Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Hate Group Outs ‘Hate Groups’

March 7, 2013 by  

The Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization notorious for grouping conservative Americans categorically with racist hate groups, released a report earlier this week claiming that “conspiracy-minded antigovernment ‘Patriot’ groups on the American radical right reached an all-time high in 2012” and pose a major threat to the Nation.

PATRIOT-MILITIA-GRAPH

From the SPLC report:

Capping four years of explosive growth sparked by the election of America’s first black president and anger over the economy, the number of conspiracy-minded antigovernment “Patriot” groups reached an all-time high of 1,360 in 2012, while the number of hard-core hate groups remained above 1,000. As President Obama enters his second term with an agenda of gun control and immigration reform, the rage on the right is likely to intensify.

The furious reaction to the Obama administration’s gun control proposals is reminiscent of the anger that greeted the passage of the 1993 Brady Bill and the 1994 ban on assault weapons supported by another relatively liberal Democrat — Bill Clinton. The passage of those bills, along with what was seen by the right as the federal government’s violent suppression of political dissidents at Waco, Texas, and Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in the early 1990s, led to the first wave of the Patriot movement that burst into public consciousness with the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. The number of Patriot groups in that era peaked in 1996 at 858, more than 500 groups fewer than the number active in 2012.

The organization — which tends to label anyone with whom it disagrees as an advocate of hate — relates the growing power of the conservative movement not to changing political tides, but to a proliferation of white hatred fueled by the Nation’s election of a black President in 2008.

In its latest report, SPLC lists the following people alongside hate organizations such as the KKK and neo-Nazi groups:

  • Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.)
  • Representative Trey Radel (R-Fla.)
  • State lawmakers in Arizona, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee who proposed laws that sought to prevent Federal gun control from applying to their States.
  • Sheriff Richard Mack
  • FOX News Radio host Todd Starnes
  • ConservativeDaily.com’s Tony Adkins
  • Chuck Baldwin, a Montana-based Patriot leader long associated with the Constitution Party
  • The Oath Keepers

 

 
Richard Cohen, the organization’s President, also penned a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano urging the government to act against “radical anti-government groups.”

Read the letter below:

letterletter2

The bottom line, it seems, is that if you have political views different than those of SPLC, you may be a hate-filled potential terrorist.

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Hate Group Outs ‘Hate Groups’”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Opal the Gem

    “The bottom line, it seems, is that if you have political views different than those of SPLC, you may be a hate-filled potential terrorist.”

    And just how did you come to that erronious conclusion Mr Rolley? It should read: “…you ARE a hate filled terrorist.”

    • eddie47d

      Read the Intelligence Report put out by the SPLC and you will see exactly who is labeled as hate groups. Sorry to burst your bubble Sam and others but 99% of them do advocate for violence and murder. The way I look at it if you attack SPLC then you endorse that violence. They even have the New Black Panther Party and Louis Farrakhan on their list. That should tickle you pink but you are so busy hating yourself you are clueless in who who they are really exposing. Now run along and look up Sovereign Nation and see the murder they have already inflicted.

      • wizzardous

        If you criticize the SPLC, then you endorse violence? Are you nuts? What kind of sophistry is that? I realize the Alinskyites try to control the discussion by controlling the vocabulary, but that is such a transparently flawed piece of logic it is laughable.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        A handful of responses so far, most from the mindless parrots of the right. eddie47d speaks with an open mind and points out a few things that will unfortunately go WAY over the heads of the deluded and ignorant—-well said, eddie!

        I have begun to read my personal copy of Intelligence Report—-I get it every year since I have supported the SPLC for decades—-it comes with membership. I wonder if a single one of the posters that will attack SPLC on this thread today will even bother to read any of the report (other than what Sam cherry picks for them)—-it IS a magazine sized 68 page document and does use some big words, so maybe not.

