Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

‘Hate’ blogger Hal Turner turns himself in to Connecticut police
The Christian Science Monitor ^ | 6/11/09 | Matthew Shaer

Posted on 06/13/2009 3:13:01 PM PDT by bdeaner

...today police are saying that one blogger, Harold “Hal” Turner, crossed the line when he suggested some Connecticut government officials should “obey the Constitution or die. ”Turner, a New Jersey native, was apparently angry about proposed legislation that would have given lay members of Roman Catholic churches in Connecticut more control over their parish’s finances, the Associated Press is reporting. The blogger and radio show host turned himself in to the Connecticut police this afternoon on a charge of inciting violence.

(Excerpt) Read more at features.csmonitor.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: firstamendment; freedomofreligion; freedomofspeech; halturner; hatespeech
The guy is a nutjob, but his arrest seems to be in clear violation of of his rights.
1 posted on 06/13/2009 3:13:01 PM PDT by bdeaner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bdeaner

Oh yikes. Now the Catholic Church is linked in the minds of the witch-hunters with this nutjob.


2 posted on 06/13/2009 3:14:30 PM PDT by OpusatFR (Those embryos are little humans in progress. Using them for profit is slavery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OpusatFR

No, he was criticizing the Catholic Church, I believe. I don’t know the full context, but if you read the article, it’s clear he was speaking against the Church.


3 posted on 06/13/2009 3:15:45 PM PDT by bdeaner (The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner

No he was defending the church against the legislature. Things are so bad out there that strident voices are being heard...


4 posted on 06/13/2009 3:17:45 PM PDT by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner

http://www.connpost.com/ci_12513294

Excerpt

Harold Charles Turner, of North Bergen, also known as Hal Turner, was arrested by State Capitol Police for inciting injury.

The arrest came the day after his blog alluded to using guns against Sen. Andrew J. McDonald, D-Stamford, and Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, D-East Haven, co-chairmen of the Judiciary Committee, and Thomas K. Jones, enforcement officer for the Office of State Ethics.

Turner, 47, was booked in New Jersey, pending extradition to Connecticut.


5 posted on 06/13/2009 3:19:07 PM PDT by Calpernia (DefendOurFreedoms.Org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fooman
No he was defending the church against the legislature. Things are so bad out there that strident voices are being heard...

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Like I said, I don't know the full context. I haven't been following the situation in CT very closely. What the hell is going on up there?!?!?
6 posted on 06/13/2009 3:19:15 PM PDT by bdeaner (The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Coleus; Salvation

FYI


7 posted on 06/13/2009 3:22:02 PM PDT by AliVeritas ( Pray, Pray, Pray)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2009/06/04/neo-nazi-shock-jock-hal-turner-arrested-for-incitement/

It reads that Turner is also a paid informant for the FBI. He wanted to shoot W, send a drone with bombs to 0 and shoot mexicans.

More to this story we may never know.


8 posted on 06/13/2009 3:25:03 PM PDT by VicVega (Join Jihad, get captured by the US and resettled in the best places in the world. I love the USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

I didn’t know anything about this guy before hearing of his arrest. It looks like he spoke of or wrote of violence against government officials. OK, That’s not good. But we had 8 years of threats against W and the Republicans, so -what’s the difference? Where is the line drawn? And exactly what constitutes threats or hate speech? We know the old rules are out and the new rules are in - whatever they are. The only thing we can be sure of is that liberals can get away with just about anything and conservatives need to be very, very careful.


9 posted on 06/13/2009 3:25:36 PM PDT by ElayneJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner

State moves to restrict Catholics in politics
Official contends church must register as ‘lobbyist’ to speak out
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99836


10 posted on 06/13/2009 3:29:41 PM PDT by golas1964 (Zero is NOT my hero!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner

Not the same thing, per se, but what about Grassley’s quote to the AIG execs? It was in poor taste, but still in the realm of free speech. Or did the guy actually say he was gonna kill someone?


11 posted on 06/13/2009 3:35:01 PM PDT by FreeSouthernAmerican (All we ask is to be let alone----Jefferson Davis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ElayneJ

>>>The only thing we can be sure of is that liberals can get away with just about anything and conservatives need to be very, very careful.

