« Bush Offers Complete Support for Gonzales | Main | Wizbang Podcast #58 is up! »

Rep. Mike Rogers' Lansing, Michigan Office Vandalized

And who did the vandalizing? Anti-war protesters. From WXYZ.com in Detroit:

Congressman Mike Rogers' home is under police guard after his Lansing office was severely vandalized last night.

The case is being handled by the FBI and the US Capitol Police, who have requested that the Lansing Police investigate the matter.

According to the Congressman's spokesperson, the office was extensively damaged.

Two security cameras were destroyed and the building was spray painted.

The tapes from the cameras are being reviewed to see if they recorded anything before they were destroyed.

The vandals also spread red paint all over the 8th congressional district sign in front of the building, as well as on a sign that says "We Support Our Troops."

They also put a sign on one of the buildings windows that says Congressman Rogers has "blood on his hands."

His spokesman issued a statement. Here's a portion:

"The aggressive destruction of federal property and vandalism was a callous attempt to intimidate Congressman Rogers and his staff."

"We all are entitled to our own opinion on the situation in Iraq but we are not entitled to destruction of taxpayer property and intimidation of federal officials. With an office in Lansing, regular office hours throughout the district, rapid response to constituent concerns and a 24-hour online office, Congressman Rogers prides himself on his constituent service and ensuring all voices are heard. Despite this vicious attack last night, the office continues to serve constituents today and we encourage folks to continue calling the Congressman for assistance, appointments and other information they may need."

The anti-war crowd has said that they don't like war in Iraq because violence creates more violence. Interesting, isn't it, that the resulting violence has been from the anti-war protesters themselves.

Comments (18)

I say it is time we bring o... (Below threshold)

I say it is time we bring out our ball bats and take a few pratice swings. The time is drawing near.

The time is drawing near... (Below threshold)

The time is drawing near.

Oooh, I'm so excited! Can I play shortstop?

The anti-war crowd has s... (Below threshold)

The anti-war crowd has said that they don't like war in Iraq because violence creates more violence. Interesting, isn't it, that the resulting violence has been from the anti-war protesters themselves.

This no excuse for this sort of destruction but isn't it wildly off base to tar all anti-war protesters with this? Didn't we just have several large protests on the anniversary of the invasion without any reports of violence?

Larkin, wake up and look ar... (Below threshold)

Larkin, wake up and look around. You just might be surprised if you ditch the BDS for a few days if it's not too ingrained to ditch. Surf the web, read a few reports from the past weekend. There was violence and stupidity across the country, all by democrats. Yes, it is a direct result of the failures in the democrat party to lead by example, other than the direct support the democrats have been providing to the terrorists since 9-11-01. The more Americans that get killed the happier the democrats are. Just because you refuse to see it don't make it so.

I wouldn't be too proud of associating with people that are responsible for the slaughter of millions, and the democrats ( a lot of the same ones in congress today) are just that, 100% responsible for the slaughter of millions. Don't you think they would let the terrorists slit your and your families throat to gain a few votes? You can bet they will if you let them get away with it.

There is nothing peaceful a... (Below threshold)

There is nothing peaceful and "non violent" about these thugs. When it comes to their agenda, they'll take anyone down - no matter how much violence they have to resort to.


Larkin, wake up and look... (Below threshold)

Larkin, wake up and look around.

Hm. Let's revisit what Larkin said, Scrapiron:

This no excuse for this sort of destruction but isn't it wildly off base to tar all anti-war protesters with this? Didn't we just have several large protests on the anniversary of the invasion without any reports of violence?

He's exactly correct on both accounts. It's simply illogical to come to the conclusion that all anti-war protesters display the behavior that Kim posted about when, merely a few days ago, tens of thousands of anti-war protesters gathered in numerous cities and held peaceful, non-violent demonstrations. If less than one-tenth of a percent of these protesters are violent then there's simply no empirical advance to tar all of them as being guilty of crimes.

Instead, you say...

You just might be surprised if you ditch the BDS for a few days if it's not too ingrained to ditch.

While we're on the topic of lacking empirical evidence, you acccuse Larkin of having "BDS" when he didn't even mention Bush in his comment. And in the portion of your comment that I won't bother to quote, your rating displays the outbrake of an entirely new affliction, DDS: Democrat Derangement Syndrome.

In reality, the people who vandalized Rogers office were probably a couple of anarchist jerkoffs who hate Democrats as much as they do Republicans. Trust met, I've met quite a few of those people from my time attending protests.

"Vandalism" is not "violenc... (Below threshold)

"Vandalism" is not "violence" but since you Republican asshats can't even figure out what "terrorism" is -- it's no surprise that you'd label spray painting as "violent".

Oh, wait a minute -- that just blew apart Kim's whole argument that "...the resulting violence has been from the anti-war protesters themselves.". My bad!

Well, jhow66 has the right answer - teach the spray painting vandals what's right by clubbing them with baseball bats. THAT will teach them about violence.

Your right Lee, we should j... (Below threshold)

Your right Lee, we should just try to understand them, and then realize it's the illegal presidency of Bushhitler and Rovehalliburtoncheney that caused them to do it.

Honestly, do you libs ever look to hold anyone on your side accountable for anything? Or are ther always extinuating circumstances where your peopl are concerned?

It's just laughable.

I didn't say don't hold the... (Below threshold)

I didn't say don't hold them accountable - can't you conservatives read past the second grade level? or are you just another knee-jerk jerk!

Calling spray painting and vandalism "violence" is just plain laughable all right.

Interesting comments.... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilot:

Interesting comments.

I wonder why, if a group of anti-war activists destroy a congressmans office it is an isolated incident, but if a couple of jerks tie up some phone lines, it is a "vast right wing conspiracy"? And this from one of the leaders of the Democratic party.

The real sad thing about this is, if they catch the perpetrators the Bush administration probably won't have the ball to prosecute them!

Naw "preyingmantis you can ... (Below threshold)

Naw "preyingmantis you can play catcher- that way you are more likely to "take" one under the nose.

Sounds like you need a little "learning" there p'p'-be glad to show you what violence is. Idiot.

Lee:"Calling s... (Below threshold)


"Calling spray painting and vandalism "violence" is just plain laughable all right.

Guess the dictionary thinks it's fairly hilarious also. Here's #6 on their "violence hit parade: 6. damage through distortion or unwarranted alteration: to do editorial violence to a text.

"Editorial violence" to a federal office is close enough for me.

Oh hey even the Thesaurus makes Lee out to be a fool. "Harm" Synonyms: both vandalism and violence.

Say good night Lee your party is over.

Very eloquent Lee. I especi... (Below threshold)

Very eloquent Lee. I especially liked the "knee jerk jerk". Very creative, and of course answers my post.

Two security cameras wer... (Below threshold)

Two security cameras were destroyed

Apparently, according to some schmuck above, the cameras were destoryed 'non-violently'... which means what ? They broke out the screw drivers and the socket set ? Yeah, that's the most likely conclusion. 'Liberal Logic' at its best.

Disclaimer -- I'm not a Rep... (Below threshold)
Tim in PA:

Disclaimer -- I'm not a Republican, but neither am I a Democrat.

Lee is right, vandalism really isn't violence, unless you're talking about violence against walls and furniture and such. However, there is plenty of actual violence to go around; first thing comes to mind is the rash of attacks on GOP campaing HQ's in the run up to the '04 election. There were at least 14 incidents that I counted. Most were regular vandalism, but a few occurred during working hours and resulted in injuries. Some also involved gunfire on the offices. Lastly, one word on lefties and violence: "WTO".

Now it's true, a lot of, probably most of, the rank and file in the anti-war movement honestly are peaceful people. That is after all why they are there. However, the organizers of most of these events (as well as the distributors of most of the anti-war literature) are about as peaceful as a rabid badger. They aren't "anti-war", they're "pro- us losing". You know who I'm talking about - WWP, ANSWER, UFPJ, and the various wacky academics (which I've unfortunately had to deal with for many years during the course of my higher education).

As for the definition of terrorism, Lee, you have a lot of nerve bringing that one up. It constantly annoys me when the media, or even the military, refers to straight-up guerillas as "terrorists" (we face examples of both, in A-stan and Iraq), but the left routinely trots out even more extreme misuses of the word.

One man's terrorist can indeed be another man's freedom fighter, but that doesn't mean he still isn't a terrorist. Terrorist also does not simply mean "someone who scares someone", or "someone I don't like", and so on. Terrorism is a tactic, not a value judgement; it is the far more sinister sibling of guerilla warfare, justified only in situations so extreme you are not likely to find many instances of them.

It consists of non-state (and hence, non-military) actors attacking non-military targets in order to cause political change, usually because they don't have the strength to fight a conventional war or impose their will directly. The mechaninism by which terrorism works is two-fold; coerce and sap the will of the enemy, and increase your own power base when the enemy retaliates against those in your demographic who are not comitted to your cause. States can be brutal and tryranical, but by defintion cannot carry out terrorist attacks within their own borders (excepting false-flag operations, like the 9/11 nutters like to fantasize about) - what state needs to sneak around with carbombs to exert political pressure when they act openly or use conventional (but covert) forces? They don't need to use coercive violence to effect change, since they are already in power. Note the inherent distinctions in form and purpose between a Stalinesque "reign of terror" (using violence to retain power and intimidate) and a "terrorism".

An obvious exception is that states can, however, run terror campaigns in other states, but this means covert actions run in the same manner, following the same definition, and using the same goals and mechanism as any other terror campaign. Tanks and helicopter gunships have the capacity to be tools of atrocity, but they are not tools of terrorism.

An art history professor of mine was talking about Picasso's 'Guernica', and repeatedly described it as a "terrorist attack". This is a misuse of the word; it was an atrocity, a war crime, but not a "terrorist attack". I talked to him about it later, and he insisted upon using the word as a value judgement. Not suprisingly, he brought up the subject of Palestine, as a litmus test to feel me out. I've noticed that people who insist on using "terrorist" as a value judgement, and write it off as a "propaganda tool", tend to have 2 things in common:

1) They turn right around and apply the term to someone they don't like.

2) They support some group somewhere who uses terrorism as a tactic, but who is "killing the right people" with it (the "right people" usually seem to be the Jews; funny how that works, eh?)

The persons who ded that da... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

The persons who ded that damage should be the ones who pay for it and be made to do the labor i mean theres no excuse for this they should face servere and just punishment

Some creeps vandalized a Mi... (Below threshold)

Some creeps vandalized a Milwaukee recruiting center. The mass-psychosis on the left is turning violent.

I was told that by a proud ... (Below threshold)

I was told that by a proud member of the anti-war crowd that they have slingshots firing hardened epoxy studded with pieces of broken glass for "patriots like me".

Can you feel the love?






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy