Thanks to those of you who pointed this graph out that I missed.
And yet there are exceptions, and law-enforcement officials say domestic terrorists are equally the products of their movements. Those most inclined toward violence sometimes call themselves three percenters, a small vanguard that dares to match deeds to words. Brian Banning, who led local and interagency intelligence units that tracked radical-right-wing violence in Sacramento County, California, says, "The person who's interested in violent revolution may be attracted to a racist group or to a militia or to the Tea Party because he's antigovernment and so are they, but he's looking on the fringe of the crowd for the people who want to take action."
My email response to the author:
TO: Barton Gelman, Time Magazine
RE: Your dirty, copulating lie about the Three Percent.
I note in your article on militias shot through with elision and conflation that you have this line:
"Those most inclined toward violence sometimes call themselves three percenters, a small vanguard that dares to match deeds to words."
Really? Can you name one Three Percenter who has committed a crime of violence? What "deeds" do you refer to? Broken windows in a few political party offices? This is your justification for linking us to the domestic terrorism referred to in the rest of the paragraph? Does petty political vandalism against property and property alone now constitute domestic terrorism?
And how do you write an article without exploring the provocation by a tyrannical federal government that prompts the rise in the number and activity of constitutional militias? This is not a "conspiracy theory," as the bureaucratic functionaries of the previous Democrat administration proved on a number of occasions. Many of those same people, notably Eric Holder, are now positions of even greater authority than before. This is why I wrote the Attorney General a letter entitled, "No More Free Wacos." They had their free Waco in the 90s. No one was ever disciplined for the massacre of 80 men, women and children. The constitutional militias are a reminder that when the rule of law no longer protects the people, it no longer protects their oppressors either.
Ancient history, you may say. But the way we look at it, in the present day it was Nancy Pelosi and her ilk who first brought the threat of violence to the table by plunking down the pistol of mandatory "health care" on the table. If we refuse out of principle to participate in this unconstitutional tyranny, we will be fined. If we refuse to pay the fine, at some point we will be ordered to be arrested. If we refuse to be arrested on our doorsteps at the point of an IRS agent's gun, we will be killed -- all in the interest of our "health."
That is the logical progression, is it not? Ask Vicki Weaver or the Davidians if you can find any yet alive. It was this threat that prompted me to call for the breaking of the windows of local headquarters of Pelosi's predatory party. Given that Pelosi would use the entire paramilitary police force of the federal leviathan to force us to her will, a few windows broken in warning seem to me to be simple manners.
I also note that you quote me in your article though you did not trouble your lazy, royal editorial ass to seek an interview with me, though I am the founder of the Three Percent movement. Neither did you quote Professor Robert Churchill, whose book, To Shake Their Guns in the Tyrant's Face is the definitive history of the militia movement up to the year 2000.
A simple visit to my blog, http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com, would have shown you that although it is true that we insist that we will not accept any further infringements on our liberty, we are also insistent that the federal government be the agent to fire the first shot. The sentiment "No Fort Sumters, No Oklahoma City Bombings" is woven through all of my writing and into the credo of the Three Percent. Does that sound to you like a call to pro-active deadly violence?
I rather suspect that your lie about us was handed to you by one of the federal "authorities" quoted (by name or anonymously) in your story, and being the sloppy/lazy "journalist" common to your breed, you simply plugged it in there without verification. Doesn't Time do fact-checking any more?
I will take the Feds seeming fear of the Three Percent as a complement, but I insist upon a formal retraction from you and your magazine.
The alleged leader of a merry band of Three Percenters.
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126