        I would bet not—-they will be content to suck up Sam’s biased and distorted commentary and run with it. Sam’s bias shows immediately in his choice of title (HATE? group says), and his very first sentence:

        “claiming that “conspiracy-minded anti government ‘Patriot’ groups on the American radical right reached an all-time high in 2012” and pose a major threat to the Nation”

        Good propagandizing but bad English, Sam. SPLC doesn’t “CLAIM” that “radical right groups reached an all time high”—-that’s a plain statement of FACT—-they HAVE reached an all time high, even allowing for a little exaggeration in the SPLC figures—-the FBI and others agree with SPLC for the most part and the numbers HAVE gone up.

        Just look at the graph you so unwisely used as “proof” of something. Even the whackos on the right don’t lie so bad that they would make up that graph, and the wimps and pussies on the left are really afraid to lie at all.

        SPLC DOES claim that the terror groups “pose a major threat to the Nation”, and they are right—these are the same “groups” that Timothy McVeigh drew strength and support from, and they are making the same crazy sounds they did back then—-do we need to have another bombing of a federal building before anyone pays attention to them?

        Shame on you, Sam. You have lowered yourself to the level of WAR and Crystal with this pandering to the right wing whackos. I don’t agree with everything that comes out of SPLC, but they are FAR more credible on nearly all issues than the opposition and have the greater good of the nation at heart, which you apparently don’t, or you wouldn’t write such crap.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        wizzardous says:

        “If you criticize the SPLC, then you endorse violence? Are you nuts? What kind of sophistry is that?”

        Actually wiz, there is quite a bit of logic in saying “Criticizing a group that criticizes groups who advocate violence can be construed as supporting violence” As in “One who criticizes someone who criticizes Yankee fans that are advocating violence against the Red Sox is actually advocating violence against the Red Sox”

        Once again , we see the mindless parroting of the Alinsky thing—-I will say again that Alinsky was thought to be a genius by William F. Buckley and other conservative thinkers of his time, and that Alinsky methods were gleefully adopted and used by Republicans as they built the plutocratic/corporate fascist/ propaganda machine that has nearly destroyed the country. Dick Armey of FreedomWorks and Tea Party fame spoke in one of his books of how much he owed to Alinsky, so he is an Alinskyite—are you anti-TP, wiz?

        What IS laughable is that wiz doesn’t even know what he is taking about with his “Alinsky” crap, and doesn’t understand that he has allowed his very THINKING to be “controlled” by those who have fed it to him Wake up, wiz, you’re being used.

      • TML

        Eddie47d says “99% of them do advocate for violence and murder. The way I look at it if you attack SPLC then you endorse that violence.”

        That’s a very absolute statement that allows no one to question SPLC. That in and of itself is very foolish. Might as well say what Bush II said, “If you are not with us, you are against us”. Ridiculous.

        Interestingly, it does paint anyone who opposes gun regulations as extremist hate groups, and that certainly isn’t correct.

        “Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) proposed a law that would nullify any executive gun control actions by Obama, accusing the president of having a “king complex.” – http://www.splcenter.org/home/2013/spring/the-year-in-hate-and-extremism

        Oh yes, that makes him so hysterically extreme, and should be considered advocating violence and murder, right? Give me a break.

        They even go so far as to say the Oath Keepers – who are a group of current and former military and law enforcement officials – as conspiracy oriented and claims their statement “we will never disarm” as a threat. It makes many other claims of extremism and hysteria about anyone who opposes further gun bans and regulations.

        Nay, the SPLC does not where a hallo on their heads enough never to be questioned (“attacked”) for making ridiculous claims.

