama/ ] have at least hinted that they are birthers, while an erstwhile front-runner for the GOP nomination has repeatedly claimed [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/a-look-at-trumps-birther-statements/2011/04/27/AFeOYb1E_blog.html ] that Obama is not eligible to be president. The head of the NRA [ http://www.nraila.org/106043 ], and the GOP’s presidential nominee [ http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/13/romney-endorses-belief-that-obama-is-conspiring-to-take-away-gun-rights/ ] have both claimed Obama is plotting to take Americans’ guns.

In reality, Americans are safer and more secure today [ http://www.alternet.org/world/154405/america_has_never_been_safer_--_so_why_are_politicians_and_the_media_trying_to_terrify_us/?page=entire ] than at any point in human history. But inhabitants of the world of the hard-right are surrounded by danger – from mobs of thugs at home to a variety of powerful and deadly enemies abroad.

For the true believers, Latin American immigration isn’t a phenomenon to be managed, but a grave existential threat. A plot to “take back” large swaths of the Southwest is a theory that has aired not only on obscure right-wing blogs, but on Fox [ http://mediamatters.org/research/200608240011 ] and CNN [ http://mediamatters.org/research/201003180049#1 ]. On CNN, Lou Dobbs claimed immigrants were spreading leprosy [ http://mediamatters.org/research/200705110004 ]; Rick Perry, Rep. Louie Gohmert and other “mainstream” voices on the right (that is, people with platforms) agree [ http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/iowa-debate-fact-check/ ] that Hezbollah and Hamas “are using Mexico as a way to penetrate into the southern part of the United States,” possibly with the aid of “terror babies [ http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/08/rep-louie-gohmerts-terror-baby-meltdown ]” carried in pregnant women’s wombs.

In the real world, the rate of violent crime in the US is at the lowest point since 1968 [ http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm ] – in fact, it is somewhat of a mystery [ http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/06/16/a-crime-puzzle-violent-crime-declines-in-america/ ] that the violent crime rate has continued to decline even in the midst of the Great Recession. It’s also true that 84 percent of white murder victims are killed by other whites. But if you read the Drudge Report [ http://politic365.com/2011/06/03/salon-writer-says-drudgereport-com-portrays-blacks-as-a-threat/ ], or check in at Fox [ http://newamericamedia.org/2012/04/dont-white-people-kill-each-other-too.php ], on any given day you will see extensive coverage of any incident [ http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1849365/pg1 ] in which a black person harms a white person. These fit in with the narrative – advanced by people like Glenn Beck [ http://www.theblaze.com/stories/not-ready-waiting-on-video-race-wars-part-ii-co-opting-martin-luther-king-while-fanning-the-flames-of-racism/ ] and long-touted by Ron Paul [ http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/12/23/ron_paul_and_the_coming_race_war.html ] – that we stand on the brink of a race war, led by the New Black Panthers (just consider how frightening it would be if there were more than a dozen New Black Panthers, or if they did more than say stupid things). Marauding “flash-mobs” of black teens [ http://www.wnd.com/2011/08/329513/ ] – a near-obsession at many conservative outlets these days — are simply a harbinger of things to come.

Continue, for a moment, to stroll in the shoes of a true believer on the right. Imagine how frightening it would be to believe Frank Gaffney, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration and leading neoconservative voice, when he claims [ http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/02/01/141625/gaffney-muslim-brotherhood/ ] the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the highest levels of the US government, or Newt Gingrich, when he says [ http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/us/politics/in-shariah-gingrich-sees-mortal-threat-to-us.html?pagewanted=all ] that “sharia law” (there isn’t such a thing in the way conservatives portray it – as a discrete canon of laws) poses a grave threat to our way of life.

Imagine believing that the Democrats’ business-friendly insurance reforms included panels of bureaucrats who would decide when to let you die, as Sarah Palin infamously suggested [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/07/palin-obamas-death-panel_n_254399.html ]. Or that virtually the entire field of climatology is perpetrating a “hoax,” as senator James Inhofe claims [ http://usactionnews.com/2011/02/sen-inhofe-stands-by-global-warming-hoax-claim-in-epa-hearing/ ], in order to undermine capitalism and impose a one-world government. Imagine seeing energy-efficient light bulbs as part of an international plot to, again, undermine capitalism, as Michele Bachmann believes [ http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/08/michele-bachmann-light-bulbs-agenda-21 ]. Imagine thinking that the public school system “indoctrinates” young children into the “gay lifestyle,” as influential members of the religious right – James Dobson, Bryan Fischer, Anita Bryant – have claimed for years [ http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/big-bullies-how-the-religious-right-trying-to-make-schools-safe-for-bullies-and-dangero#myth ]. Imagine believing our electoral system is tarnished by massive voter fraud or that union thugs are running amok [ http://michellemalkin.com/2011/09/05/happy-labor-day-top-10-union-thug-moments-of-the-year/ ] or that the Department of Homeland Security is making a list [ http://www.libertynews.com/2012/02/08/homeland-security-again-labels-limited-government-activists-extremists/ ] of people who advocate for “limited government.” Imagine if there really were a War on Christmas!

