Anti-Government Extremist Groups Are A Uniquely American Problem

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well we'll just have to agree to disagree then because I feel like their threat of violence qualifies them.

But see, that's the thing about the law--feelings don't dictate anything.

You can either trust that I have an in-depth understanding of how elements of charges need to be met, or you can choose to ignore it. Either way, I'm not just talking out of my arse on this one--technicalities sometimes mean everything when it comes to committing a crime. Technically speaking, the Bundy Group has not satisfied the first element that must be met in order to be domestic terrorism.

I could lay out my credentials as to why I have an in-depth understanding, but I've been told numerous times that saying credentials online to prove a point means nothing. I'd probably tend to agree with that, unless they can be independently proven.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

How many people were killed by terrorists in the past 120 years?


How many people were killed by governments in the past 120 years?

Which one is more dangerous?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm not sure I agree that these kind of groups are uniquely American, although I DO agree that the US version of these clowns presents it in a unique way. Gotta love how these mooks in Oregon right now are acting in the name of "the people", just like every other worthless crooked political type.

The increase in these groups during Democratic administrations is no real surprise, either. The right-wing cannot govern worth a damn... all they care about is further enriching themselves. But they can propagandize better than anybody. They are consistently on message, they never stop and they include just enough truth in the constant drumroll of lies that the less informed, or bigoted or just plain stupid suck it up and go with it.

The extreme rise of these groups during the current administration is a case in point. Obama is by no means perfect, but he is NOT a foreigner, he is NOT a Muslim, he is NOT a Commie, etc etc. His policies are not extreme, nor is his approach to foreign policy; he is not trying to take everybody's guns away and he is not trying to make the US a "socialist" country (in spite of the dramatically successful approach of unrestrained capitalism that has been working ever so well here).

But those are the "messages" of the right-wing propaganda machine, so that is what these types buy into. Doesn't matter if they are true or not.

The left wing propaganda machine is by comparison a joke.

Sorry for the insertion of even more partisanship, but as regards the growth and decline of these groups vs the administration at the time, it is my opinion that it IS a partisan matter.

a reply to: Open_Minded Skeptic

I agree with you here. It really is a partisan issue and trying to stay unpartisan is tough, but at the same time I want to give the benefit of the doubt to the other side and let them present and explain their own evidence without being hostile to them. I want all evidence to be presented equally. Because I don't want to be influenced by my biases. The only problem is that the right wing propaganda machine is so effective that I usually just get deflections, strawmans, or personal attacks instead. It's certainly frustrating and it makes it hard not to use that anecdotal evidence as evidence against the right wing propaganda machine.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Who cares about more dangerous? This isn't a competition of the most dangerous. Dangerous is dangerous. These guys are dangerous. It's not like me admitting that governments can be more dangerous than a bunch of hicks with guns forming militias excuses those militias from being dangerous or anything. You need a better argument. This isn't an either/or situation.

nvm

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Who cares about more dangerous? This isn't a competition of the most dangerous. Dangerous is dangerous. These guys are dangerous. It's not like me admitting that governments can be more dangerous than a bunch of hicks with guns forming militias excuses those militias from being dangerous or anything. You need a better argument. This isn't an either/or situation.

How many people are killed by "violent militias" every year?

ok then. compare that total to the amount of people killed by organized crime every year.

Who is more dangerous to the general public as of this moment?
A "violent militia" or violent drug sponsored gangs?

A fringe terrorist religious cult or wall-street fraud that can potentially crash MULTIPLE countries economies for decades?

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Hey if you want to talk about taking out drug cartels, I'm all ears. I think they are one of the number one threats to American society stability because the numbers speak for themselves. HOWEVER, none of that excuses the potential danger of that these groups pose as well. I get what you are doing, but keep in mind I'm not suggesting we round all these people up or anything. I'm just pointing out concerning trends that occur during different Presidencies.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

The risk is to the power structure. Our nation has a long history of crushing insurrection and/or challenges to federal power. See The Whiskey Rebellion.

Its all about a pissing match that Uncle Sam is willing to kill to keep from losing.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Just sayin.

Your a lot more likely to be killed by a violent street gang than a terrorist or a violent militia.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm struggling to believe that you're sincere in your inability to understand this problem...I can't believe you, of all people, would be this ignorant of reality.

I'm also disappointed you'd be so dishonest to say you're not trying to start a partisan debate. Of course you are.

I won't bother going too far, but I will say that this isn't some mystery. In short, when a liberal is in power, the people on the right feel attacked at every turn. Money taken, tax hikes to give handouts to people who we feel may not always deserve it, restrictions on our freedoms (such as guns), and attacks on our past values, such as religion.

