Anti-Government Patriot groups increased from 149 in 2008 to 1,360 in 2012, reports the Southern Poverty Law Center. The dramatic increase in radical anti-government groups is attributed primarily to the election and reelection of President Obama.
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), as one of its many activities, tracks hate groups and other extremist groups that tend to have, among other extreme conservative, even reactionary, racially charged points of view, a belief that the government is the enemy. In 2008, it reported roughly 1,000 hate groups, and 149 extremist "patriot" groups with an anti-government agenda. Since then, the SPLC has reported a rapid increase in the "patriot" groups. What happened in 2008 that might account for that? Well, at about the time of the election the US economy was imploding as the world's largest banks, run by men too big to arrest for their thievery, began to collapse as their private mortgage lottery fell apart, leaving the banks uncapitalized and failing.
The stimulus package proposed by President Bush and implemented in part by President Obama seemed to trigger an immediate horde of constitutional experts who claimed that Obama was violating the constitution by using public money to keep the American banking industry from total collapse. And, of course, at the same time Barrack Obama was elected America's first black president, which triggered accusations of "The Kenyan in the White House." The election of a black man as president wasn't going over well with these folks, a fact underscored by their insistence that he wasn't actually black, he was "half-white."
In its Tuesday March 5, 2013, version of its annual report on hate groups and other extremist groups the SPLC noted that radical anti-government groups calling themselves patriots had increased by 812 percent since 2008. From 149 such groups in 2008, the movement has grown since the election of President Obama to 1,360 at the end of 2012, of which 321 groups are militias. The 1,360 is a seven percent increase over 2011's 1,274 identified groups, meaning that 93% of the increase occurred between late 2008 and late2011 -- three short years.
These groups are defined by the SPLC as "...being comprised of conspiracy theory minded individuals who believe the federal government is run by secret 'globalists' aimed at taking away American freedoms and establishing a global world order based on socialist principles; and defines a Militia group as a paramilitary wing of the former."
All well and good, but what accounts for the dramatic increase?
Well, aside from a goodly dose of racism, and an irrational fear that Obama will send foreign troops to confiscate their guns, anti-government patriot groups believe the American government has sold America out to one or another of many secret and powerful organizations. They also tend to equate Democrats with Socialists, and Barack Obama was definitely a Democrat. The mainstreaming by the press and entertainment industry of asinine conspiracy theories about powerful secret organizations trying to take over the world seems to have been a part of it. But the mainstreaming of those theories began well before 2009.
Early in his presidency there was an insistent and ubiquitous accusation that President Obama intended to, by one of several means including a UN Treaty, foreign troops sent through population centers and others confiscate all privately held guns. This charge has recently been reawakened by the President's stand on gun control in the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut massacre. Nonetheless, this rapid increase has far exceeded the temporary increase that followed the adoption of the Brady Bill in 1993 and the banning of semi-automatic assault weapon clones in 1994.
Racially motivated hate groups targeting blacks, Hispanics and Jews in general, on the other hand, were not much affected. During the same period, hate groups tracked by the Center remained relatively steady at about 1,000. The color of the President's skin may have swelled their ranks, but it did not precipitate the rampant proliferation of new racially motivated hate groups.
Logo Credit: Wikipedia under Fair Use Doctrine
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 107
Then they will defend unconstitutional laws like Kentucky's SB-129 as a defense of the 2nd Amendment. Kind of like fornicating in defense of chastity.
Coming from the guy who uses the "N" word constantly.
As you have disingenuously documented, Rory has pointed out how right wing groups and individuals use coded language to avoid speaking the word they are thinking - language which is used entirely as a racial attack. Given your prior association with Glenn Beck it isn't surprising that you intentionally try to misrepresent Rory's critical point. Oddly, while feigning offense you've tacitly and explicitly enabled commenters to spew falsehoods and hatred on your posts, which in themselves are well understood to be intentional misrepresentations - an "agenda," if you will.
They spell out their agenda quite clearly and credibly:
The Southern Poverty Law Center is dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of our society.
Do you believe they are wrong to fight hate and bigotry?
That is, without question or argument, the most astoundingly stupid, ignorant and asinine statement I've seen on Gather in 2013.
Perhaps you should learn before you hail the SPLC.
The rather obvious attempt to distract from this topic is just one example of how paid propagandists, e.g., those with previous associations with Glenn Beck, the tea party, and others have been trained in guerilla commenting and harassment techniques.
