One of the most interesting paradoxes of the Soviet Union under Josef Stalin was their 1936 constitution promised the Russian people even more rights than the U.S. Constitution does Americans. The only dilemma for the average Soviet citizen was that they were expected to be "responsible" about how their freedoms were exercised. The Communist Party itself determined what constituted "responsibility".
It is little different in the United States today under the GOP PolitBush.
While right wing extremists can make the most outrageous claims imaginable about their opponents, the reverse is not also true. Limbaugh can "enrage liberals" while those opposed to Bush "invading [Muslim] countries, killing their leaders and converting them to Christianity", Ann Coulter can declare to be "traitors" with impunity.
These right wing radicals can also espouse domestic terrorism, as with Coulter in specific wishing Tim McVeigh had targeted the New York Times rather than the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City — a desire echoed in John Bolton's assertion the UN could still function "without the top ten floors". The UN is a very favorite target of the supporters of the Bush Terror War for Oil, with Bill O'Reilly complaining that Katrina should have flooded the UN instead of New Orleans.
And Limbaugh has the nerve to assert that the Democrats are haters?
It isn't just radical Republican professional media assets who do this. Let's try taking a look at this clown. Described as "good Christian" by one of his defenders, he wrote a post back in 2003 about terrorists killing Democratic senators in order to eliminate the opposition to George W. Bush's choices for the Supreme Court.
One has to wonder if the GOP tea kettles aren't calling the pot black, such as when Coulter asserts that liberalism and terrorism are different stages of the same disease. Such projection would be an indicative sign that one might instead make that connection between terrorism and right wing radicals.