Hal Turner aligns himself with the Neo Nazi circles. They are the National Socialists.

I don’t see how any reference to conservatives can be used in your post.


12 posted on 06/13/2009 3:36:48 PM PDT by Calpernia (DefendOurFreedoms.Org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AliVeritas; Clemenza

thanks...

fyi, he’s a banned FReeper


13 posted on 06/13/2009 3:36:56 PM PDT by Coleus (Abortion, Euthanasia & FOCA - - don't Obama and the Democrats just kill ya!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner

added ct and nj to topics


14 posted on 06/13/2009 3:37:22 PM PDT by Coleus (Abortion, Euthanasia & FOCA - - don't Obama and the Democrats just kill ya!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner
"Obey the Constitution or resign" would be a better choice of words.

Then again, no one gripes about "Live Free or Die" on a New Hampshire license plate...

15 posted on 06/13/2009 4:05:30 PM PDT by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OpusatFR

Makes you wonder just who got to him to make him act out.
and is it inciting violence unless there is a proven violent act
resulting from what the guy said?

Can I tell my neighbor to “drop dead”?

And if he does, can they get me for inciting death?


16 posted on 06/13/2009 4:09:49 PM PDT by TribalPrincess2U (The plan... 0 in power for life. At least that's what they told him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: golas1964
State moves to restrict Catholics in politics
Official contends church must register as ‘lobbyist’ to speak out

Plenty of Black Churches spout political action right from the pulpit and never would receive such attention.

Reverend Right anybody.

17 posted on 06/13/2009 4:13:07 PM PDT by Pontiac (Your message here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

Please don’t misinterpret my post. I didn’t say this man is a conservative. Note that, in fact, I said I never heard of him before learnng of his arrest. My point is that there were many threats against Republicans during the last several years, and these were not addressed by law enforcement. Correct? This man is arrested for making a threat, apparently. So - where is the line drawn? I do think conservatives are going to be under fire, and we’ve already seen it. You don’t agree? If there are no hard-and-fast rules that are applied equally across the board, we’re all in trouble and any one of us can be arrested on a whim.

If this man is a Neo Nazi, of course his ideas should be challenged. Should he be arrested? If he violated the law, of course. But here’s the point: The law that governs his behavior needs to govern the behavior of others in a consistent way.


18 posted on 06/13/2009 4:15:22 PM PDT by ElayneJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia; All
“I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.” - Voltaire, 1770

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” - First Amendment to the US Constitution, adopted Dec. 15, 1791

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, author of The Friends of Voltaire, 1906


Even, as much as I hate this hate speech...

We need to be careful of ideals we wish to quash. When topics are unpopular and offensive, they tend to stay that way.

But when we wish to restrict them entirely, a little bit of our Liberty dies ... and opens the door for ideals to be restricted by others.

For example, “Right-Wing Extremism” can be defined, or re-defined, as those in power deem fit.

19 posted on 06/13/2009 4:17:32 PM PDT by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ElayneJ

The people being threatened are the ones that need to file reports. If there was no reports filed, then no actions were taken. It is illegal to incite violence.


20 posted on 06/13/2009 4:22:07 PM PDT by Calpernia (DefendOurFreedoms.Org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BP2

What Turner was promoting wasn’t ‘offensive’. It was threats.

Copy from Turner’s blog:

“While filing a lawsuit is quaint and the ‘decent’ way to handle things, we at TRN believe that being decent to a group of tyrannical scumbags is the wrong approach,” Turner wrote.

“It’s too soft. Thankfully, the Founding Fathers gave us the tools necessary to resolve tyranny: The Second Amendment,” Turner continued. “TRN advocates Catholics in Connecticut take up arms and put down this tyranny by force. These beastly government officials should be made an example of as a warning to others in government: Obey the Constitution or die.”

Turner then promised to post the home addresses of Lawlor and McDonald on Wednesday.


21 posted on 06/13/2009 4:26:55 PM PDT by Calpernia (DefendOurFreedoms.Org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner
Turner, a New Jersey native, was apparently angry about proposed legislation that would have given lay members of Roman Catholic churches in Connecticut more control over their parish’s finances...