Also rather obvious is that rather than addressing any salient point made in Chuck's article Renee attacks the SPLC and asks whether they "have an agenda."
The SPLC agenda as clearly noted on their website and cited above (which Renee is now intending to try to hide):
The Southern Poverty Law Center is dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of our society.
The question to you again is: Do you believe they are wrong to fight hate and bigotry?
Is he a friend of yours, Renee?
If they did not have an agenda, they could do a lot of good. Do you think Malik Zulu Shabazz is a right wing radical?
Renee Nal response: If they did not have an agenda, they could do a lot of good.
As usual you try to deflect from the point of the article and from my question. That says a lot about you.
Regarding the point:
1) You have accused the SPLC of having an "agenda."
2) That "agenda" has been clearly presented now multiple times. It is:
The Southern Poverty Law Center is dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of our society.
3) Your response that " If they did not have an agenda, they could do a lot of good" implies that you disagree with their stated agenda and that you think they are not doing good.
Since their agenda has been clearly stated as above, your response indicates that "fighting hate and bigotry" is contrary to your beliefs. Stated affirmatively, your responses and continued attempts to distract from the article indicate that you believe "fighting hate and bigotry" is a bad thing because it is the SPLC's agenda.
Again, your responses say a lot about you.
Meanwhile, you have failed to even attempt to address the topic of the post, i.e., that there has been a dramatic increase in anti-government "patriot" groups since the election of Barack Obama as President.
Can you explain this increase in anti-government "patriot" groups such as those you support?
Shabazz, a member of the New Black Panther Party, penned an article for the NBPP Newspaper, expressing anger that President Obama is continuing the policies of the Bush administration. He said that Republicans were particularly undeserving of the black vote. Shabazz wrote, "Only bootlicking Uncle Toms such as Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain pledge loyalty to this racist party that is overtly contemptuous and hostile to poor and working people, unions, and the like."
Do you think Malik Zulu Shabazz is a right wing radical? Perhaps it was a typo?
Their agenda is as stated:
The Southern Poverty Law Center is dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of our society.
It seems you are pathologically incapable of an honest discussion relevant to the topic of the post. That says a lot about your integrity.
One more time:
Can you explain this increase in anti-government "patriot" groups such as those you support?
Of course, because Kill Lists, drone attacks on Americans without due process, the NDAA, warrantless wiretapping, the Patriot Act, unconstitutional recess appointments and many other crappy policies stink on ice.
Now can you answer my question?
Do you think Malik Zulu Shabazz is a right wing radical?
My repeated question: Can you explain this increase in anti-government "patriot" groups such as those you support?
Renee's response after many many efforts to avoid one: "Of course, because Kill Lists, drone attacks on Americans without due process, the NDAA, warrantless wiretapping, the Patriot Act, unconstitutional recess appointments and many other crappy policies stink on ice."
So, thank you, Renee, for once again providing a perfect example of why nothing you say can be taken as intellectually honest. Not surprisingly, every one of the things you mention were in effect prior to Barack Obama being elected President and/or are figments of your imagination based on intentional misrepresentation of hypotheticals. Which begs the question of why the dramatic increase in anti-government, "patriot" groups ignored 8 years of the Bush/Cheney administration implementing these things (at least the ones that are actually real), only to rise to the occasion when Barack Obama was elected?
These delusional and intellectually bereft "explanations," however, do fit nicely into the SPLC definition of anti-government, "patriot" groups that are the topic of Chuck's article, i.e.,
"These groups are defined by the SPLC as "...being comprised of conspiracy theory minded individuals who believe the federal government is run by secret 'globalists' aimed at taking away American freedoms and establishing a global world order based on socialist principles; and defines a Militia group as a paramilitary wing of the former.""
To reiterate, it seems you are pathologically incapable of an honest discussion relevant to the topic of this post, or given your history here, any other post. I suppose it is your admitted Glenn Beck training and your job as a paid propagandist that leads to this. Or perhaps this incapacity is what led you to doing Beck's bidding and your career as the kind of anti-government "patriot" propagandist that is the subject of the SPLC report. The Chinese government thanks you.
In any case, it says a lot about you.
Goodbye
When one lumps peaceful groups in with nasty groups, they lose credibility. You can put me down and freak out as much as you want - but the fact is that the SPLC cherry picks based on political ideology.
hysterical.
Not surprisingly, every one of the things you mention were in effect prior to Barack Obama being elected President and/or are figments of your imagination based on intentional misrepresentation of hypotheticals.
False.
So, if the KKK made the same "mission statement", this man would fall for it, apparently. He's be here telling us that if we don't trust the KKK, we are meanies . . for there's the mission statement after all ; )
This from someone who believes 9/11 was an inside job and nor water vapor from jet engines are a secret government plot to spray chemicals on the masses (which the masses seem not to notice). Oh, and who intentionally and repeatedly posts a statement he knows the speaker says means nothing like what John Knight claims the speaker meant.
'Nuff said.
BTW, a recent study found that conspiracy theorists tend to cite conspiracy theories as a way to deny that they are conspiracy theorists.
Shocking, isn't it.
Meanwhile, the topic of this post is the documented explosion in the number of anti-government, "patriot" groups since Barack Obama's election.
Yep, 'cause I don't believe in magical Muslims with box cutters, that can change the laws of physics at will, such that three steel framed buildings can collapse straight down through the path of greatest resistance, at near free-fall speed . . nor that tiny wisps of water vapor hang in the air for hours, spreading gradually to turn the whole sky white . . since the laws of physics were altered by magical Muslims ; )
Basic logic and physics go a long way toward alleviating chronic gullibility, I find ; )
I agree, Tony. The 1) paranoia and 2) lack of cognitive awareness is striking.
On the other hand, it is helpful when people so clearly corroborate the point being made.
Does he have an agenda?
Consider this article in US News and World Report, which says of MEChA: "A MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan) slogan translates as "For the race everything. For those outside the race, nothing." El Plan de Aztlan, a founding document carried now on many MEChA Internet sites, talks about the "call of our blood" and the need to reclaim the Southwest (Aztlan) from "the occupying forces of the oppressor." As if the Nazi-like call to the power of blood isn't scary enough, Miguel Perez of Cal State-Northridge's MEChA raised the issue of ethnic cleansing. Once Aztlan has been taken over, he said, non-Chicanos "would have to be expelled" and opposition groups quashed "because you have to keep the power."
One would think that this group would get some scrutiny from the SLPC, as it is clearly a hate group...no?
From a letter from the author of the "study" you about which you are so excited:
"We have not listed MEChA because, despite Tanton’s characterization of it as “a small hard-left Hispanic group,” we have found no evidence to support charges that the organization is racist or anti-Semitic." Because really, there is nothing wrong with calls for ethnic cleansing.
Nope, this organization is a hate group themselves.
Yes, as noted above, his organization's agenda is "dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of our society."
Are you suggesting that fighting hate and bigotry are not worthwhile? Do you support hate and bigotry such that you would denigrate anyone fighting to rid society of them? Feel free to clarify.
Consider this article in US News and World Report...
Consider the following, and ask yourself why you think your comment is relevant to the topic of this post.
1) The article you cite is from 2003, ten years ago.
Question: Do you know anything about MEChA that is current and relevant?
2) The author, John Leo, is a conservative writer for a far right conservative "think tank."
Question: Do you think Mr. Leo had an agenda?
Question: Do you believe Mr. Leo's 10-year old opinion (and the current opinion of right wing commentator Michelle Malkin) are sufficient to characterize a group as a "hate group?"
Question: As a corollary to the above, when that opinion is based on a statement or two taken out of context (as opposed to documented "hate" speech or crimes)?
One would think that this group would get some scrutiny from the SLPC, as it is clearly a hate group...no?
No. Based on what you have presented it is not "clearly" a hate group. You don't get to just label groups as hate groups because you want to distract the reader from the actual topic of this post, which is the huge increase in right wing anti-government "patriot" groups since Barack Obama's election.
From a letter from the author of the "study" you about which you are so excited:
As you point out, the letter notes that they "have found no evidence to support charges that the organization is racist or anti-Semitic."
Thus, they don't list them as a hate group. If you have evidence to the contrary than please forward to them. Alas, instead you have chosen to cite a 10-year old opinion article by a right wing commentator. You've also chosen to claim some outdated language (from a 1969 manifesto) reflects the current philosophy and behavior of the organization.
In fact, you could have read the current philosophy of MEChA here instead of dragging out an old conservative opinion article and unilaterally misrepresenting the organization. Given your history here it is not surprising that you misrepresented, just that you are so obvious about it.
For those who want to read for themselves about MEChA they can read the "About us" page on their website. As you can see:
Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán (MEChA) is a student organization that promotes higher education, cultura, and historia. MEChA was founded on the principles of self-determination for the liberation of our people. We believe that political involvement and education is the avenue for change in our society.