These dark narratives come in addition to more run-of-the-mill fear-mongering about the Iranian “threat,” or nonsense about how “entitlements” are leading our economy to look like Greece’s. Those of us in the “reality-based community” may look at these specters haunting the right with exasperation or amusement, but just consider for a moment how bleak the world looks to those who buy into these ideas.

Perhaps the most frightening part of all of this for the true believers is that even though these things aren’t just fringe ideas circulating in forwarded emails – they’re discussed by influential politicians and on leading cable news outlets – the bulk of the media and most elected officials refuse to investigate what’s happening to this country.

That one ideological camp is so consumed with fear also has a lot to do with why conservatives and liberals share so little common ground. Progressives tend to greet these narratives with facts and reason, but as Chris Mooney notes, when your amygdala is activated, it takes over and utterly dominates the brain structures dedicated to reason. Then the “fight-or-flight” response takes precedence over critical thinking.

This article originally appeared on AlterNet [ http://www.alternet.org/story/155210/why_is_the_conservative_brain_more_fearful_the_alternate_reality_right-wingers_inhabit_is_terrifying/ ( http://www.alternet.org/story/155210/why_is_the_conservative_brain_more_fearful_the_alternate_reality_right-wingers_inhabit_is_terrifying/?page=entire ) (with comments) (first image above from the AlterNet original)].

Copyright 2012 Joshua Holland (emphasis in original)

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/03/republican_fear_factor_salpart/singleton/ [with comments]


===


Want to Understand Republicans? First Understand Evolution

Chris Mooney
Posted: 02/ 8/2012 9:26 am

Earlier this week, yesterday's Republican primary champ Rick Santorum called global warming a "hoax [ http://coloradoindependent.com/111924/santorum-and-gingrich-dismiss-climate-change-vow-to-dismantle-the-epa ]." Yes, a hoax. In other words, apparently scientists are in a global cabal to needlessly alarm us about what's happening with the climate -- and why would they do such a thing?

Well, presumably to help advance an economy-choking agenda of global governance [ http://www.desmogblog.com/santorum-calls-global-warming-hoax-suggesting-full-fledged-climate-conspiracy-theory ] -- or perhaps, to line their own pockets with government research grants. Seriously.

Santorum's absurd global warming conspiracy theory is the kind of thing that absolutely outrages liberals -- but to my mind, they really ought to be getting used to it by now. From global warming denial to claims about "death panels" to baseless fears about inflation [ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-08/bernanke-led-economy-proving-critics-clueless-about-federal-reserve-policy.html ], it often seems there are so many factually wrong claims on the political right that those who make them live in a different reality.

So here's an idea: Maybe they actually do. And maybe we can look to science itself -- albeit, ironically, a body of science whose fundamental premise (the theory of evolution) most Republicans deny [ http://scienceprogressaction.org/intersection/2012/01/republicans-not-democrats-are-the-dinosaurs-with-saddles-crowd-qed/ ] -- to help understand why it is that they view the world so differently.

In my last piece here [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-mooney/why-republicans-deny-scie_b_1196823.html ], I commented on the growing body of research suggesting that the difference between liberals and conservatives is not merely ideological in nature. Rather, it seems more deeply rooted in psychology and the brain -- with ideology itself emerging as a kind of by-product of fundamentally different patterns of perceiving and responding to the world that spill over into many aspects of life, not just the political.

To back this up, I listed seven published studies [ http://scienceprogressaction.org/intersection/2012/01/the-left-and-the-right-physiology-brain-structure-and-function-and-attentional-differences/ ] showing a consistent set of physiological, brain, and "attentional [ ]" differences between liberals and conservatives. Later on my blog, I listed no less than eleven studies [ http://scienceprogressaction.org/intersection/2012/01/the-left-and-the-right-part-ii-eleven-genetic-studies/ ] showing genetic differences as well.