This is not true. It would have taken the churches away from the control of their bishops, who are the successors to the Apostles, and essentially given them to a structure outside of the Church that could be controlled by the government.

22 posted on 06/13/2009 4:28:00 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #23 Removed by Moderator

To: Calpernia

But who gets to say what inciting violence means? Could it be simply expressing views that oppose obama and his administration? Where does free speech cross the line to become inciting violence?


24 posted on 06/13/2009 4:56:57 PM PDT by ElayneJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner
Why is his arrest a violation of his rights? And I'll have a follow-up question after you've responded.

By the way, on your profile pg. where is that statue of St. Teresa of Avila?

25 posted on 06/13/2009 4:58:02 PM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ElayneJ

>>>But who gets to say what inciting violence means?

I don’t know exactly what you are asking. Turner was actively urging violence. I don’t know how you can read his statement differently.


26 posted on 06/13/2009 5:04:10 PM PDT by Calpernia (DefendOurFreedoms.Org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jla
Why is his arrest a violation of his rights? And I'll have a follow-up question after you've responded.

Freedom of speech. Was not creating a clear and present danger. No obscenity. Arresting this man based on what he said -- even though what he was was irresponsible -- seems to be a violation of the bill of rights.

By the way, on your profile pg. where is that statue of St. Teresa of Avila?

That's a sculpture by Bernini which can be found in Rome at the Church of S. Maria della Vittoria. I saw it in person a couple years ago. Beautiful. It's called "The Ecstasy of St. Teresa."
27 posted on 06/13/2009 5:12:29 PM PDT by bdeaner (The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia
I don’t know exactly what you are asking. Turner was actively urging violence. I don’t know how you can read his statement differently.

But to stop free speech, the violent talk would have to present a clear and present danger. That doesn't seem to be the case in this instance.
28 posted on 06/13/2009 5:14:55 PM PDT by bdeaner (The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner
Like I said, I don't know the full context. I haven't been following the situation in CT very closely. What the hell is going on up there?!?!?

Connecticut Seeks to Silence Church. Again!
29 posted on 06/13/2009 5:15:44 PM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

I’m just saying that inciting violence can be a subjective call. You know how talk show hosts like Rush and Hannity, for example, are often accused of spreading “hate.” President Clinton blamed Rush for inciting the Oklahoma City bombers, in fact. Was the blame justified? Did Rush’s comments lead to the bombings? Not in my opinion, but in the opinion of President Clinton, yes. So I’m concerned that the line between free speech and advocating violence will be blurred. This is why I think the law needs to enforced in a way that’s clear and uniform.

It does sound like Turner was actively urging violence.


30 posted on 06/13/2009 5:24:55 PM PDT by ElayneJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner

This guy is a nut. I only remember him because his online show was constantly raided by the chans.


31 posted on 06/13/2009 5:27:28 PM PDT by RushIsMyTeddyBear (Obama. Clear and Pres__ent Danger.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RushIsMyTeddyBear
This guy is a nut.

I don't know anything about the guy -- but, yeah, he does seem like a real asshat.
32 posted on 06/13/2009 5:28:31 PM PDT by bdeaner (The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Comment #33 Removed by Moderator

To: Calpernia; Jim Robinson; 21stCenturyFreeThinker; Alice in Wonderland; null and void; Beckwith; ...
What Turner was promoting wasn’t ‘offensive’. It was threats.

Thanks for the clarification. I had no idea. I don't listen to him, so I didn't know those details. Yes, his rhetoric, racist beliefs and tactics, are abhorrent.

... THAT SAID ... (and forgive me for hijacking this thread)

What level of “tyranny” are YOU (that is, ANY AMERICAN) willing to accept and tolerate from your government before YOU are willing to ACT beyond words?

Think hard, really HARD – NO, REALLY, REALLY HARD – on that question. Seriously — tonight, as you lay in bed ... think about it -- search your soul.

What's YOUR personal limit before you must take action, and can you put that in writing, as a binding promise to yourself and your family?

These questions are somewhat rhetorical, somewhat not...