Hmm. Largely through education and self-responsibility of the Latino community. That sounds ominous, no? Among other things they "seek to open the doors of higher education para nuestras comunidades and strive for a society free of imperialism, racism, sexism, and homophobia."
Do you believe that opening the doors of higher education and striving for society free of bigotry and exploitation are not valid goals?
While the group, like all groups seeking equal treatment and an end to exploitation of their membership, is not without criticism, your characterization of them is, not surprisingly, without much merit.
In fact, the only reason you brought them up in the first place was to distract the reader from the topic of the article above written by Chuck Larlham.
Rather unlike your own articles, which routinely and intentionally misrepresent your sources, Chuck accurately characterizes the report that he is citing.
Chuck correctly notes that there has been a dramatic increase in "radical anti-government groups calling themselves patriots" and that this increase correlates with the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States.
While alluded to but not explicitly stated in Chuck's article, the rationales given by these organizations for their mobilization are usually false. When groups state their existence based on things that are patently and demonstrably false (e.g., Obama was born in Kenya [false, he was born in Hawaii], Obama raised taxes [false, his first official act was to decrease taxes for 95% of Americans and recently made permanent the tax cuts for 99% of Americans], Obama installed government-run health care [false, Obamacare extends market-based private insurance coverage], etc.), one has to wonder what are the real drivers. Given the Koch-funding of the tea party and the blatant racism and bigotry shown by these groups (and documented by the SPLC), it really isn't too difficult to see a likely motivation for their sudden explosion in number, audacity, and actions.
Which, of course, is the relevant discussion for this post.
What Michele said!!!
Your source has been thoroughly discussed above in the long comment that you have conveniently ignored in an attempt to deny its message. See David K. Mar 6, 2013, 5:15pm EST above and feel free to try an honest response.
In short, your slip is showing. And it isn't pretty. Your behavior on this venue is well known by all.
Fear based dishonesty from a conservative!
Kind of reminds me of global warming alarmism and the sequester Apocalypse where criminals will be roaming the streets! Ohhh wait...
Indeed, the paranoia is palpable.
The SPLC recognizes that minorities in America still find themselves subject to both overt and covert bigotry, and many, if not most, of the organizations found in that report are willing to add physical assault to the mix, and to join together to influence anti-minority legislation.
THAT's their agenda. Their credibility suffers not at all to the vast majority of Americans.
BTW Matt, I stayed away from the groups they designate "hate groups." They're pretty well established and there's nothing about them that's worthy of news. It's the "patriot" groups' incredibly rapid rise that I concentrated on. It is true, of course, that racial bigotry motivates most of those groups, at least in part, but their primary drive isn't racial hatred, it's just sort of a common undercurrent... sort of a "last straw" effect when a black man appeared in the Oval Office.
I find it odd, to say the least, that all these self-described "Patriots" advocate the overthrow of the US Government. Most true patriots and citizens of the country in question, whatever country it may be, call such people "Traitors."
“A handkerchief-head, chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom.” -Spike Lee referring to Clarence Thomas
“I am a former kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County and the adjoining counties of the state …. The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia …. It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state of the Union. Will you please inform me as to the possibilities of rebuilding the Klan in the Realm of W. Va …. I hope that you will find it convenient to answer my letter in regards to future possibilities.”- Robert Byrd
“White folks was in caves while we was building empires… We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.”- Rev. Al Sharpton
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,...I mean, that's a storybook, man." - Joe Biden
"Obama is Electable Because he is Light Skinned with no Negro Dialect." - Harry Reid
‘Hymietown.’ - Jesse Jackson describing New York City
"Listen he's a nice person, he's very articulate" this is what's been used against him, "but he couldn't sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic." -Dan Rather
"I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." Lyndon Johnson!
“A few years ago this guy would have been getting us coffee.” Bill Clinton
“I am not going to use the federal government’s authority deliberately to circumvent the natural inclination of people to live in ethnic homogeneous neighborhoods.”- Jimmy Carter
“Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”- Robert Byrd
"You'd find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they'd just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva." -- Fritz Hollings (D, S.C.)