Last month, yet another scientific paper on this subject came out -- from the National Science Foundation-supported political physiology laboratory [ http://www.unl.edu/polphyslab ] at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. The work, published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B [ http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1589/640.full#aff-1 ] (free version here [ http://www.unl.edu/polphyslab/sites/unl.edu.incubator.politicalscience.unlpoliticalsciencephysiologylab/files/DBJGSH_RP_May%2016_2011.pdf ]), goes further still in helping us understand how biological and physiological differences between liberals and conservatives may lead to very different patterns of political behavior.

As the new research suggests, conservatism is largely a defensive ideology -- and therefore, much more appealing to people who go through life sensitive and highly attuned to aversive or threatening aspects of their environments. By contrast, liberalism can be thought of as an exploratory ideology -- much more appealing to people who go through life trying things out and seeking the new.

All of this is reflected, in a measurable way, in the physiological responses that liberals and conservatives show to emotionally evocative but otherwise entirely apolitical images -- and also to images of politicians, either on their own side or from across the aisle.

To show as much, the Nebraska-Lincoln researchers had liberals and conservatives look at varying combinations of images that were meant to excite different emotions. There were images that caused fear and disgust -- a spider crawling on a person's face, maggots in an open wound -- but also images that made you feel happy: a smiling child, a bunny rabbit. The researchers also mixed in images of liberal and conservative politicians -- Bill and Hillary Clinton, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

While they did all of this, the scientists measured the subjects' "skin conductance" -- the moistening of their sweat glands, an indication of sympathetic nervous system arousal -- as well as where their eyes went first and how long they stayed there.

The difference was striking: Conservatives showed much stronger skin responses to negative images, compared with the positive ones. Liberals showed the opposite. And when the scientists turned to studying eye gaze or "attentional" patterns, they found that conservatives looked much more quickly at negative or threatening images, and spent more time fixating on them. Liberals, in contrast, were less quickly drawn to negative images -- and spent more time looking at positive ones.

Similar things have been found before [ http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0026456 ] -- but the big breakthrough in the new study was showing that these tendencies carried over perfectly to the different sides' responses to images of politicians. Conservatives had stronger rapid fire physiological responses to images of Bill and Hillary Clinton -- apparently perceiving them much as they perceive a threat. By contrast, liberals showed stronger responses to the same two politicians, apparently perceiving them much as they perceive an appetitive or positive stimulus.

As the authors concluded, "The aversive in life is more physiologically and cognitively tangible to some people and they tend to gravitate to the political right."

What does this mean?

To my mind, it means it is high time to grapple with a fact that we like to conveniently ignore: the left and the right are deeply asymmetrical actors in our politics. If we could acknowledge this, it might explain an awful lot.

For instance, consider a few observations that seem to take on new resonance in light of the latest research:

The Tea Party hates President Obama much more intensely than liberals love him. Or to state things less judgmentally, there is an "intensity gap," as the Pew Research Center puts it, between the right's political base and that of the left.

As of last May, for instance, 84 percent of staunch conservatives strongly disapproved of Obama's job performance, but only 64 percent of solid liberals approved of it. Meanwhile, 70 percent of staunch conservatives viewed Obama very unfavorably, but only 45 percent of solid liberals had very favorable views of him.

What's going on here? To conservatives, the new research implies, President Obama may literally be an aversive and threatening stimuli (or, perhaps, a disgust-evoking one). They fixate on him, and respond to him, physiologically, in a defensive fashion.

For liberals, in contrast, Obama was surely once very appealing, perhaps circa 2008, and excited positive and appetitive emotions. But they've since grown bored or disillusioned with him and gone on to sample many other things in the environment -- like Occupy Wall Street -- always exploring and searching for the new. (All of which, incidentally, may translate into a very serious electoral disadvantage this fall.)

Conservatives opt for Fox News much more strongly than liberals opt for any single outlet. In a 2007 "selective exposure [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_exposure_theory ]" study by Stanford researcher Shanto Iyengar, it was found Republicans overwhelmingly chose to read fake articles labeled with the "Fox News" logo, but chose a story running under a CNN or NPR logo just 10 percent of the time [ http://pcl.stanford.edu/common/docs/research/iyengar/2007/ica-redmedia-bluemedia.pdf ]. By contrast, Democrats in the study didn't like Fox, but also didn't show a strong affinity for a particular alternative news source -- they seemed to sample information sources more widely.