As the Framers discovered (and many others before and after them), sometimes (and sadly) words and rhetoric only go so far. We may scream “NO” as loud as we want, but a corrupt and tyrannical political power, hell-bent on the destruction of its country and its Constitution, may not be willing to "hear" the words of The People. Those in power today (June 2009, in the USA) know they may not have the “chance for Change” for a LONG time after this swing of the political pendulum.

Many Americans, just 6 MONTHS AGO, acknowledged that if the SCOTUS and Congress did not intervene on Mr. Obama’s birth certificate issue, THE RULE OF LAW would be dead. But we’ve gotten use to it.

Many Americans, just 3 MONTHS AGO, watched in horror as the Congress and Executive signed every citizen and their children into slavery as part of the Stimulus Plan, spending money that doesn't exist which will simply be printed by the US Treasury. But we’ve gotten use to it.

Many Americans, just 1 MONTH AGO, felt we were slipping into a Marxist regime as we saw General Motors become "Government Motors", similar to the Bailouts that have taken place with the Banking Industry. But we’ve gotten use to it.

Many Americans, less than 1 WEEK AGO, were gobsmacked at how the Federal Court System (sans Justice Ginsburg) authorized the legalized theft of Chrysler ownership from secured debt-holders, ignoring long-standing Bankruptcy Laws. But we’ve gotten use to it.

Congress is seemingly alarmed at the concentration of decisions being made by the Auto Task Force. Not because they care how it’s, run per se – Congress just wants a piece of the action, too. Mr. Obama now has 21 Czars, all controlled by the Executive, with no Congressional or Judicial oversight. Again, Congress seems to care, but somehow is unwilling (and unable) to do a damn thing about it. But we’ve gotten use to that, too.

California runs out of money in less than 7 weeks, and will likely be extorted by the Federal government to give up much of its sovereignty for a Federal Bailout. The Executive is pushing hard for Socialized Medicine, and the voting majority of Congress is right along with him. And the U.S. Senate is proceeding at break-neck speed (remarkable for the deliberative Senate) to confirm a “wise Latino” to be a SCOTUS Justice. How long before we will have gotten use to all of that, too, and accept it as the new norm?

Have I missed anything? I’m sure I did, but you get the point. And we all know where we are headed, politically and economically if this continues.

And don’t wait for the media to bring it to your attention – they have their agenda too – and it lines up quite nicely with that of the current Executive, Legislative and (sadly) the Judiciary. The Fourth Branch of Government, the Federal Grand Jury, is trying to get some traction, but unfortunately seems to sputtering, and most likely would be ignored by the US Justice Department in any event.

Are we becoming a bit like the proverbial frog, sitting in a pot of cold water, barely noticing that we're being boiled alive – very slowly?

We have about 17 months (November 2010) before the proverbial pot has ANY chance of being taken off the proverbial stove top. The TEA PARTIES are a big step in the right direction -- THANK GOD and the Founders for the First Amendment rights of Free Speech, the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

BUT based upon our current rate of progression from the last 5 months – how do you think America will look in Nov 2010 (or Nov 2009 for that matter)? And do you think we’ll still be able to do anything about it?

I will state this again to those who may be monitoring – I AM NOT ADVOCATING VIOLENCE.

That said ... what we’re doing thus far JUST DOESN’T SEEM TO BE WORKING…. It may be in some quarters, but overall -- it's certainly not working fast enough to stop the onslaught.


As far as using the Second Amendment to leverage against tyranny … please read the ruling from the “DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER,” (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf), when the SCOTUS (bravo for them) struck down the DC handgun ban last June.

I recommend starting at page 19 of the Opinion, at "Meaning of the Operative Clause". Here’s a snippet from page 26, regarding the Constitutional power of the Second Amendment, as discussed in November 1788:

It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.


The preceding bantering and bloviating was for contemplative and educational purposes only...

34 posted on 06/13/2009 9:54:50 PM PDT by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BP2
"... what we’re doing thus far JUST DOESN’T SEEM TO BE WORKING." My FRiend, without a majority of the old we the people caucus, opposition will not work in a Coinstitutional Republic.

