The Hatewatch blog is managed by the staff of the Intelligence Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based civil rights organization.

Nine Members of the Hutaree Militia Indicted in Plans for ‘Armed Conflict’

By Heidi Beirich on March 29, 2010 - 11:30 am, Posted in Militias

Nine members of the Hutaree Militia were indicted today in what federal authorities are describing as a plot to murder a law enforcement officer in Michigan and then attack other officials who gathered for the funeral. The five-count indictment followed a series of raids in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana over the weekend.

The Hutaree Militia first came to the attention of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in 2009, when researchers found the group’s MySpace page. Two chapters of the militia, one in Michigan and one in Utah, were included on the SPLC’s list of militia groups released earlier this month. The Utah chapter held at least one training in 2009.

The Hutaree Militia had close links to several other American militias, according to the group’s MySpace profile. The profile, which carried the slogan “violence solves everything,” shows that the group has 366 “friends.” The militia’s page was linked to dozens of other militias, including the Ohio Militia, the Michigan Militia Corps, the Kentucky State Militia, the Central Texas Militia and others. The indictment alleges that in February “several of the conspirators attempted to travel to Kentucky to attend a summit of militia groups.”

The indictment charges the defendants with seditious conspiracy, attempted use of weapons of mass destruction, teaching the use of explosive materials and possessing a firearm during a crime of violence.

The government alleges that members of the antigovernment Hutaree Militia, which is based in eastern Michigan’s Lenawee County and has been conducting “military-style training” there since 2008, conspired to “levy war against the United States.” According to the indictment, Hutaree members view local, state and federal law enforcement as an enemy “brotherhood” that they were preparing to engage in armed conflict.

Authorities said the Hutaree planned to kill an unidentified, local law enforcement official, then attack the funeral with improvised explosive devices and “explosively formed projectiles,” which, according to the indictment, constitute weapons of mass destruction.

The indictment by a grand jury in Detroit covered charges that took place between August 2008 and today. The defendants are David Brian Stone, 45, and his wife, Tina Stone, 44, his son Joshua Matthew Stone, 21, of Clayton, Mich., and his other son David Brian Stone Jr., 19, of Adrian, Mich. Also arrested in Michigan and indicted were Joshua Clough, 28, of Blissfield and Michael Meeks, 40 of Manchester. In Indiana, Thomas Piatek, 46, of Whiting was arrested. In Ohio, Kristopher Sickles, 27, of Sandusky and Jacob Ward, 33, of Huron were arrested.

Hutaree mug shots

The arrests again show the growing danger from America’s radical right, where a pervasive rage against the government has become red hot. In a report released in March, “Rage on the Right,” the SPLC documented 512 antigovernment “Patriot” groups, which include armed militias, operating by the end of 2009. That represents a 244 percent increase over the previous year’s count of 149. The number of militia groups rose from 42 in 2008 to 127 in 2009.

The SPLC documented a total of 75 domestic terrorism plots between the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and 2009. The majority of those plots were concocted by individuals with extreme antigovernment views.

  • republican

    Chelene Nightingale now involved with the RAP restore america wacko group. RAP listed with the FBI has a domestic terrorist organization, that creates their won “shadow government” issues their own I.d. cards and does not regard the laws of “our” government” to pertain to them. Google a recent rally she hosted with a “ken Cousens” google Cousens name, you will see her introduced as the “CA dejour” governor. Just one more nut to add to her jar. Truely delusional. This group says ‘THEIR” PRESIDENT is a man named Tim Turner. Oh boy! Google this dude, and find out about this so called sovereign” citizen group is all about! cuckoo cuckoo! :0

  • beholder

    “Nice try though lump me in with the Neo Nazis… If you haven’t read my writings don’t try to figure me out. You can’t… Not a racist, or gay basher, just a patriot who actually took his oath seriously.”

    47 wolfpack Militia
    Maybe a little … too seriously. I’m only sayin’.

  • Zeus’s beard

    In the end, denying the fundamental humanity of anyone simply leads to violence and is wrong. You shouldn’t curb anyone’s right to free speech, neither should you articulate hate-filled vitriol, though it is within your rights to do so. Paranoia is on the rise in America.