        RBT says, “Actually wiz, there is quite a bit of logic in saying “Criticizing a group that criticizes groups who advocate violence can be construed as supporting violence”

        Not when their claims are incorrect, or attack people who have no advocated violence, and instead make such criticizing which is clearly a politically driven agenda, such as what I describe above. Making statements as eddie did, that disallows any question of what a person or organization writes or claims, is illogical and laughable.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        TML says, “Interestingly, it does paint anyone who opposes gun regulations as extremist hate groups, and that certainly isn’t correct”

        After rereading Sam’s article, the “quotes” within, and eddie’s comments, I am unable to see where ANYONE “painted opponents of gun regulation as extremists”. Quite interesting that TML would read that into it—-he is incorrect in making that statement. Where’s the “IT” that “paints”?

        TML says, “Oh yes, that makes him so hysterically extreme, and should be considered advocating violence and murder, right? Give me a break”. No, it’s not what he said that makes him “hysterically extreme”—-it’s that he’s such a sad caricature of his father.

        RBT will say it again, “Actually wiz, there is quite a bit of logic in saying “Criticizing a group that criticizes groups who advocate violence can be construed as supporting violence”. Eddie’s small bit of illogic doesn’t negate the overall truth of that—-if wielding too broad a paintbrush were a sin on PLD, 80% of the posters (including you) would long ago have been crucified.

        And the Oath Keepers?—-a group that has many noble intentions, but shows way too much evidence of paranoia and delusions of conspiracy in its thinking to be fully trusted. Some of the “I will nots”, like the refusal to go against any state that “declares sovereignty”, can even be interpreted as support for insurrection and rebellion.

      • TML

        RBT says, “After rereading Sam’s article, the “quotes” within, and eddie’s comments, I am unable to see where ANYONE “painted opponents of gun regulation as extremists”. Quite interesting that TML would read that into it—-he is incorrect in making that statement. Where’s the “IT” that “paints”?”

        The “it” is the SPLC report. That is obviously the context, and gave a link. Perhaps you missed the entire section titled “The Hysteria Mounts”. Support and defense of the 2nd Amendment rights of American’s isn’t in any sense hysteria, extreme, etc.

        RBT says, “TML says, “Oh yes, that makes him so hysterically extreme, and should be considered advocating violence and murder, right? Give me a break”. No, it’s not what he said that makes him “hysterically extreme”—-it’s that he’s such a sad caricature of his father.”

        His words were not extreme, but in defense of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. This you call a sad caricature?

        RBT says, ““Actually wiz, there is quite a bit of logic in saying “Criticizing a group that criticizes groups who advocate violence can be construed as supporting violence”. Eddie’s small bit of illogic doesn’t negate the overall truth of that”

        And I will say it again as well. Criticizing incorrect claims by a group that criticizes groups who (supposedly) advocate violence cannot rightfully be construed as supporting violence. SPLC sometimes paints with such a broad brush of its own that it includes anyone who opposes a given political agenda.

        RBT says, “And the Oath Keepers?—-a group that has many noble intentions, but shows way too much evidence of paranoia and delusions of conspiracy in its thinking to be fully trusted. Some of the “I will nots”, like the refusal to go against any state that “declares sovereignty”, can even be interpreted as support for insurrection and rebellion.”

        Paranoia and delusion is what we call your opinion of the Oath Keepers. And pray tell, how on earth respecting the declared sovereignty of a state can be interpreted as an insurrection or rebellion? That is exactly the kind of illogical claims that come from the SPLC which are in error. You and eddie would have us not even question such claims lest you claim that we support violence. Get real.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        I have spoken before of the advice given to me by many of the police officers with whom I have worked in the school business. That advice was “Never argue with a drunk”, and it is good advice indeed—-I try to follow it, but it is often difficult to do so on PLD where so many of the commenters are in fact figuratively “drunk”—–drunk on that mindless Koolaid from the right that makes it impossible to look at any other viewpoints but that narrow and often delusional set of closely held beliefs they accept as “truth”.

        So, with little hope of success, I will address some of TML’s “drunken” rantings here.