What's going on here? One possibility is that in a political environment filled with perceived threats, Fox helps conservatives feel secure by giving them ideologically consistent and reassuring information. Alternatively, perhaps Fox's constant negative framing of liberals, and of other news sources, appeals to or even excites conservatives, whipping them up for political battle.

Either way, liberals just don't seem to need an outlet like Fox. Again, they're busy chasing after the new and different -- out exploring, rather than hunkering down.


The big question lying behind all this, of course, is why some people would have stronger and quicker responses than others to that which is perceived as negative and threatening (and disgusting). Or alternatively, why some people -- liberals -- would be less threat aversive than others. For as the University of Nebraska-Lincoln researchers note: "given the compelling evolutionary logic for organisms to be overly sensitive to aversive stimuli, it may be that those on the political left are more out of step with adaptive behaviors."

And thus are we drawn to the only context in which we can make any sense of any of this -- the understanding that we human primates evolved. As such, these rapid-fire responses to aversive stimuli are something we share with other animals -- a core part of our life-saving biological wiring.

And apparently, they differ in strength and intensity from person to person -- in turn triggering political differences in modern democracies. Who knew?

For now, I'll leave it to others to speculate on the root causes of these differences. But whatever those may be, the perceptual gap between left and right certainly seems less than "adaptive" at the present moment. It may be the fault of biology that we're now misfiring so very badly -- clashing in ways that, as with the debt ceiling fiasco, could have gravely harmed everybody in America, regardless of their particular ideology.

The Nebraska-Lincoln scientists interpret their results as a powerful argument in favor of greater political tolerance and understanding -- and I agree with them. Politics isn't war, and it isn't zero sum. It requires negotiation and compromise. Surely our public debates should be guided by something more than threat responses and fight-or-flight.

So how do we get beyond our political biology? Well, the implication for liberals seems obvious: If they want to fare better politically, they need to learn to go against their instincts and stay focused and committed.

And the lesson for conservatives? Well, here it is tougher. You see, first we'd have to get them to accept something they often view as aversive and threatening: The theory of evolution.

Copyright © 2012 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc. (emphasis in original)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-mooney/want-to-understand-republ_b_1262542.html [with comments]


===


White Supremacist Leader, Crew Nabbed In Fla. Terror Probe


Accused members of American Front white supremacist group, arrested in Osceola County, Florida. From top left, clockwise: Dustin Perry, Diane Stevens, Christopher Brooks, Richard Stockdale, Jennifer McGowan, Paul Jackson, Mark McGowan, Kent McLellan, Marcus Faella, Patricia Faella.
(Osceola County Corrections Department)


Nick R. Martin - May 8, 2012, 5:39 PM

The race war, he believed, was coming. So Florida white supremacist leader Marcus Faella instructed his followers over the past two years to prepare for it.

The preparations, according to law enforcement documents made public this week, included stockpiling weapons, experimenting with the creation of ricin and plotting some sort of “disturbance” on Orlando City Hall.

In a series of arrests that began on Friday, a joint terrorism task force that included the FBI and local police moved in on the Florida chapter of the white supremacist organization American Front.

They arrested Faella, his wife Patti Faella and eight other people on suspicion of a number of offenses, including hate crimes and training a paramilitary group. Prosecutors with the Ninth Circuit State Attorney’s Office said on Tuesday they were working on putting together felony charges for the 10 members.

An affidavit for Faella’s arrest said investigators were working with an informant in the organization since mid 2010. Agent Kelly Boaz, an investigator with the state attorney’s office, wrote that the unnamed informant started as an outsider but eventually became a “patched” or recognized member of American Front.

In the months since, the informant allegedly documented Faella, 39, becoming increasingly erratic and ordering his followers to commit crimes on the group’s behalf. The informant took secret photos and videos of Faella teaching certain members, including convicted felons, to shoot guns and prepare for a race war in a compound fortified with railroad timbers and cement pilings that he established on his property in Saint Cloud, Fla.

In mid February, investigators learned the group’s preparations were growing.

“Faella started planning to cause a disturbance at City Hall in Orlando, Florida,” the affidavit said. “Faella advised that the AF had been dormant too long and wanted to cause a disturbance so the media would report on it and bring new members to the AF.”

The document said Faella had been experimenting with making ricin, a poison, though it’s not clear whether he was successful in that effort.