    On the other hand, since the economic downturn, so many people are angry. The report released by the SPLC merely confirms that many americans feel alienated and have lost faith in their government. This lack of faith and the breakdown of infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc,) is troubling. The american society of civil engineers gave US infrastructure a D. While paranoia should be avoided, we as Americans can’t help but feel that something is seriously wrong with this country, even if we can’t put our finger on it.

    I certainly hope there isn’t a power crisis within the US government in the near future, because radical groups like these would quickly and effectively fill the vacuum.

  • JAY

    Gdog00187 – where are you getting your “facts”??? Can your back up your statement, “most violent crime in the U.S. is black on white crime”???


  • Gdog00187

    No one understands. Its all for show. Even this very web site that claims to fight hate, must hate as well. It’s a little bit messed up that most hate group’s reported on here are white, and that most violent crime in the U.S. is black on white crime.

  • jeff


    we’re agreed on the basic materialist analysis for fundamental socio-political change, i.e. mass poverty. though this is necessary, it is not a sufficient condition for such change, as Trotsky observed. “We have paid far too dearly for this conclusion — with regard to the role and importance of a party in a proletarian revolution — to renounce it so lightly or even to minimize its significance.” See his “Lessons of October.” (hence, my previous question to you on the subject; no need to belabor it further.)

    while we agree on much, i would quibble with any loose usage of the word “socialism.” it’s a political mistake to invite abuse of this term by the American Right. those regulatory agencies you referred to ought properly to be called “regulatory agencies,” particularly since Congress has the authority, under Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution, to regulate interstate commerce. nor is there anything socialistic about commercial regulation; King Hammurabi of Babylon was regulating commerce in the 18th century B.C. in his legal code.

    your comment re. the military-industrial complex reminds me of Senator Vandenburg’s comment to President Truman when he proposed a drastic increase in the budget of the air force in the late 1940’s, “you’ll have to scare the hell out of the American people.”

  • beholder

    Jeff your comments on the origins of the progressive party are intriguing, but I really don’t know enough about the subject to opine one way or the other. I do believe however if you look at the global events going on in that time period, the rise of labor movements in opposition to the conditions of the industrial worker, you will see that prevailing social conditions led to the formation of political parties, and therefore I tend to think that the underlying conditions of the populace from the 1890s forward — and not the embodiment of their concerns into a political party — were what shifted the debate leftward.

    It could be argued that without the party the voice would have been unheard, but I tend to think that incorporating workers’ issues into the political debate would have occurred one way or the other.

    Other interesting points you raise: newspapers and the “free press” were by and large partisan in their origins, and always have been. I do not believe in objective journalism, as a rule. Perspective can only be obtained through critical thinking about diverse views.

    As for the military industrial complex, this is an extremely interesting subject. I look to WWI as the defining event for the rise of a rush on resources around the world (coal, oil, iron and steel), and at the same time the rise of political influence of the industrial complex, since it became apparent after WWI that industry profited from both sides of the war and that to win a war required massive industrialization and access to resources. So, what better way to ensure a military-industrial complex than to create a false enemy vis-a-vis “socialism”.

    Though you are absolutely correct in the strict definition of socialism as nationalized means of production, when I refer to socialism it is in less confining terms. By having OSHA, FDA, FCC, etc, we created federal superstructures over the means of production, and I consider that socialism. Similarly, unions, while existing in the capitalist system, are inherently socialist as they seek to project the influence of workers even though this does not imply ownership of the means of production.

    Socialism continues to evolve and our paranoia about the topic in the United States does not serve the best interests of our country. The more or less keynesian “third way” I think you are referring to is one such example, but I also see promise in the solidarity economy (cooperatives) as a viable socialist model that can be incorporated within the existing production structures.

    Socialism does not presuppose destroying everything in order to rebuild.