The stinger is though, we no longer live in a Constitutional Republic! The Constitutional contract has been finally abrogated by the Roberts subpreme court refusing to uphold the meaning of the Constitution.

The dumbed-down entitlement-minded electorate promoted a fraud to the position of pres__ent without giving a damn whether he was Constitutionally qualified or even whether he was connected to the enemies of this nation in this ongoing war with Islamic terrorists!

Violence? Against whom would it be directed? ... The criminal affirmative action figure? Hardly, democrats admire criminal behavior that succeeds.

A surge of populace demanding something from the federal oligarchs? ... Even in my deepest fictional renderings, I cannot imagine a porcine populace actually giving a damn until they are the bacon destined for the frying pan. And then they would be hard-pressed to react to the heat, believing to the end that their masters wouldn't treat them so badly!

If you have a hard time grasping this stark assertion, consider how many alive black children have been aborted under the demcorat promoted and propelled defense of abortion on deamnd, in ordere to empower democrat political capital election after election. Yet the black vote is still more than 80% for any democrat over any Republican.

Are black people really that spiritually bankrupt? ... Thank God for a few like Pastor Manning and the 'macho' guy, for the Thomas Sowells and Jesse Petersons. Perhaps that is all that has kept us from final judgment, thus far.

35 posted on 06/13/2009 10:16:03 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: BP2

MORE, MUCH MORE THAN A LITTLE FOOD FOR THOUGHT.

SOBERING POINTS.


36 posted on 06/13/2009 10:23:56 PM PDT by Quix (POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 2 presnt: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: BP2
BUT based upon our current rate of progression from the last 5 months – how do you think America will look in Nov 2010 (or Nov 2009 for that matter)? And do you think we’ll still be able to do anything about it?

RIOTS IN IRAN THE MSM ISN'T COVERING. COULD THIS HAPPEN IN THE US?

IMAGES FROM TEHERAN

37 posted on 06/13/2009 10:31:24 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: BP2; Calpernia

BP2, do not even come CLOSE to allowing yourself to be identified with this guy. Post your post anywhere but here. Hal Turner is a nazi, pure and simple, and nothing but. For anyone to simply identify him as a talk show host is misleading and fallacious in its sin of omission.
He does an internet hate show. Freedom of speech is one thing. What he has done on his off time is NOT simple hate speech.
**********
Harold Charles “Hal” Turner is an American white nationalist and white supremacist from North Bergen, New Jersey. He runs his program, The Hal Turner Show, as a webcast from his home once a week, and depends on donations from his listeners. He quit the show in July 2008 and resumed in April 2009. In August 2008 his website also closed down, though he retains a blog.

Turner promotes antisemitism (including the rounding up and killing of Jews)[1] and opposes the existence of the state of Israel.[2] He also denies the Holocaust.[3] In 2005, Turner organized what he billed as a “rally against violence” after a white student was beaten by a black student at a high school. In 2006, he got into a fight with Jaime Vazquez, a former Jersey City deputy mayor, after Vazquez called him a “racist coward”. Turner has made numerous threats against political figures on his website and in other forums.

Early career
Identifying himself as “Hal from North Bergen”, Turner became notable in American conservative circles as a frequent caller to WABC radio talk shows hosted by Bob Grant and Sean Hannity.[4] Turner parlayed this fame into a role as the northern New Jersey coordinator for Patrick J. Buchanan’s 1992 presidential campaign. He went on to serve as campaign manager for Libertarian Party candidate Murray Sabrin in New Jersey in the 1990s, including a 1997 gubernatorial campaign.[5]

Turner reportedly established a friendship with Sean Hannity, on whose program he was a frequent presence.[4] However, when confronted by the New Black Panther Party’s Malik Zulu Shabazz about his association with Turner (in light of Hannity’s scrutiny of Barack Obama’s association with Jeremiah Wright), Hannity at first denied knowing Turner, then said he had banned Turner from his radio station, and that he never supported Turner’s views. Turner subsequently posted this response on his website: “I was quite disappointed when Sean Hannity at first tried to say he didn’t know me. In fact, Sean does know me and we were quite friendly a few years ago.”[6][7]

Turner became a talk radio host, joining fellow regular callers Frank from Queens and John from Staten Island to start the program The Right Perspective. Turner left the program in 2002, citing artistic differences. In 2002, Turner became a solo host, purchasing a time slot on shortwave radio station WBCQ, over which he broadcast for approximately four years. He gave up this show on WBCQ on March 22, 2004 for a few reasons: financial support from the listening audience had faded,[8][9] the owner of the station Allan Weiner was Jewish, Turner had health problems,[10] and his personal financial condition was deteriorating. This led to the temporary closure of his website and show.

