Give it up, my man. It's over. Stay low and deal in cash. Let them pay their own god damn taxes. Invest in firearms and ammo.

The American majority have decided they want government cheese, no matter the taste.

I choose live free or die.

Add to your list of "terrorists" Marilyn Katz, fundraiser and PR expert for the Obama campaign according to John Kass of the Chicago Tribune. Back in the day, she was security chief for the SDS and advocated throwing nails in the path of police cars, according to Kass:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-mk-bd-12-oct12,0,5393672.column

LB thanks for the addition to the "s."

Dr. K, your view finds support here:

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/677zpejl.asp?pg=2

Obamanomics equals higher taxes, more government spending, a larger deficit, a more complicated tax code, increased regulation, a slowdown in global economic integration, and the resurrection of the labor unions, all brought to you by a cool-headed gradualist with a team of brilliant advisers. Not a pretty picture. But, as the saying goes, conservatives should always prepare for the worst, because they ought to expect nothing less.

In present company I imagine it's necessary to first say that I'm no particular admirer of Rich. That said, Eric's piece strikes me as strangely blinkered. Rich's article presents the view that there has been an escalation of rhetoric to the brink of incitement to violence. Eric doesn't make so much of a mention of that issue. He does not wish to wonder what the rhetorical purpose is of the repetition of Obama's middle name. Instead, he just wants to pick up the single issue of Obama's ties to "terrorists." The use of those quotation marks is deliberate. But is Ayers reasonably described as a terrorist or, at most, as a former terrorist? The same question goes for his wife and Ms. Katz. Or does Eric actually believe that these people are *today* plotting acts of violence to overthrow the regime? That they are calling for or will be soon calling for bombings and assassinations? However loathesome their political views, however socialistic or communistic their hopes, is there any reason to call them present-day terrorists? Not so far as I can see.
Again, this was not the point of the Rich article. The question there, put formally, is what the deliberate and repeated association of terms such as "terrorists" and "Barack Hussein Obama" during charged political rallies can be reasonably expected to result in.
How about this as an analogous counter-example: Suppose the Obama rallies began rallying the troops to constant reference to McCain as Mr. Adulterer, accompanied by before/after pictures of his first wife? They could ask, "Not pretty enough for you, John?" And then they could helpfully point out that the Bible says to stone adulterers, immediately demurring to say that, no, we don't do that anymore. And hey, if the crowd starts chanting, "Stone him! Stone Him!", that's not really the Obama folks' responsibility, is it? After all, isn't it true, he really *is* an adulterer? And isn't also simply painfully evident that McCain ditched this faithful woman, who worked tirelessly for his release from Vietnamese captivity, because he thought he deserved, after all his suffering, a beautiful wife, just like the one he had left behind?
Stone the bastard, I say! But what would Eric say? That he *is* no longer an adulterer? That his love life is no more politically relevant than Obama's middle name? That Obama should tone down this kind of rhetoric?

I did read on someones post, sorry do not remember where, that Obama and Dorn were interns at the same law firm. Don't know if true. Anone else read that?

Rich's article presents the view that there has been an escalation of rhetoric to the brink of incitement to violence. Eric doesn't make so much of a mention of that issue.

Probably because Rich is lying, as anyone who has actually attended a McCain or Palin event can tell you.

Again, why neglect Bernardine Dohrn?

Sexism. Anyone who has taken a Womyn's Studies class will tell you that womyn are incapable of violence, which is only caused by testosterone. Any violent act committed by a womyn is merely a reaction to male oppression and justifiable.