  • jeff


    your comments on propaganda strategies are well taken. it appears that propaganda is an integral part of mass politics. it’s definitely this way today, and probably has been for centuries since, let us say for the sake of convenience, the development of the Whig and Tory parties in England in the 1680’s. Consider, for example, the Federalist papers in this country, which were all published in newspapers as part of the a propaganda campaign to convince the public to support ratification of the U.S. Constitution.

    i don’t mean to put words in your mouth here. is it your view that the development in this country of the Populist Party in the 1890’s followed by the Socialist Party under Eugene Debs then the Progressive Party, created a sort of pressure on the two-party system that shifted the national political debate leftward? Theodore Roosevelt’s domestic policies as a Republican president followed by a run for the presidency on the Progressive ticket in 1912, still astonishes, notwithstanding his imperialistic foreign policy.

    i ask because, in light of the dictionary’s definition of the term “socialism,” the progressive legislation that characterized the late 19th century and early 20th century, beginning with, e.g., the Interstate Commerce Act of 1886, clearly does not qualify as socialism, i.e. the nationalization of the means of production. the same is true of the federal legislation that to some extent was inspired by that from this earlier period, such as the New Deal legislation and the Great Society legislation.

    as for the military-industrial-congressional complex, it amounts to a military Keynesianism (i suppose the proper label is “state capitalism”) that both parties by and large support.

    i’d be interested in any views you may entertain about the Democratic Socialist Party in this country.

  • beholder


    Clearly socialism was perceived as enough of a threat to those in power for the past hundred years that it was felt a dedicated effort to persecute, jail, and execute socialists was in order.

    My point is that Americans have been institutionally misinformed about socialism for the express intent of easing resistance to the heavy spending in the military-industrial complex via taxation. It is a point of curious historical fact that CIA in the early 1970s no longer considered the U.S.S.R much of a threat to the U.S., even though their assessment was kept from the American people for decades. Why?

    Whereas the average American has a series of assumptions and value judgements about socialism that are decidedly negative, people raised pretty much anywhere else in the world do not have the same kneejerk reaction — whether or not they are socialists.

    We’ve seen the same phenomenon over the past 30 years with a dedicated effort by those on the right wing to turn the word “liberal” into a sneer. The reason being is that it is difficult to put aside critical thinking when looking at facts and reason, but not when you are able to enshroud a group in a perjorative label that requires nothing more complex than hate to perpetuate itself.

    In fact, Karl Marx was greatly influential around the world, and our own country began to embrace socialism at the same time as it became clear that capitalism would lead to the formation of oppressive monopolies that were themselves at cross purposes with democracy.

    Were it not for socialism, we would still be working in the mines in fourteen hour shifts, paying for our tools, lamps, and blasting powder through deductions in our wages that would prevent any individual from gathering the means to quit their job, even though that “right” is sanctified and kept absolute in theory.

    The progressive policies advanced under the New Deal have been repeatedly and aggressively beaten back and reduced, even though in virtually every other industrialized nation this has not been the case. Some institutions still survive, such as OSHA, the FCC, FDA, and EPA, as well as TANF and food stamps, medicare and medicaid, affirmative action, etc, but our federal support for these programs is comparatively less than our industrialized counterparts.

    The most typical argument — or might I say, stereotypical — against socialism is that it is “impractical”. This is an easy stance to argue, because impracticality means very little of itself. Impractical to whom?

    Obviously the boom and bust cycle of capitalism is inherently impractical as well.

    Furthermore there is nothing inherent to socialism that would contradict personal property rights. The property in question — means of production — is held by the demographic few who benefit exponentially by the profits taken from the demographic majority through a system of wage labor that by its very nature seeks to pay the smallest possible wage to ensure the highest profit. The conflict inherent in this system arises when the wages are too small to support consumption, and industry retracts, leading to economic crisis.

  • jeff


    the sociological explanation you offered for the militia movement makes sense. perhaps, it represents an identity movement of white men in response to both the civil rights movement and the feminst movement. it would be natural given the militaristic leaning in American culture for such a movement to adopt the martial spirit.


    another onfolding example of bipartisan corruption is the conviction of Bradley Birkenfeld, which promises to engage the attention of the press for some time to come. UBS, in the figure of Michael Wolf, has a connection into the presidency, and former Senator Phil Gramm sits on the UBS board of directors apparently. in addition, legislators of the U.S. government opened overseas accounts with UBS, according to Birkenfeld. so, naturally in our system of governance, the Department of Justice prosecuted him, probably for the purpose of discouraging other whistle blowers from reporting more details. the element of socio-economic class in the story provides obvious background.