2000 Congressional election
In the 2000 US congress election, Turner sought, but did not receive, the Republican Party nomination for election to the United States Congress from New Jersey’s 13th congressional district, losing to Theresa de Leon.[11][12] Turner has identified himself as the “Chairman of the Republican Party of Hudson County, NJ Corp,” a group which has no connection to the official Hudson County Republican Party recognized by the state and national party. According to news reports, Hudson County Republican officials have stated that Turner’s party is a “paper corporation with little or no membership”.[13]

Rally against violence
In response to an October 7, 2005, assault against a white student by a black student at Kingston High School, Turner, working with the white nationalist group National Vanguard, organized a rally which he called a “rally against violence”.[14] The case resulted in the perpetrator being indicted as an adult with two felony counts: assault and attempted assault.[15][16] He characterized the rally both as “pro-white” and “against violence”.[17][18] The victim’s mother chose not to attend the rally.[17] In response, local residents, including political and religious leaders, organized a number of “Unity Rallies” with a tolerance theme.[19] When the rally occurred on November 19, 2005, Turner and the National Vanguard attracted approximately 50 demonstrators, compared to the 100 counter-demonstrators.[20]

Jaime Vazquez encounter
On April 12, 2006, Turner had a physical altercation with Jaime Vazquez, a former Jersey City Deputy Mayor and member of the Jersey City Council, who was the Jersey City Commissioner of Veterans Affairs at the time. The North Bergen Reporter quoted Turner as saying “(t)he illegal immigrants are breaking the law, and people like me should break the law as well by shooting them down.” In response, Vazquez picketed with a sign reading “Hal Turner — shoot me! Racists and bigots like you are cowards.”[21] Vazquez suffered a back injury and a fractured wrist. Turner and Vazquez later filed criminal charges against each other. On July 16, 2006 North Bergen Municipal Court Judge Joseph Romano found both men to be equally credible and thus neither criminally liable.[22]

Threats against judges and political figures
In 2005, Turner publicized the names of three federal court judges who handled lawsuits involving Matt Hale.[23] Turner posted the judges’ names and addresses on his Web site.[23][24]

On December 6, 2006, Turner announced on his website:

“We may have to ASSASSINATE some of the people you elect on Nov. 7! This could be your LAST ELECTION CHANCE, to save this Republic... Sorry to have to be so blunt, but the country is in mortal danger from our present government and our liberty is already near dead because of this government. If you are too stupid to turn things around with your vote, there are people out here like me who are willing to turn things around with guns, force and violence. We hope our method does not become necessary.”[25]

Since the announcement was made, Turner has had difficulties finding a host for his website. He alleged that his website has been the target of denial of service attacks, and subsequently filed a pro se lawsuit.[26][27][28]

On April 4, 2008, Turner encouraged violence against Lexington, Massachusetts school superintendent Paul Ash for establishing a new curriculum supporting gays and lesbians. On his website, he stated:

“I advocate parents using FORCE AND VIOLENCE against Superintendent Paul B. Ash as a method of defending the health and safety of school children presently being endangered through his politically-correct indoctrination into deadly, disease-ridden sodomite lifestyles.”[29]

He went on to provide Ash’s personal information, including his address.[29]

Anonymous website raid
According to Turner, in December 2006 and January 2007, individuals who identified themselves as Anonymous took Turner’s website offline, and cost him thousands of dollars in bandwidth bills. He retaliated by sending a “formal legal notice of criminal activity in violation of several federal laws” by email to 7chan, multacom, and multicom, as well as redirecting his domain to 420chan, causing that site to take a bandwidth hit as well.[30][31][32] He also sued 4chan, eBaum’s World, 7chan, and other websites in court over copyright infringement. He lost his plea for an injunction, however, and failed to receive letters from the court, which caused the lawsuit to lapse.[33]