Mahatma Gandhi "ran a gas station down in Saint Louis." -Senator Hillary Clinton
“In the days of slavery, there were those slaves who lived on the plantation and [there] were those slaves that lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master … exactly the way the master intended to have you serve him. Colin Powell’s committed to come into the house of the master. When Colin Powell dares to suggest something other than what the master wants to hear, he will be turned back out to pasture.”- Harry Belafonte
“Jews — that’s J-E-W-S.”- State Senator Bill McKinney explaining why his daughter Cynthia lost in 2002
"Is you their black-haired answer-mammy who be smart? Does they like how you shine their shoes, Condoleezza? Or the way you wash and park the whitey's cars?" -- Left-wing radio host Neil Rogers
Some junior high n*gger kicked Steve's ass while he was trying to help his brothers out; junior high or sophomore in high school. Whatever it was, Steve had the n*gger down. However it was, it was Steve's fault. He had the n*gger down, he let him up. The n*gger blindsided him." -- Roger Clinton, the President's brother on audiotape
There are racist Democrats? That appears to be the point, though the inclusion of various media personalities broadens the scope beyond just Democrats. There are racist Americans? Really? No shit.
And the childish use of "n*gger" to avoid using "the N word" when quoting others she claims have used it is laughable. What are you, 7 years old?
Her point is clear; it is to distract from the topic of the post.
The desperation shown in that attempted distraction - citing disconnected, out-of-context quotes and quotes dating back to bygone times - shows how far she and other right wing propagandists will go to distract from the fact that the number of anti-government "patriot" groups skyrocketed after Obama was elected.
A quick note about the "race mongrel" quote of Robert Byrd - it dates back to 1946. Yep, a 67-year old quote is somehow relevant to the rise of anti-government patriot groups. Umm, no. Especially when people like Byrd recanted their previous racism. Many of those who didn't recant became Republicans, and the southern strategy of the Republican party made it clear that they would be a safe harbor for racists and bigots.
Which, of course, is one of the reasons for the massive increase in number of anti-government "patriot" groups following Barack Obama's election.
Which, also of course, is why Renee is trying so hard and so transparently to distract from the topic of the post. Apparently the Glenn Beck organization taught her well.
These are 67 year old quotes?
“A few years ago this guy would have been getting us coffee.” Bill Clinton
"Obama is Electable Because he is Light Skinned with no Negro Dialect." - Harry Reid
"Listen he's a nice person, he's very articulate" this is what's been used against him, "but he couldn't sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic." -Dan Rather
I am (not) surprised that you do not denounce them. The SPLC has no credibility, just like all of those who cherry pick their outrage.
As I clearly stated the Robert Byrd quote is 67 years old.
As I also clearly demonstrated, the only reason your tossed in these irrelevant out of context quotes is to deflect from your lack of any attempt to discuss the topic of Chuck's article. This is how the tea party, Glenn Becker's and other "anti-government 'patriot' groups" have been taught to behave - guerilla commenting, distraction, deflection, and distortion.
As noted in my most recent comment, your slip is showing. Everyone here knows how you distort and misrepresent your sources and toss in irrelevancies to deflect from the topic. Just as you misrepresent the views of others. Given the consistency of your use of this dishonest reporting and commenting technique, it is clear you do it intentionally. Your association with Glenn Beck seems to have been tailor made for you.
In context, that would have been much better - a shame you cannot denounce bad behavior from your leaders.
I find it odd, to say the least, that all these self-described "Patriots" advocate the overthrow of the US Government. Most true patriots and citizens of the country in question, whatever country it may be, call such people "Traitors."
Patriotism is not love of the state, so “anti-government” groups can be patriots.
Turns out most of the self identified "Libertarians" on Gather support military anti government militias and support groups who are blatant about hating minorities.
Lebra, that’s a strong claim and I call your bluff. Back it up with some evidence.
The SPLC report that Chuck's article references enumerates the dramatic increase in anti-government "patriot" groups since the election of Barack Obama.
As Chuck clearly notes in his article:
"These groups are defined by the SPLC as "...being comprised of conspiracy theory minded individuals who believe the federal government is run by secret 'globalists' aimed at taking away American freedoms and establishing a global world order based on socialist principles; and defines a Militia group as a paramilitary wing of the former.""
Feel free to disagree with SPLC on their characterizations of each of the groups listed as anti-government "patriot" groups. Note, however, that they don't list groups based on their ideology (there are "leftist" groups as well as "rightist" groups listed). They list them based on the definition they provide above.
You'll note also my earlier comment that most of the claims made by these groups are blatantly false. When much of their raison d'etre is delusional, it isn't difficult to see the conspiracy theory minded individuals that make up these groups.
Yes, can you back that up?
There are plenty of legitimate reasons for increased resistance to what the government is doing, like it or not.
It does not translate into "hate". The problem with the SLPC is that they lump an entirely peaceful, non-radical group like the Tea Party in with disgusting groups like the KKK, who are racist.