    now for the thorny question of change. as a practical matter, how realistic is it to expect fundamental change in the structure of the economic system in the U.S. without, at the very least, a strong socialist or social-democratic party? were such a party in power, it could affect such change constitutionally. at the very least, it would shift the debate substantially to the left; hence, the presidential campaigns of Eugene Debs early in the twentieth century.

    even in his strongest showing Debs received no more than five percent of the popular vote. to build such a party in this country would take decades, assuming it’s possible. it seems we are stuck choosing the lesser of two evils for the moment.

  • John Lloyd Scharf

    “beholder,” you will excuse us if we do not accept your view of States or corporations and do not chose to drink the blue koolaid of a collectivist.

  • John Lloyd Scharf

    Quotes are always a good point to discuss but rarely constitute an argument. If the defense of property only if it protects both the property of the poor and the rich is it civil or civilized. We all have property, whether it is our goods, land, or labor.

    Adam Smith’s perspective is that of a Scott before our independence and so therefore bares little or no legitmacy as a supposed observation of the US.

  • beholder

    “If there ever was a time in history where any political party or movements were radicallly different, it is the Democrats and Republicans at this point.”

    John Lloyd Scharf on April 16th, 2010 at 2:48 pm

    That’s an interesting way to describe two peas in a pod. Tell me, do you often generalize?

  • Herbert E. Larson

    Gee, I go away for a couple of days(computer crash) and the people who lack a real knowledge of U.S. govt.,ill-informed of the facts, and just plain know nothing sprout. Like weeds in a field of un-GM corn seed and that is good, it is part of what The Constitution is there for, open and meaningful discussion
    of ideas and thinking.
    Now no elected official I know of has endorsed the decision that allows corporations and unions to back a candidate or political party with unlimited money. The only person to react was Justice Alito inappropriately said something under his breath when President Obama gave the decision a negitive rating in The State of the Union.
    Civil government as instituted in America, was for the protection of property of all citizens poor and rich. Over the years this fact has become blurred, misconstrued and just misunderstood leading to the amazing misquoting that that is heard from all sides.
    Armed militias have always been a part of the American experience, after the Revolutionary War they were used to protect the farthest settlements going west. Then during the Civil War there were raiders on both sides the most well known being Quantrill’s Raiders, after the war most went west and disappeared, the James Bros. and the Younger’s and it did not end well for them. Except for some mostly political groups mostly unarmed, the KKK being the exception it was quiet. Then came the sixties and the world went electric(drugs), and the rate of armed militias has increased exponentially. With the passage of time the militias have become more violent and incredibly twisted in their interpretation of their manifestos political or religious.
    There is a way to stop and change all this by standing by the teachings of Thoreau, Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. peaceful nonviolent disobedience. If you think that is stupid, realize that one man just sitting down put the finally nails in the coffin of the British Empire and just saying President Obama it should strike like lighting, it works.

  • beholder

    “Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.”

    Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations

  • beholder


    As long as the state represents only the interests of a handful of individuals who have property (large corporations), it can never truly be said that America is a land of freedom, and the servitude of the American citizen in a system of wage labor – performing the most work for the least wage – will continue.

    If the people, who by definition in a capitalist society are in the demographic majority but economic minority, do not control the economy through their vote for their own interests – and not the interests of those who own the means of production — the supposed democratic structure of the “free market” system is revealed as an economic dictatorship.

    If the profits cannot be yanked out of the wages of the worker directly in the “free market”, they will be yanked out of their wages through taxes that go to fund the corporations or at least protect their status as de facto plutocrats.

  • ron

    Beholder, thanks for the lengthy response. For some reason part of my post was “eaten”. My comment re: voting out the person one hates was supposed to be tongue in cheek or facetious.

    I have been well aware that we basically only get to vote for one representative of capatalist corporations or another. Those individuals who are taking up arms in the name of jesus, (Michigan christian militia et al) all seem to be frightened and confused as a result of what is happening in our country and around the world re: the sorry state of the econemy, terrorism and other changes that seem to be very upsetting to them. A womans right to choose and gay marriage just to mention a couple.

