澳彩开奖

Last night, on CNN鈥檚 鈥淓rin Burnett OutFront,鈥� I tried to explain how a note written by alleged LAX shooter Paul Ciancia contained several hallmarks of the antigovernment 鈥淧atriot鈥� movement鈥檚 animating 鈥淣ew World Order鈥� conspiracy theory. My remarks were based on references to the Federal Reserve and 鈥渇iat currency鈥� that were exclusively over the weekend.

My jousting partner in the exchange was Michael Medved, a conservative radio show host, frequent television commentator and columnist. Medved that my comments were 鈥渧ery dangerous鈥� and 鈥渦nforgiveable,鈥� that I was 鈥渃ompletely unfair鈥� to use the word 鈥淧atriot鈥� in describing a key sector of the radical right, and that I was 鈥渢ry[ing] to tar鈥� the political right with the Nov. 1 shooting that left one TSA agent dead 鈥渨hen the clear problem is mental illness.鈥�

Even as Medved spoke, the FBI was, in effect, backing me up with its own suspicions about Ciancia鈥檚 motives. The the FBI obtained a warrant yesterday to search Ciancia鈥檚 cell phone for, in the words of its request, materials reflecting his 鈥渧iews on the legitimacy or activities of the United States government, including the existence of a plot to impose a New World Order.鈥�

In other words, the FBI also is looking into the possibility that Ciancia鈥檚 views about the New World Order 鈥� a feared totalitarian 鈥渙ne-world government鈥� that he also reportedly mentions in his note 鈥� may have been part of his motivations. That is precisely the point I was making on CNN. Even then, I carefully pointed out that we had no information suggesting Ciancia was involved in any Patriot group.

Medved is normally a fairly reasonable and calm debater and, to be fair, he was not very clear in many of his remarks on CNN. But he was clearly incensed at my description of the Patriot movement and, in particular, its name.

What he did not seem to realize is that this is what these groups, by and large, call their own movement 鈥� this is not some name I made up to describe them. At times, they call themselves 鈥淐hristian Patriots,鈥� but I don鈥檛 think that would have made Medved any happier. He seemed to think I was impugning all conservatives.

I understand the idea 鈥� at one point, Medved said, 鈥淚鈥檓 not willing to give up the word 鈥榩atriot鈥� to those people.鈥� But to suggest, as Medved did, that by using the name I was simultaneously attacking the Tea Party Patriots and other groups closer to the political mainstream, is not only false, but just plain silly. It reminds me of complaints I鈥檝e heard from some Christians when I speak about the wildly racist and anti-Semitic theology of Christian Identity. None of us may like it, but the proper name of the religion is, in fact, Christian Identity, even though it has no links to any belief system associated with any mainstream branch of Christianity.

In my original weekend post about Ciancia鈥檚 note, I noted that the TSA, whose agents Ciancia was apparently seeking out to kill, was not particularly the target of most groups on the radical right, though many do despise its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security. (I also reported exclusively that the note called former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano a 鈥渂ull dyke鈥� and contained the phrase 鈥淔U Janet Napolitano.鈥�) But Gawker last night put up a noting that the TSA had been repeatedly vilified by such conservatives as National Review columnist Jonah Goldberg, former Fox News host Glenn Beck, Fox鈥檚 Geraldo Rivera, several Republican congressmen and a number of other well-known figures on the right.

Will Michael Medved now attack Gawker鈥檚 reporting as well? I鈥檇 love to discuss this with him, but so far, my note to Medved suggesting we get together on his radio show to continue the conversation has met with complete silence.