Informant allegations
Allegations that Turner acts as an informant to the FBI surfaced after unidentified hackers claimed on Turner’s website’s forums that they had read email correspondence between him and an FBI agent, apparently his handler.[34] This led to a discussion on a neo-Nazi website on January 10, 2008, in which Turner revealed he was quitting political work, was ending his radio show and that he was separating “from the ‘pro-White’ movement”.[34] Both the FBI and Turner declined to comment on the matter.[34] The Southern Poverty Law Center later reported that they had “revealed... that Turner was an FBI informant”[35] and the Anti-Defamation League reported that “a neo-Nazi Website had posted material reportedly found by the hackers, including alleged exchanges between himself and law enforcement agents that indicated that Turner had been providing information to them.”[36]

Arrest
On June 3, 2009, Turner was arrested and charged with inciting injury to two politicians in Connecticut and a state ethics official.[37] The warrant issued was for inciting his website’s readers to “take up arms” against the officials.[38] He was arrested in New Jersey and is pending extradition to Connecticut
*********
And this is minor stuff compared to the massive amount of OTHER stuff he was involved in.


38 posted on 06/13/2009 11:01:16 PM PDT by MestaMachine (I don't have a novel or insightful tagline. At this point, words fail me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine
Point well taken. Reading his biography, he definitely sounds like someone not to be identified with. Calling for the killing of ANYONE is abhorrent. Scumbag is too weak of a word.

BUT once again ... Free Speech IS Free Speech. The Framers knew some people had no sense of decorum, and may utter infuriating words, and yet still placed no limits on what could be said. That doesn't mean we as individuals can't find some words vile and reprehensible -- but we limit actions people undertake, not the (idiotic) words they utter.

If our country is strong enough for THIS Leftist rhetoric and survive as NOT to prosecute those responsible using the new Terrorism Laws:
AND

We probably have enough tolerance for some of this garbage, too:
AND

And even a little bit of tripe from a Judge and Reverend:
AND

As long as they don't hurt anyone, advocate hurting anyone, or are in a position of power as to let their racial views taint their decisions, we should survive as a nation.


39 posted on 06/14/2009 12:19:33 AM PDT by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: BP2

Explain “hurt anyone.”
Obama and Company are destroying an entire nation, or two, or three, maybe more. How many “anyones” are you willing to sacrifice? The rhetoric is beyond speech and into actionable lawlessness, maybe treason.


40 posted on 06/14/2009 1:38:55 AM PDT by MestaMachine (I don't have a novel or insightful tagline. At this point, words fail me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: BP2

“A people unwilling to use extreme violent force deserves the tyrant that rules them.”

This quote doesn’t say use that force, but the elected leaders need to believe beyond a shadow of doubt that that violent force will be used if need be and further it will be used against them.

This fact in and of itself will deter tyrants. But until they understand this our people are helpless.


41 posted on 06/14/2009 6:03:47 AM PDT by stockpirate (The 2nd amendment protects all other rights as outlined in our constitution. Without it we fall.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine

The left, which includes a US senator (John Kerry) have been advocting violence against those who opppse their agenda for over 40 years.

Who here can forget, Ruby Ridge, Waco, the VVAW plot to murder 19 US senators who supported the Viet-Nam war, the VVAW plot to murder Nixon and Agnew. The Weather Underground’s failed plot to bomb a USO dance in NJ that was attended by hundreds of US servicemen, the bombing of a NYC police station, the bombing of the US Capital building, the bombing of the pentigon. The recent murder in DC by a ultra left-wing socialist.

The war has already started, most just refuse to see the truth.

My money says there will be violence at some of the upcoming Tea parties brought on by leftists and or government troops or agents.


42 posted on 06/14/2009 6:23:41 AM PDT by stockpirate (The 2nd amendment protects all other rights as outlined in our constitution. Without it we fall.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine

The left, which includes a US senator (John Kerry) have been advocting violence against those who opppse their agenda for over 40 years.