    The militia folks as a result of their fear and confusion do not in my opinion know how to respond other than to take their hatred out on “the govment” that allows these terrible sins to happen. They would like very much to go back in time when life was much more simple.

    Its very interesting that you say, “The essential structure of the exploitive system is never dismantled, because the influence of the corporations over politics is greater than the influence of the workers on their legislative representatives almost without exception”.Thirty minutes ago I just heard an MSNBC commentator state, Obama received almost a million dollars from Goldman Sachs. The beat goes on

  • John Lloyd Scharf

    beholder, your biases are showing. If there ever was a time in history where any political party or movements were radicallly different, it is the Democrats and Republicans at this point.

  • beholder


    Let’s talk about this idea of the supposed freedom we have to vote and determine our destiny.

    The late Leo Huberman, one of the most prominent American socialist thinkers, pointed out that the American people have a choice of voting for Republican X or Democrat Y, but this is merely the freedom to choose between which representative of the capitalist class will make laws in Congress to serve the interests of the capitalist class.

    It’s a valid point.

    The proof of this is the approval by both Democrats and Republicans of the law allowing direct contributions by large corporations to political campaigns, over the overwhelming opposition of the American people to this law (both Democrats and Republicans), as demonstrated by public polls.

    Another perfect example of this is how the Republican party – and presumably its constituents – continue to support the banks when nearly unanimously, these banks have lent their own support to the Obama administration. The banks will support whoever is in power, because they know that when they give support they will receive support, and this is essentially the problem of capitalism and the corruption of our political system.

    Yet another example is the recent health care reform law whose primary beneficiaries will be the large insurance corporations, just as it was the large insurance corporations who were the predominate financial contributors to the campaign to remove the public option (a massively funded national advertising campaign aimed at scaring the people).

    These reforms inevitably maintain the existing property structures and reinforce the status of the owners of the means of production in spite of whatever palliative is granted to the people. In other words, the owners of the means of production will give up only the smallest concession necessary to preserve the continuation of their predominance economically and politically in our country.

    The essential structure of the exploitive system is never dismantled, because the influence of the corporations over politics is greater than the influence of the workers on their legislative representatives almost without exception. If a candidate does arise who will truly represent the worker, he will be marginalized and not receive the funding of the major corporations, and will inevitably be excluded from the cronyism that runs Washington.

  • ron

    AHHHHHH, what a wonderful site. All this hate and history too. Thank you SPLC!!!! I am rather new here and have a lot of catching up to do. I am not too familiar with the 2nd. ammendment but just heard yesterday that the president of the US is in charge of all such militias. If thats the case, all he has to do is ask them to lay down their weapons and disband. Dont you think? Oh, I forgot———he’s the enemy!!! I thought people like Timothy Mcveigh was the enemy. No? You say he”s a patriot, and Obama is the enemy because he’s a socialist? Wait a minute, ” I’m a socialist!!!! Am I also the enemy? I dont belong to any militia. I dont plot to kill cops in the name of christ and I am not a violent person. I’m so confused!!!! Because I am a socialist, is my life in danger? Are there any socialist militias? Maybe I should join one. Nah, I couldnt shoot anyone if I had to. If I dont like my government that was freely elected I can vote them out!!!! Many years ago many of us on the left were told things like, “My country right or wrong” and “Love it or leave it” . Get the point?

  • jeff

    according to associated press online today, state legislators in Oklahoma and leaders of local tea parties there are considering the formation of a state militia ostensibly to protect against overreaching by the federal government.

    the details are rather vague as usual for daily news. nevertheless, the article is worthy of a peek.

  • JAY


    Isn’t Stormfront a Neo-Nazi umbrella organization?


  • Difluoroethane


    Aren’t you a member of Stormfront? I’m pretty sure I’ve read about you before, and I think it was in a news article about Stormfronters. If you are indeed a member of Stormfront, you are in no position to be accusing anyone else of being “hate mongers”.