When a conservative is in power these things generally ease up, or at the very least people feel that it will.

Besides, the data is biased anyways. Why don't we look at some of the lefty groups popping up over the last decades. It would be interesting to see how that same data looks in 8 years after a Republican is in office. Will the left sit quietly? Of course not. The racist hate groups (ie BLM) will surge, the Occupy babies will rise up in their diapers, and people will start crying about having to work again.

In short, the left takes from people who work the hardest and give it to those who don't (short of some real exceptions).


Oh, and the title of your OP is also bull. To say that "anti-government extremist" groups are limited to the US is a blatant lie.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Didn't you notice how crazyshot claims/implies believing government can be tyrannical equals being an extremist?...

Don't you remember something about government infiltrating, and using shills in websites such as this one to spout such propaganda?...

Not everyone, nor the majority of people who believe a government can become tyrannical are extremists... But shills try to make it sound like everyone who opposes their bosses policies must be an extremist...

btw, notice how crazyshot's article uses "a tally released by The Southern Poverty Law Center"...

...
A tally released Monday by The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks extremist organizations, identified 276 anti-government militia groups in the U.S., a 37 percent jump from 2014. The militia groups are an armed subset of so-called patriot groups that "typically adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines and subscribe to groundless conspiracy theories about the federal government," according to the law center.
...

www.huffingtonpost.com...

It is actually a known fact that the SPLC labels groups as "hate groups/extremists" based on political ideology that differs with those of the SPLC, not based on any true violent behavior or hatred. Of course, "some" of the groups they do label this way are hateful, such as the KKK, but then they label and paint with a broad brush every other group that differs from the views of the Obama administration, and the SPLC as being "extremists and hate groups"...

Monday, 19 October 2015
New Obama Terror Czar Will Target Conservatives, Christians
Written by Alex Newman

The Obama administration's increasingly controversial Justice Department, in partnership with the ultra-leftist Southern Poverty Law Center, announced the creation of a new czar position to focus on “domestic terrorism” — especially the alleged threat from Christians and Americans with “anti-government” views. While ostensibly created to serve as a coordination office overseeing domestic terror cases, critics and analysts are sounding the alarm, warning that the administration is plotting to go after its political opponents with the full force of the federal government.
...

www.thenewamerican.com...

Remember the use of the IRS to go after conservative groups by the Obama administration?...

Issa: The IRS is Still Targeting Conservatives

House chairman: Documents prove IRS 'political targeting' of conservatives


The SPLC, the same group that not too long ago had at least one of their employees acknowledge that they don't label as "extremist" a group based on any violent behavior but on political ideology... HA... go figure...

In fact, not that long ago I posted evidence related on this same topic, and how the Obama administration and the SPLC have partnered to go after conservative groups and label them as "extremist and hateful" based on political ideology.

Ron Paul’s New Organization Reportedly Stacked with Extremists

by Ryan Lenz

April 26, 2013

Ron Paul, the libertarian former Texas congressman whose hard-line views are widely admired on the radical right but who claims to reject racism, [bhas started a new organization stacked with a hodgepodge of far-right extremists.

As The Daily Beast reported yesterday, the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity is ostensibly designed to promote a discourse about U.S. foreign policy. But its advisory board is stacked with what writer James Kirchik characterized as “a bevy of conspiracy theorists, cranks, and apologists for some of the worst regimes on the planet.”

And just who are the far-right luminaries helping guide Paul’s new endeavor?

One is Lew Rockwell, Paul’s former congressional chief of staff who now heads the Ludwig von Mises Institute, an Auburn, Ala., think tank with deep ties to the neo-Confederate movement. There’s Judge Andrew Napolitano of Fox News and journalist Eric Margolis, both 9/11 “truthers” who suspect that the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks may have been orchestrated by the government.

And alongside them sits Butler Shaffer, a Southwestern Law School professor who similarly once asked: “In light of the lies, forgeries, cover-ups, and other deceptions leading to a ‘war’ in Iraq, how can any intellectually honest person categorically deny the possibility of the involvement of American political interest in 9/11?”
...

www.splcenter.org...

Notice how from the beginning the SPLC claims people like Ron Paul, and others who have similar views to Paul are seen as "right wing extremists" by the SPLC, and obviously by the Obama administration.

Let's look at another example. The SPLC labels Lew Rockwel as another "right wing extremist". But who is Lew Rockwell?

Lew Rockwell

Llewellyn Harrison "Lew" Rockwell, Jr. (born July 1, 1944) is an American libertarian author and editor, self-professed anarcho-capitalist,[1] a promoter of the Austrian School of economics, and founder and chairman of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

It is more and more obvious that not only groups like the SPLC, but including the Obama administration label Americans as extremists, simply on ideology, and not for a preponderance of evidence on violence of individuals.

As a matter of fact, Heidi Beirich, the SPLC's intelligence project director, has made remarks in the past that the SPLC looks at "ideology and not on whether or not those groups are violent."

...
CNSNews.com asked Beirich about their designation of the Family Research Council as a hate group.

“I think there’s a common misunderstanding about the way you get on our Hate List. We post groups on the basis of ideology, not whether they’re violent or not,” she replied.
...

www.cnsnews.com...

So whether you are a conservative, a libertarian, a constitutionalist, or simply a conspiracy theorist, you and I are labeled as "right wing extremists" by the SPLC and the Obama administration.

The link below is the thread where I posted this info.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Interestingly all those things were done during a Republican Presidency, but they didn't become a problem until a Democrat was in office. But it's not like they weren't unconstitutional and freedom stripping then either. I guess when it's your guy stealing liberties then its ok.

Interestingly many, if not most of those groups that the SPLC claims are extremists now were formed in the 1980s, or early 1990s... Couldn't it be that it is democrats who keep changing the labels of these groups? Of course, there have been a few that have been formed recently, but just because a Republican was President didn't make those groups that existed in the 1980s and 1990s disappear...

This is simply one of the many lies that the SPLC uses to try to urge people to believe their BS.

Are there such groups that are extremists, and hate groups? Sure, unfortunately there are. But they are not as many as the SPLC, and the Obama administration tries to claim there are.

This broad painting of anyone, or any group that differs from a certain political view as being extremists, or hateful it's simply a tactic used by the SPLC and the Obama administration to defame, and even dismantle groups that differ from the views of the SPLC and the Obama administration. It is also an intimidation tactic being used to try to silence dissenting voices...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You don't suppose it may have anything to do with the Republicans having a well developed media organization?
I know for the past several years, at least, there has been nothing a Democrat could do which was acceptable to the "right-wing talking heads". Of course they have been talking a lot about how Obama was illegal and corrupt since 2008. Which mostly served to stir up the emotions of those who thought themselves in danger of loosing their country.

Their only recourse was to sit around and talk about what they heard these "talking heads" say, and add in their own views, which just made things seem much much worse.

Actually, very little has changed over the past seven years which should bring about such alarmist reactions from anyone.

Of course, these people will not believe anything except their own echo chamber; and even after Obama leaves office they will be willing to swear he is still trying to take their guns and put them into FEMA camps.

a reply to: tinymind

Yea. The problem lies within the right wing media. There is no way an outsider can tell them when they are wrong or misinformed since that is viewed as part of the liberal conspiracy. Then anyone who is within the echo chamber decides to breakaway and question things gets labeled a RINO or something similar. It's like the propaganda machine is designed to never have to self-analyze. It's scary.

"" Anti-Government Extremist Groups Are A Uniquely American Problem ""

even compared to the Russian Revolution?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yea...right wing propaganda even when it comes directly from SPLC’s Intelligence Project Director Heidi Beirich?...

...
“I think there’s a common misunderstanding about the way you get on our Hate List. We post groups on the basis of ideology, not whether they’re violent or not,” she replied.
...

politicaloutcast.com...

SPLC Labels the Right all inclusively as Haters

John R. Houk

© July 5, 2014
...
When I checked out Heidi Beirich via Google I have to admit in full disclosure a slew of websites and blogs with a White Supremacist and Antisemitic bent came up prior to anything critical of her journalism. I say GO Heidi in exposing those nefarious organizations; nonetheless she too also groups non-hate groups particularly Christians and Counterjihad writers as hate groups while failing to report on Left Wing terrorism and Radical Islamic American individuals-groups as well Islamic terrorist organizations.


Apparently Heidi Beirich was the primary writer of the collated data of the staff of the publication Intelligence Project under the auspices of the SPLC. Beirich as a SPLC writer seems to be the interviewer/interrogator for the Intelligence Project. She has no disguise in her press questions of interviewees.


Heidi Beirich


VIDEO CLIP: www.mrctv.org...


CNN let the liberal Southern Poverty Law Center brand many right-wing “patriot” groups as “extremist” and racist on Friday afternoon. CNN host Brooke Baldwin simply listened to the SPLC talking points and concernedly asked what was being done to “combat” the “paranoia” of “anti-government activism.”

The SPLC had previously placed the Family Research Council alongside Klan members and neo-Nazis in a list of “hate” groups, but CNN did not question their study then. They continued to accept their liberal “expertise” on Friday, not challenging whether certain groups belonged in the “extremist” category.
...

oneway2day.wordpress.com...