Bachmann implies that killing doctors and other terrorist acts is the expression of a “difference in opinion,” and that people who are against killing doctors is merely an “interest group”.

She calls for the investigation of those who would call right wing killers “terrorists.”

Read more here.

Bachmann’s comments are in response to Janet Napolitano’s concerns over right wing extremism. These concerns were voiced before the murder of Dr. Tillman by an anti-abortion activist with Operation Rescue. The document mentions single-issue anti abortion or anti-immigration leanings together with rejecting federal law as signals of potential extremists. To paraphrase Bachmann’s comments on this video:

We need to have a hearing … call her to account … ask her why they call people who [are against abortion, are pro gun, who are Republicans] “domestic right wing extremists” … bring her in front of congress and ask her if this is her opinion … and if it is … ask for her resignation. [The homeland security secretary should have said] there might be a difference of opinion … diversity of public opinion … [the secretary's statements] are like a hammer coing down on interest group after interest group.

Comments

  1. #1 Sissy Willis
    June 2, 2009

    She said no such thing. I am surprised and disappointed that a science blogger would be such a poor listener and observer of evidence to prove or disprove his theory.

  2. #2 Stephanie Z
    June 2, 2009

    Sissy, that report Bachmann keeps waiving around is a report on right-wing extremism. Bachmann wants the director of Homeland Security brought in front of the House to explain why she issued a report on differences of opinion. Bachmann didn’t organize her speech the same way Greg did, but that’s what she said. She wants a blind eye turned to the extremists because the violence they foment is based on political differences.

  3. #3 megan
    June 2, 2009

    [[She wants a blind eye turned to the extremists because the violence they foment is based on political differences.]]
    Yeah, but kill dem fascist Mooslims and TallyBahn, cuz they’s ain’t Jesus lovin’ God fearin terrorists likes us in Amerika. Satan’s on their side.

  4. #4 catgirl
    June 2, 2009

    This is one time when I am very sad to be right. We predicted that there are domestic extremists and those people had enough power to make us feel bad about calling them on it. And then it turns out we were right. I have no feelings of smugness or pride, only sadness and disgust.

  5. #5 Sissy Willis
    June 2, 2009

    Stephanie — Thank you for your response to my comments, above.

    I listened to Rep. Bachmann’s speech and did not hear anything remotely suggesting she would excuse the murder of doctors or any fellow human beings for any reason. I have read relevant excerpts of that DHS report on right-wing extremism, and as a well-behaved tea partier concerned about the future of this Shining City Upon a Hill, I felt a twinge of intimidation in response to Secretary Neapolitano’s words. I would personally be very much interested in hearing what the Secretary would have to say in response to Congressional questioning.

    Here is more and much more (if you’re interested) on what the tea parties mean to a Darwinian Libertarian like me.

  6. #6 PhilB
    June 2, 2009

    Argh, Bachmann. Everytime I listen to her speak I get embarrassed for Minnesota.

  7. #7 Glen A-B
    June 2, 2009

    I believe the assassinated doctor’s name was Tiller rather than Tillman.

  8. #8 Chris
    June 2, 2009

    All ethical considerations are subjective in that they reflect our desires. More precisely, ethics arises when we have a conflict between what we desire and what others desire and we desire to solve the conflict with coercion. When what others desire becomes important to us, we can try to use argument, discussion, persuasion, or propaganda to change their desires. If the issue under conflict is great enough, then we may resort to coercion to force others to either do something or to stop doing something no matter what their opinion is. It is when we want to coerce cooperation that we have an ethical situation. We usually reserve the colloquialism “matter of opinion” for those situations where we might want to change someone’s opinion or desire but we are specifically not interested in coercing active compliance when discussion fails—hence, something that is a matter of opinion is not an ethical matter.

    Clearly, Bachmann does not believe that this issue is “a matter of opinion”. She would love to compel women to carry all babies to term no matter what the women wishes. Clearly she wants to use the full coercive power of our system to force compliance.

    Most religious fundamentalists treat any non-fundamentalist ethics or secular ethics, especially those that are subjective, as if they reflect mere “matter of opinion.” But a “matter of opinion” is not ethical at all. What someone like Bachman is doing is trying to frame the argument so that the subjective desires of the fundy are privileged as objectively true while the desires of everyone else are treated as nothing more than choosing an ice cream flavor.

    That is why we have to fight. Ethics is a reflection of our desires. There is no objective way to decide how we ought to desire—we just desire. It is rational to seek happiness. It is rational to want to have some control over what we do with out bodies. We do share a common biology. There is no rational reason to base our life on the collective wisdom of some sheep herders from 2500 years ago and their modern cultural descendants.

  9. #9 Binkyboy
    June 2, 2009

    Anyone else, other than Sissy, interested in teabagging for baby Jesus?

    Tell me, Sissy, are you a Darwinian Evolutionist as well?

    What Michelle Bachmann has done is to play down the threat that right wing extremists pose to America. Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, the Aryan Nation, the KKK, and so many more are terrorists, plain and simple. Domestic terrorism has the power to destroy a country, while external terrorism is more likely to pull us together as a nation.

    Try reading some Dave Neiwart, Sissy, maybe that will give you some inkling as to the danger that exists under the guise of “interest groups”

  10. #10 Sissy Willis
    June 2, 2009

    Binkyboy: Try cutting back on the snickering tone next time. It would make the person being addressed more inclined to give a modicum of weight to whatever points you may be trying to make.

  11. #11 Ben Zvan
    June 2, 2009

    From the report:
    Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

  12. #12 willie
    June 2, 2009

    Darwinian Libertarian = nutbag homeschooling nutbag. Oh, did I say nutbag twice?

  13. #13 sailor
    June 2, 2009

    I vote less videos of the odious Bachmann, more of the sex with ducks chicks…

  14. #14 stogoe
    June 2, 2009

    Oh, geez, a Librarian wanker infestation. “Bachmann didn’t actually mean that stuff that she actually said boo hoo hoo”.

    Pro-forced childbirth groups are terrorist organizations.