  • jeff

    john: what tunnel vision? in my previous comment, i noted that northern Democrats in general supported passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the figures that you’ve cited in your comment indicate that the bill was approved by a clear majority of them at that time (roughly by a 60 – 40 % split). Note that i never said that the Republican caucus in the Congress did not support passage. where did you find these figures by the way?

    what i did say about the Republican party is that, with Goldwater’s presidential campaign of 1964, they began to exploit the Wallace supporters for political advantage. as we know, this crowd of southern Democrats opposed passage of the Civil Rights Act. candidate Goldwater saw an opportunity to turn southern Democrats, e.g Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, into supporters of his Republican campaign for the presidency. this appears to have resulted from a concern over political expediency.

    Thurmond defected from the Democrats and joined the GOP that very year, because Goldwater promised that he would oppose federal promotion of civil rights for African-Americans. This was his famous southern strategy, which has been used by the GOP since then. 1964 was the first time in decades that the southern states cast their electoral votes for the Republican candidate for the presidency. More recently, in the administration of George W. Bush, another southern Republican, the civil rights division of the Department of Justice prosecuted remarkably fewer civil rights cases.

    the presidential election of 1964 marked the beginning of a long term trend in the gradual transformation of the two major political parties in this country, a tranformation that is most conspicuous in the south, which had voted solidly Democratic and now votes solidly Republican.

    several scholarly works have been written on the transformation of the Republican party since 1964 into one dominated by southerners, e.g. The Rise of the Southern Republicans by Earl Black; and The Paranoid Style in American Politics by Richard Hofstadter. Hofstadter is particularly interesting because he was writing in the mid-1960’s. For more information on candidate Nixon’s southern strategy during his presidential run in 1968, in which southerners Strom Thurmond and Spiro Agnew played a significant role, i suggest the book Nixon Agonistes by Gary Wills from the late 1960’s.

  • John Lloyd Scharf

    Jeff, you definitely have tunnel vision on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Democrats were extremely divided on that. George Wallace CUT HIS TEETH as a primary candidate 1964 and split the party in 1968 with his American Party. Nixon and Humphrey ran neck and neck. Nixon won by a very narrow percentage of the popular vote. Wallace had 13% of the vote, mostly out of the South. Humphrey won 42%, mostly out of the North. Senator Robert Byrd opposed the measure:
    By party
    The original House version:
    Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
    Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
    Cloture in the Senate:
    Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%-34%)
    Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
    The Senate version:
    Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
    Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
    The Senate version, voted on by the House:
    Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
    Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

  • jeff

    john: check your history. LBJ was president in 1964, had the support of the northern Democrats in both houses of Congress, and signed the Civil Rights Act into law. Since the 1948 Democratic convention, the party platform had included a civil rights plank, which was originally proposed by Hubert Humphrey. this is basic stuff; go look it up for yourself if you don’t believe me.

    jack: i’m afraid you’re attempting to put words in my mouth. i never insinuated that Kenneth Blackwell and his subordinates in Ohio beat African-American voters during the presidential election of 2004. making them wait hours in line to vote due to a shortage of voting machines, while white voters in suburban precincts were able to vote quickly and conveniently without such a wait, was Blackwell’s preferred method of vote suppression. Republicans these days are more sophisticated than were Bull Connor and the KKK.

    Greywolf: religion is the opiate of the masses, but you’re right to insist that every criminal defendant is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. we’ll wait for a verdict.

    More importantly for the purpose of this discussion, why do you and your colleagues insist on calling yourselves a militia when you have no formal association with the National Guard, the real militia created and funded by the federal government pursuant to Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution? Why do you feel the need to legitimize yourselves by usurping the title of a militia and exploiting the patriotism as well as the naivete of others, when few if any of you care enough even to join the National Guard? if you want to call yourselves, for example, the “redneck gun club,” that’s fine and dandy. but why the “militia”?

  • beholder

    That’s right Greywolf. And if English was good enough for Jesus Christ, I reckon it’s good enough for our country too. Dam furriners.

  • greywolf

    You guys are soooo funny… And I here it is said the militia’s are the hate mongers…. Y’all have your hate down so good that you don’t even realize when you spout it …. Well done evil dudes… You guys keep talking and we look better all the time. As far as Hutaree, I think I will do like the Constitution teaches, wait till they have their day in court before I convict them. I won’t judge them like y’all… God says leave that to him.