This spring, according to the document, Faella learned that anarchists and a group of non-racist skinheads were planning to participate in May Day activities in Florida, so he wanted to plan an attack on the groups.

The informant told investigators that Faella and his followers began to fashion sign holders that could somehow be used to conceal weapons. They planned to travel to the May Day activities and apparently pose as protestors.

During the preparations for the event, however, Faella began to become suspicious of the informant. At an April 28 gathering at a movie theater in Melbourne, Fla., Faella told the informant and other members of the group to hand over their cell phones.

“If I find out any of you are informants I will f***ing kill you,” Faella said, according to the affidavit. The informant was able to remove a memory card from the phone before handing it over. But it was too late. The informant got nervous and ran away.

The affidavit said the informant called police and gave them a statement. It said the person was now willing to testify.

According to the Anti-Defamation League [ http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/american_front/default.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=3&item=american_front ], American Front has been around since 1987 but was thought to be hobbled since the death of the group’s California leader in 2011.

However, the affidavit shows that the group appeared to be growing in recent months, including a big expansion by the group’s Oregon chapter, which the informant said had been doing many of the same things as the Florida group.

The other members of the Florida chapter arrested since Friday are Dustin Perry, Diane Stevens, Christopher Brooks, Richard Stockdale, Jennifer McGowan, Mark McGowan, Paul Jackson and Kent McLellan.

Read the affidavit for Faella’s arrest:

[ http://www.scribd.com/doc/92902056/Marcus-Faella-Arrest-Affidavit (embedded)]

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/marcus_faella_terror_probe_florida.php [with comments]


===


Seller Offers Gun Range Targets Meant to Resemble Trayvon Martin



By Gene Demby
Posted: 05/11/2012 2:12 pm Updated: 05/11/2012 5:21 pm

A Florida entrepreneur said he had sold out of gun range targets depicting a faceless, hood-clad figure holding an iced tea and a bag of Skittles meant to look like Trayvon Martin.

"The response is overwhelming," the seller told Orlando's WKMG news team over e-mail [ http://www.clickorlando.com/news/news/Trayvon-Martin-gun-range-targets-sold-online/-/9533136/13069306/-/10ffct0z/-/index.html ]. "I sold out in two days." The station did not identify the seller, and said it found the ad on a popular firearms auctioning website.

A cached version of the GunBroker.com webpage [ http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS460US460&ix=aca&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.gunbroker.com%2FAuction%2FViewItem.aspx%3FItem%3D283437445 (not there anymore)] belonging to a seller named "hillerarmco" from Virginia Beach, Va., shows the paper targets being sold in packs of 10 for $8.

The description of the product reads:

Everyone knows the story of Zimmerman and Martin. Obviously we support Zimmerman and believe he is innocent and that he shot a thug. Each target is printed on thick, high quality poster paper with a matte finish! The dimensions are 12"x18" ( The same as Darkotic Zombie Targets) This is a Ten Pack of Targets.

A Twitter account [ https://twitter.com/HillerArmCo ] with the same name has been discontinued. A Google search on "hillerarmco" shows a company called the Hiller Armament Company. The domain for Hillerarmco.com [ http://hillerarmco.com/ ] is no longer active.

Martin, an unarmed 17-year-old, was shot and killed by a neighborhood watch volunteer as he returned to his father's girlfriend's house after a trip to the convenience store. Martin was unarmed, but was carrying a bag of Skittles, a can of iced tea, and his wallet after he was shot by George Zimmerman, the watch volunteer. The shooting, and the local police's handling of it, have become major news stories and sparked national conversations around racial profiling and gun laws.

In the aftermath of the shooting, protesters calling for Zimmerman's arrest donned hoodies and waved Skittles at protests around the country.

According to WKMG, the seller said that that the "main motivation was to make money off the controversy." The seller said that he was a supporter of Zimmerman who thinks "he is innocent and that he shot a thug."

Mark O'Mara, Zimmerman's attorney, told the news station that he felt the targets were offensive. "This is the highest level of disgust and the lowest level of civility," O'Mara said. "It's this type of hatred -- that's what this is, it's hate-mongering -- that's going to make it more difficult to try this case."

Copyright © 2012 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/11/trayvon-martin-gun-targets_n_1510080.html [with WKMG video report embedded, and comments]


===


(linked in):

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=75404589 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=75497248 and preceding and following




Greensburg, KS - 5/4/07

"Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty."
from John Philpot Curran, Speech
upon the Right of Election, 1790


F6

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.