Speaker warns of extremism

An extended version of the print edition story

ST. IGNATIUS — Prior to a speech on the dangers of far-right wing activism given Wednesday at the St. Ignatius Senior Citizen's Center, two warnings were given to the audience concerning possible disagreements in opinion.

“If you end up getting disturbed by someone else's words next to you, I would like you to take a deep breath, inhaling slow and then exhaling,” said Tammy Miller, president of the Flathead Reservation Human Rights Coalition. “And if that doesn't work you should just get up and leave.”

The second given by speaker Travis McAdam, executive director of the Montana Human Rights Network acknowledged the fact that some people in the audience won't agree with him and reinforced that a difference in opinions is OK.

By the time McAdam concluded his speech, both cautions had been ignored and a spirited debate ensued.

Intense jeers and gesticulations during a question and answer session wrapped up McAdam's presentation on the dangers of extreme conservative activism during the event sponsored by the Flathead Reservation Human Rights Coalition.   

McAdam began his speech by defining “the far-right construct,” which includes the white supremacist movement and the anti-government movement. McAdam sees these movements as conspiracy-based.   

“[The far-right construct] is based on a belief that the system [government] has failed, and they believe the system has failed because of widespread corruption, and this is the kind of corruption that can't be corrected by electing new legislators, McAdams said.

McAdam used a funnel cloud to outline what he sees as dangers for both movements' progression. People join these movements, McAdam said, for all sorts of reasons, including advocation of gun rights, anti-tax philosophy, or frustration with the economy.

“Most people generally stay out on the big edge, they come to a meeting, but then go along with their everyday life,” McAdam said. “They never get all that involved. But what happens to the people that buy into the beliefs of these groups, they start to go down the funnel cloud. They start to only take in information that reinforces this emerging ideology that they have. If you get way down to the other end, what pops out is somebody like a Timothy McVeigh,” McAdam said.

McAdam mentioned local groups associated with the patriot movement, which are popping up across Western Montana.   

McAdam said that during the 1990s militia movement, similar groups employed a slogan that they would use voting power to bring about the changes they sought, but if the ballot box failed, they would move on to the cartridge box.

Richard Mack, a former sheriff from Arizona, who has spoken a few times at conservative meetings across the state, made his name by successfully suing the federal government over the Brady Bill.

“As that was moving through its court process, Richard Mack became a prominent speaker for the militia movement,” McAdam said. “He has numerous comments, public records supporting the militia movement both before and after Oklahoma City, and his new message is mainly around this idea of the supremacy of the county sheriff. That's generally what he has been talking about as he is coming through Montana.”

Another speaker that has recently been through the state, primarily in the northwest part of the state and in the Bitterroot, is Red Beckman. According to McAdam, Beckman is a notoriously known anti-Semitic tax protestor.

“He [Beckman] follows something called Christian Identity, which is a racist interpretation of the bible that says Jews are the children of Satin, people of color are sub-human or mud people,” McAdam said.

In 1994, after Beckman had not paid income taxes for 20 years, he lost his property in Billings.

“These are the types of folks that this resurgent right, especially the patriot movement is really drawing ideology from and drawing ideas from,” McAdam said. “They're really getting their political education from these types of people.”

It isn't just the political movement that has seen this resurgence. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the number of white supremacist groups has increased nationally by 54 percent since 2000.

The presentation transitioned to more contemporary patriot groups such as the Celebrating Conservatism group based out of Hamilton.     

“One of the real issues that we have with this type of organizing is not [that] the ideas as they are presented are dangerous in and of themselves. We are worried when those ideas start to take root in action,” McAdam said. “As long as it is just being talked about, that is fine. That's protected speech. What we worry about is what happens down the line when somebody decides to act.”

McAdam said his attention was recently piqued when conservative groups began hosting speakers who were prominent during the militia movement.

“The reason we think it is important for us to engage is because the fundamental issue at stake is what kind of community do you want to have,” McAdam said. “We feel that we are starting to get to the position where those who speak the loudest and those that have the most weapons are the ones that are dictating what's happening in the communities.”

During a question and answer session, Allen James asked a question addressing McAdam's references in his presentation to individuals that emphasis gun rights, property rights, individual rights and tax issues, calling them dangerous radicals. James asked if McAdam believed the Revolutionary War, liberating the colonies from England over these same issues, was led by radical right-wing extremists.   

“Trying to equate that era of American history with this era of American history, I don't agree with,” McAdam responded. “I think the founding fathers had gotten to the point where they had no redress for their grievances. I still believe that we do through the democratic process and voting.”

James, admitting the question written on the paper was his, spoke up and asked if McAdam could go back and further discuss his question.

“Saying that these two statements are not exactly the same, absolutely, that's a true statement,” James said. “Our founding fathers left the door open, for at such a time that our government overstepped its bounds and started to infringe on these rights, it was our responsibility to throw off that government and to set up a new government.”

Jameses reproach to McAdam was followed by applause and a few shouts of “Amen,” from other members in the audience who agreed with him.

McAdam said he doesn't think we are at that situation yet.

“I don't either. I don't either; but I can tell you at such a time I think we are at that point, I will be happy to take up arms and throw off such government that would infringe on those rights,” James said.

James ended his statement by asking McAdam how his beliefs could be characterized as radicalism, when he believes in the same freedoms and rights as our forefathers.

McAdam had begun to answer the question, when Miller cut him off and said they were moving on to the next question and that the question and answer segment was not an open discussion.

The next question raised temperaments and was concerned the Human Rights Networks comments about conservative patriots erroneously misinterpreting the constitution.

McAdam said there is a debate over what the term militia means in the Second Amendment. He said there members of the patriot movement who believe that term references the formation of militia groups by private citizens.

“We disagree with that. We think well regulated militia references the National Guard,” McAdam said.

A disruption occurred when the original asker of the question attempted to pry a defense from McAdam, stating that he should be able to defend his statements publicly.

Shouts of “wait a minute,” “zip it,” and “sit down,” came from nearby audience members. Voices were raised and moods escalated when Miller intervened and said that we have to remember that this is a democracy and we all have the right to speak.

“This is not a damn democracy, this is a republic,” one man shouted across the room.

McAdam quelled the audience by saying that both sides have very strong feelings, and differing opinions and that people also have different interpretations of the constitution.

The night ended with McAdam saying that we should all be able to present our ideas and opinions publicly under the First Amendment.