    47 wolfpack militia

  • Herbert E. Larson

    I have been thinking of what to say here for several days,m then I get sad
    and depressed and I stop. I have realized what I want to say, what we are suffering from is 70yrs. of lies, starting the day President Harry S. Truman signed the bill forming the N.S.A. This launched the era we now live in hallways of mirrors on a scale no amusement park could imagine. These hallways are also booby trapped and filled with people pushing their own agendas above all reason.
    This is why there are people who believe anything that they are told by the people who stand for what they believe and so birthers, anti-abortionists, anti-gay marriage, groups and more unstable bands populate the country and world. Now taking on all these groups and showing why they are mislead is too daunting and I do not have enough Acetaminophen to stop the headache. Though a few things will not hurt too much, it amazes me how you can show the people how their leaders for all they speechifying are destroying the life they want protected. Or the anti-abortionists, gay marriages who believe that their leaders are with them when if that were true the would make a speech in person or at the very least send a high ranking administration member to speak, not just a phone call that is just lip service. Then you have the 9/11 Truthers now I do not agree with them but it is fairly evident that the cheney-bush administration
    had been warned by the out going Clinton administration about Al-Quaeda and the danger they poised. Then cheney-bush started planning invasion of Iraq and waited for a reason to invade and on Sept, 11, 2001 they got the reason. Then by manipulating the intelligence to what they wanted disregarding the facts we were off to invade Iraq. This is just a minute reason for the mess America is dealing with, the whole picture is impossible to see because everyday new streams are started and grow to rivers of misinformation.

  • John Lloyd Scharf
  • John Lloyd Scharf

    For those of you attempting to justify or minimize what the Hutaree were doing:
    Andrea Harsh, ex-fiancée of David Stone, warns that their dedication to their cause is intense. “They went so far to make a big map on a room in their house of their own country and their own names of their countries and cities and stuff. It’s very extensive.”

    Their dedication to the cause also carried over into their personal lives. In a recent wedding ceremony, many of the members were wearing their Hutaree uniforms.

    Prosecutors report that one suspect killed his cat so he could “see if he had it in him to kill something he cared about.”

  • mountaingirl08

    Jack, the militia was stopped before they could construct and use the IED’s to kill law enforcement. Oh, boo, hoo, hoo.
    Your logic is not that. It’s illogical.
    #9 had a 2 hr. standoff w. the authroities before he gave up.
    Also, geeze, they are ugly.

  • Tezuka fan

    If I read one more 9/11 “truth” post in this topic, I’m going to spam a website of my own! I mean it. If I see the number 9 attached to anything besides a year or the number of Hut-hut-hikes indicted, I’m posting a link.

  • jack

    “since operatives of the the Republican party insist on suppressing the votes of African-Americans even in our own time (e.g. Ohio in 2004 when Michael Steele was the state supervisor of elections) whenever necessary to win elections, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution should be invoked to regulate militias.”

    What a load!
    We all remember black people getting beat with batons and being tear gassed to keep them from the polls.

  • Eric Ray

    I don’t think the government deserves our unflinching trust. How many times has the government lied to the American people? It’s healthy to be suspicious of pathological liars. 4,500 American troops have died in Iraq based upon a huge lie. In an early post I was merely asking the question: What role did the FBI informants play in planning the violence? Were the directing the group or were they passive participants. If they were directing, it is entrapment. I’m not saying they were..just asking questions. I have no sympathy for the Hutaree Militia; they hold some really insane beliefs. But that in and of itself is not a crime.

  • beholder

    Tony I understand your vehemence on this point but I fail to see the critical link that suggests conspiracy.

    I think the invasion of Iraq was the greatest rape of the American people’s good faith perhaps in the history of our country, even more than socialists being imprisoned for opposition to WWI and even worse than McCarthy and the red scare. I have absolute belief that Bush was an evil minded opportunist who saw an opportunity to dupe the American public and provoke a war in Iraq, that had zero relevance to the “War on Terror” whatever THAT is supposed to mean in a soundbite.

    However being an opportunist and power drunk maniac are different than being a conspirator.