Say it with me.... AGENDA.
Name one of those quotes that would have been better in context, Rory.
Likely all of them. Provide the context.
It is also a sad and disconcerning realization that hate groups in America have risen from 149 in 2008 to over 1300 on the watch list of the SPLC by the end of 2012. Such notation does not speak well for a country which was built on the premise of freedom from oppression for all it's citizens.
Thankfully, we have agencies such as the FBI and the SPLC who compile information and keep a watchful eye on such extremist anti social groups.
The Tea Party - the group with zero arrests - all over the SPLC site.
A G E N D A
The tea party clearly meets the criteria for inclusion on an "anti-government, 'patriot'" list as that is their stated goal. Not to mention the delusion and conspiracy theory part of the definition. Their actions have been on reducing government protection of the rights of the 99% and increasing tax breaks and loopholes for the 1%. Not surprisingly, the billionaire Koch brothers used their money and lobbying groups to envision the "tea party" long before it gained attention, then took advantage of the blatant racism and bigotry that arose when Barack Obama was elected President to form and organize the major tea party organizations. All of which is well documented.
Agenda indeed.
Your answer was on point, but Renee knew that when she posted the comment. It's just Renee, as always, being disingenuous in order to garner attention. An honest and sincere debater she is not.
Chuck Larlham, 03/07 12:10 am
"BTW Matt, I stayed away from the groups they designate "hate groups." They're pretty well established and there's nothing about them that's worthy of news. It's the "patriot" groups' incredibly rapid rise that I concentrated on. It is true, of course, that racial bigotry motivates most of those groups, at least in part, but their primary drive isn't racial hatred, it's just sort of a common undercurrent... sort of a "last straw" effect when a black man appeared in the Oval Office."
In response to which Renee' Wandered off into a field of disconnected racist comments by a host of Democrats, news-persons and the populace in general.
So I repeat... racism is NOT the topic of this post. It's without question a part of what's going on with the three-year explosion in radical "patriot" groups ("patriots" in their own minds only), but the hate groups where that is the raison d'etre' stand on their own.
I wrote an opinion piece that I thought covered an important topic... the meteoric rise in both numbers and mass of "patriot" organizations that profess the most radical of right-wing ideology, and the need to take the government down and impose by force whatever it is they believe was the correct form of government some time in the past. I want to know why that happened, and I set out some ideas gleaned from other reports on this topic and the study just released, hoping we would see some discussion of that.
Instead, from a silly girl from a "down under" island nation, we get, "Do you think Mr. Shabazz is a right-wing radical?" Who the hell cares? "The people who did the study have no credibility! (Apparently because they find themselves victims of the people who tend to join such "Patriot" organizations). Simply untrue, except in the case of the writer and some guy who evidently thinks he's Matt Dillon. "Apparently it's OK that Senator Byrd (deceased) was a member of the KKK and said something stupid about "race mongrels" 67 years ago." Again, old dead white guy from a whole different Mountain Momma generation... who cares? "Oh, so ethnic cleansing of white people is OK?" No, but I'll be glad to volunteer you. This in response to a "no response" to an earler shot at that one.
NONE of those are anywhere near the topic of "Why do people who want to destroy the government call themselves "Patriots," and why have they joined organizations with that sentiment in their self-descriptions, in groups, gangs, bunches and droves over the past four years, driving the number of such organizations up to eight times more than there were four years ago, with three times more of them being militias?"
I am seriously considering banning her from my posts, because I don't feel like debating HER little gotchas and out of context "points," and I resent having my post hijacked for others to do so. But before I do that, let's try this:
Renee' you are welcome to my posts, but only to discuss the contents and points of the posts themselves (never hard to discern - I'm pretty transparent about what I mean). You start deflecting, distracting and demanding we discuss YOUR silliness, and THEN I'll kick you out. You want to disagree with me... have at it. You want to destroy the continuity of discussion with a bunch of gotchas and irrelevancies... have a nice day elsewhere. Deal?
"Even before serious talk of gun control began in Washington, the far right was already in something of a meltdown in the immediate aftermath of Obama’s re-election, which came to many who got their campaign news from right-wing sources as a jarring shock. Hundreds of thousands of Americans signed petitions seeking the secession of each of the 50 states. Right-wing outfits like TeaParty.org said a “Communist coup” was under way. The anti-gay Family Research Council charged Obama with “dismantling” the country."
It is pure hate and silliness - is this the report? Seriously?
Nice one, making stuff up instead of dealing with reality.