Who here can forget, Ruby Ridge, Waco, the VVAW plot to murder 19 US senators who supported the Viet-Nam war, the VVAW plot to murder Nixon and Agnew. The Weather Underground’s failed plot to bomb a USO dance in NJ that was attended by hundreds of US servicemen, the bombing of a NYC police station, the bombing of the US Capital building, the bombing of the pentigon. The recent murder in DC by a ultra left-wing socialist. The two attempts on President Ford’s life. The VVAW smuggling guns and supplies to black radicals who had murdered apolice officer. The two police officers murdered by members of the Weather Underground in an armored car hold up. The list goes on.

The war has already started, most just refuse to see the truth.

My money says there will be violence at some of the upcoming Tea parties brought on by leftists and or government troops or agents.


43 posted on 06/14/2009 6:28:30 AM PDT by stockpirate (The 2nd amendment protects all other rights as outlined in our constitution. Without it we fall.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine
Explain “hurt anyone.”

There’s a hint of satire in my words ... if I have to explain everything, it loses it's impact – designed to make you think ... however ... I’m contrasting the Leftist moniker of “everything’s okay as long as no one gets hurt” with the Libertarian ideal of “absolutely no censorship”. There are no absolutes – absolutely – right?!

I’m also throwing in the concept of Racism is a travesty, but IS permissible under the First Amendment. It could have been “fixed” along with the 13th and 14th Amendments after the Civil War, but somehow was not. Free Speech, thank goodness, was as hallowed in the 1860s as it was in the 1780s.

Today, the Left states that Racism is utterly deplorable, unless of course, the Racism is espoused by a minority. A “wise Latino” SCOTUS Justice nominee and a President who was married and mentored by a RACIST black Reverend CAN harm others with their words and ideals, passed on through the trusted positions they hold in levels of government. They don’t need to make threats like a “Hate blogger” might do – their "Reverse Racism" may be carried out by legislation, court opinion or Executive order issued by a Czar.

Racism IS disgusting – without a doubt – regardless from who it comes. But IMO, Reverse Racism via government-mandated fiat is on par with Racism that resorts to violence to carry out its "objectives".

Both are a threat to Liberty ... aren't they?

44 posted on 06/14/2009 7:16:21 AM PDT by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: stockpirate
This fact in and of itself will deter tyrants. But until they understand this our people are helpless.

EXACTLY -- hence my use of the phrase, "... using the Second Amendment to leverage against tyranny". THIS from pgs 15-16 of the “DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER” Opinion (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf):

If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter. Thus, these purposive qualifying phrases positively establish that “to bear arms” is not limited to military use.

The Second Amendment is an "insurance policy" against tyranny the Framers gave us. Let's hope that we never have to collect, i.e., "make war against the King."

BUT -- that "insurance policy" holds NO WEIGHT if The People are unwilling to collect ... again, only if it's absolutely necessary.

45 posted on 06/14/2009 7:33:02 AM PDT by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner

hate crime isn’t it now?


46 posted on 06/14/2009 8:42:20 AM PDT by Munz ("We're all here for you OK? It's a circle of love" Rham Emanuel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BP2

Thank you for taking the time to express so clearly what is concerning so many.

Returned for two years to my native California 10 years ago, after a 10 year absence, and was struck by how much it seemed special interests were moving the state to extremes.

That provided the basis for my Free Republic screen name. As you pointed out in your thread:
“Are we becoming a bit like the proverbial frog, sitting in a pot of cold water, barely noticing that we’re being boiled alive – very slowly?”

In the case of many of us, the fact we are aware we are in a pot of water is enough to insure we will be effective.

Our current Republican politicians appear to be ineffectual in stopping this move to socialism, and almost certainly beyond that; they clearly ignored their constitutional duty on January 8, 2009.

2010 will be an important politicial battle; the most important, perhaps, for some time.

“Government exists by the consent of the governed; however, if the governed are denied the right of self defense, those in power may exist in whatever form they choose.”


47 posted on 06/14/2009 8:50:27 AM PDT by frog in a pot (If imposed, socialism, facism & Shariah will violate the Constitution and be "domestic enemies".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson