Where There's Hate-Generated Smoke...

There's hate-generated fire.

White powder delivered in an swastika-covered envelope to the Tucson, Ariz., office of Rep. Raul Grijalva is a toxic substance, the Democratic congressman said the FBI told him Thursday afternoon.

It was not confirmed exactly what substance was mailed to Grijalva's offices, located at the 800 block of East 22nd Street, NBC affiliate KVOA reported.

A staff member called Tucson Police earlier Thursday after finding an envelope containing the suspicious white powder. The offices were locked down by Tucson Police, and the FBI arrived to assist in the investigation, KVOA said.

An envelope arrived with swastikas drawn on the outside and a white powdery substance on the inside, Adam Sarvana, Grijalva’s spokesman, told the Arizona Daily Star newspaper.

It’s not the first time his office has been the target of threats, the Daily Star said.

A Latino-American Democrat in Arizona getting toxic powder in an envelope with a swastika on it?  I wonder why that would happen?  What kind of pervasive effort to generate hatred towards Latinos in Arizona would result in this kind of action?

Oh yes, the condoning of scapegoating and fearmongering of Latinos by the state government itself, led by the state's Republican party and signed into law by its Governor.  Congrats, Arizona.  While you're at it, maybe you can drive out everyone with a conscience, too.

Meanwhile, a couple of states over in Texas, we have Stephen Broden, the GOP House candidate in TX-30 finally admitting what Republicans have been thinking since 2006:  that one option after losing an election is armed and violent revolution against the government.

In the interview, Brad Watson, political reporter for WFAA-TV (Channel 8), asked Broden about a tea party event last year in Fort Worth in which he described the nation's government as tyrannical.

"We have a constitutional remedy," Broden said then. "And the Framers say if that don't work, revolution."

Watson asked if his definition of revolution included violent overthrow of the government. In a prolonged back-and-forth, Broden at first declined to explicitly address insurrection, saying the first way to deal with a repressive government is to "alter it or abolish it."

"If the government is not producing the results or has become destructive to the ends of our liberties, we have a right to get rid of that government and to get rid of it by any means necessary," Broden said, adding the nation was founded on a violent revolt against Britain's King George III.

Watson asked if violence would be in option in 2010, under the current government.

"The option is on the table. I don't think that we should remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms," Broden said, without elaborating. "However, it is not the first option."

Folks, when people defending the Tea Party say their rhetoric is harmless or an exercise of their right to free speech, keep in mind what happens to or what they thing should happen to people who disagree with them:  that if these guys lose the election and if they remain the minority party, the Democrats are tyrants who oppress them and that a government that does not strictly follow their ideals should be abolished by "any means necessary".

These folks are dangerous if they win control of the government in a fair election.  But they are all but promising to be dangerous if they lose to those who vote against them.

That's their idea of "liberty".