There is an easy cure for that.
So, having wasted enough time on the dishonest propagandists I will resume my normal practice of ignoring them. We don't need to support them, either on their posts or on our own posts. And without our enabling them they will whither away on the vine, kept company only by their sycophantic followers in mutual ego-stroking sessions.
It's time to move on to more important endeavors.
Thanks for the article, Chuck. Well written and honest as always.
What did I say that was dishonest - the quotes are real, my sources are real - just because we disagree does not mean you have to call me names.
You asked me once before where you lied. You lie by taking truth and misdirecting it, and you do it in EVERY post of your own and in EVERY comment thread you join. Don't do it in mine any more. We're not discussing your BS comments here. We're discussing my post, or we're discussing nothing. And don't try to be disengenuous with me either. You know and I know what's up. You're here to discourage real discussion, and you're being successful at that.
As the report cited and discussed in your article notes, Chuck, the number of these anti-government "patriot" groups has skyrocketed since Obama's election as President of the United States. Typical of the "conspiracy theory minded individuals" who comprise the groups, they largely have fabricated a fantasy world in which some Manchurian candidate has been put into place to dismantle the very country he has been elected by the majority of Americans to lead. Presumably this election was accomplished by employing massive mind-control and hypnotic techniques that had no effect on that minority of people who comprise said "anti-government 'patriot'" groups.
'Nuff said.
As always, thank you for a thought provoking article. You have my sympathy for having your article hyjacked and members comments compromised with thrown-in disingenuous sub issues, not by a dishonest member, but by another writer.
It would appear that Gather News no longer requires ethical standards, respect for other writer's articles nor proper protocol among its contributing members. To bad, it would be nice to be able to post a thoughtful comment to an article of interest without having to endure such distractions.
Speaking of an A G E N D A there must be one at the root of all the evil, however, I am not sure as to what it might be.
It just puzzels me as to why a 27 year old student residing in New Zealand would be so openly negative towards the American government and our president in particular. Even thought her own country's government has expressed their pleasure with the Obama administration.
Even more puzzeling is the fact that she keeps referring to our country's founders, with Thomas Jefferson in particular, and the articles of the U.S. Constitution, as if she were an American student, researching our country's history for a class assignment.
Not normal behavior.
Then you are a bigger fool than I had previously thought you to be.
Further, in todays society anyone who is anti American government, can not also be a true Patriot. The two being opposits and not in anyway related to the American Colonial Patriots who opposed the government of King George of England. You are attempting to equate oranges and tangerines, close, but no cigar.
I tend to agree with these sentiments, don't you?
The Founders were talking about an actual oppressive government (aka, England in the late 18th century).
Conversely, the "anti-government 'patriots'" are trying to dismantle our own government, duly elected, and governing as it was designed to do. The rationales given for attacking our own government are by and large false. Most are so divorced from fact as to wonder how they can be offered without embarrassment. The few that are actually real were present but ignored during G.W. Bush's 8 years in office (and for some, going back to Reagan), which begs the question of why these anti-government groups have suddenly sprung to life now?
In short, poor losers don't like that a guy named Barack Obama was elected by a majority of the American people to be President of the United States. Same thing happened in the past when another tall Illinoisan was elected.
While those that are benefitting from the current mode of government will support and defend it, many are not pleased and are feeling oppressed.
The heavy hand of rule by the elites will always lead to resistance.
They are.
The current federal government on both sides of the aisle is to often operating outside of the limits they are bound by.
Nope, they aren't.
While those that are benefitting from the current mode of government will support and defend it, many are not pleased and are feeling oppressed.
Yeah, people whine a lot, especially when "their side" loses the election. But the current government is as it was set up by the founders. And as this article and the report it cites discusses, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of anti-government groups since Barack Obama's election.
The heavy hand of rule by the elites will always lead to resistance.
Do me a favor and actually read the material presented in the article and the comments rather than just issue a Pavlovian talking point. That way the discussion can move forward. Otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time by repeating the same vacuous rhetoric.
David: Please to explain ...
1. No budget from the Senate in 4 years.
2. Tax laws, aka ObamaCare, originating in the Senate when all tax law must originate in the House.
3. Execution of American citizens without due process.
There are many more. These are just the most high profile examples of mal-governance and your defense of this is "Nope, they aren't"?
Why have any rules, laws or even a constitution if the players can selectively obey them?
1. No budget from the Senate in 4 years.
CRs have been passed to fund the government. Formal budgets aren't particularly necessary, but the main reason one hasn't passed is because the Republicans won't provide enough votes to close debate in order to vote on one. Not that the House would agree to anything the Senate came up with anyway, given the House Republican desire to cut basic services for middle class and poor Americans while extending tax cuts and loopholes for the very rich and for big corporations.
In any case, the government tootles along just fine on CRs. Personally, I'm in favor of a budget, and a well thought out and properly prioritized on at that, but the Republicans - and in particular the Koch-owned tea party - have made honest discussion of budgets impossible. So until the Republican party agrees to actual votes it seems where stuck in this morass.
2. Tax laws, aka ObamaCare, originating in the Senate when all tax law must originate in the House.
I'm shocked that something so fundamental as you claim, hasn't been noticed by anyone other than you and the anti-government groups highlighted by the SPLC and this article. Can't imagine why the SPLC thinks these groups are "conspiracy-minded" and think "the government is run by secret 'globalists' aimed at taking away American freedoms and establishing a global world order based on socialist principles."
As you'll no doubt remember, Obamacare (aka, the Affordable Care Act) is a health care law. You'll have to talk to Bush-appointed Chief Justice Roberts about the "tax law" thing that he created after the fact. BTW, the main argument against Obamacare that got the case to the Supreme Court - the individual mandate - well, that was inserted at the insistence of the Republicans. The Democrats wanted a public option. So again, chat with Republican-appointee Chief Justice Roberts.
3. Execution of American citizens without due process.
You mean the terrorist killed in Yemen? Do you support terrorism if the terrorist is an American citizen actively engaging in terrorist activities in foreign countries against the United States? Others would argue that the guy had renounced his citizenship by being a traitor and engaging in terrorism, which by the way, gets its own set of rules as per laws originally passed by the Republican-controlled Congress and Republican-controlled White House. And yet, the dramatic increase in anti-government 'patriot' groups didn't happen during all those years under Bush; the rise of these groups only happened when a guy named Barack Obama got elected by a majority of Americans to be President of the United States.
Which, of course, is the topic of this article.
There are many more.
Actually, there aren't.
These are just the most high profile examples of mal-governance and your defense of this is "Nope, they aren't"?
Again, why is that only anti-government folks seem to notice what you believe are egregious examples of "mal-governance?" Ironically, from groups that are quick to argue in favor of secession from the United States because their guy lost the election.
Why have any rules, laws or even a constitution if the players can selectively obey them?
Your assertion is just silly. Please reread the article. When your arguments place you squarely into the definition being used that generally says something about you.
Actually this was about Ruby Ridge and Waco, Texas.
FYI Neither was about terrorists, they were about anti-government ideology.
ObamaCare, cash for clunkers, continuous pushing of a liberal agenda combined with the attitude of absolute disregard and dismissal of conservative or libertarian concerns was not going to engender support amongst those that felt threatened by the "government". Not every Republican voter was in love with all of the Bush/Cheney policies and were at that time even more marginalized.
For what it's worth, "anti-government" reaction was also evident in Ohio and Wisconsin when Republican state government passed legislation that threatened the ideology of the more liberal elements within the state. Whether teachers unions, and other public employees were ever labeled as "anti-government" because they opposed the legislation passed by the duly elected representatives would be interesting.
Back on topic, the sudden growth of groups labeled as "anti-government" is probably more comparable to a earthquake where the tension has been building, putting stress on blocs of citizens then releases with the most obvious result being like-minded individuals finding each other thru social media and other web sites, joining together and forming localized groups.
Actually, forming, growing and finding of groups is much easier on the web, which may indicated some may have been around before 2008 but were not obvious public knowledge.
Here we go again!
Eric S.: David: Please to discuss MY agenda items, which are simply more anti-Obama screed and have nothing to do with the incredible rise in anti-government organizations since the President's first inauguration (most of which occurred within the first three years of this presidency), while we ignore entirely the point of the post under which I've placed it.
How about we do this?
Chuck: David: Please to ignore the assignment to assist in deflection made by Eric S., and please to recommend that he take his three questions and any of the many more he says he has, and make his OWN post, so we can come and ask him and whoever shows up to discuss anything but said post.
I really AM getting tired of what's been happening here. Virtually NONE of the discussion this post has provoked has addressed the point of the post. People just show up and post anti-Obama bullshit, which people capable of actual thought then try to refute.
To my friends: Folks. it's not refutable... it's BULLSHIT! It is therefore totally immune to logic, reason or even conversation. It is most certainly not amenable to the rules of debate.