        When I asked where the “it” was that “painted opponents of gun regulation as extremists”, TML answers that the “it” is the SPLC report. And goes on to say “That is obviously the context. Perhaps you missed the entire section titled “The Hysteria Mounts?”. So, I went to my paper copy of the Report and reread it—-I marked it up with highlighters as I attempted to see what TML sees, and guess what? What TML sees is just NOT there—-TML is reading into the Report what he WANTS it to say, what will justify his present beliefs about the whole ball of dung that he mindlessly rolls around like one of those beetles. I paid particular attention to the section “Hysteria Mounts” and saw nothing much there that spoke to the extremism of gun control ADVOCATES, but much that spoke to the extremism of gun control opponents. The “hysteria” the Report points out there is the reaction of the right to O’Bama’s latest gun control initiatives, and the exact words used were that “the reaction on the political right was so harsh that it SEEMED to BORDER on hysteria”. I agree with TML that “Support and defense of the 2nd Amendment rights of American’s isn’t in any sense hysteria, extreme, etc” in itself (especially that “etc” LOL.). I am a gun owner and defender of 2nd. Amendment rights myself, but TML misses the point of the “borders on hysteria” accusation.
        The report talks about many of the parts of the “reaction”.and they WERE IN FACT “bordering on hysteria” and “extreme”. For example, individuals and groups on the right have stated:.

        “MARTIAL LAW IN THE UNITED STATES IS NOW A VERY REAL POSSIBILITY”

        “SUSPENSION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS A VERY REAL POSSIBILITY”

        And from the Oath Keepers “MESSAGE TO THE OATH BREAKERS AND TRAITORS: We will never disarm! Gun control plans are unconstitutional filth”.

        Anyone who reads that and can’t see who is paranoid, delusional, and drunk on ideology is beyond help. Actually, TML may have a reading comprehension problem on top of his confirmation bias. “His words were not extreme, but in defense of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. This you call a sad caricature?” I heard clips of his “words”, and he said some fine things, but that’s not what I was talking about—-I was saying that his attempts to follow in his father’s footsteps is what makes him “hysterically extreme” because he is a “sad caricature”, i.e., couldn’t fill one of his father’s shoes with both of his feet. Dad makes a lot of sense sometimes, Junior seldom does—-except when he’s parroting Dad.

        The same with “And I will say it again as well. Criticizing incorrect claims by a group that criticizes groups who (supposedly) advocate violence cannot rightfully be construed as supporting violence”. Again, incorrect—-adding incorrect (your opinion) and “supposedly” (your opinion) does NOT invalidate the opinions of the SPLC (which are supported, unlike yours)

        “And the Oath Keepers?—-a group that has many noble intentions, but shows way too much evidence of paranoia and delusions of conspiracy in its thinking to be fully trusted. Some of the “I will nots”, like the refusal to go against any state that “declares sovereignty”, can even be interpreted as support for insurrection and rebellion”.

        “Paranoia and delusion is what we call your opinion of the Oath Keepers. And pray tell, how on earth respecting the declared sovereignty of a state can be interpreted as an insurrection or rebellion?” Simple—-states can’t “declare sovereignty”. The last time some states declared sovereignty and seceded, it was an insurrection and rebellion, and that is exactly what the “hysterics” on the right are advocating right now. When you say “we”, do you mean you are an Oath Keeper? Get real and understand that you all have been sold a bill of goods by those who want to use you for their own purposes—-and that is not to preserve the Constitution, but to pervert it so that they can establish the corporate fascist state. The illogical claims about gun regulation come from those on the right that have sold out. “They” are NEVER going to take the 300 million guns away from the 60 million gun owners in this country and all the court cases upholding the 2nd. Amendment prove it. O’Bama was never big on gun control in his first term and is only doing what he must because of what a few crazies have done over the past year. All your mindless opposition to ANY gun regulation is actually playing into the hands of the gun control advocates—-sanity appears to be on their side, not on yours (ours)—-you’re hurting us.

        And please don’t lump me in with eddie all the time just because we agree on some things. We march to different drummers most of the time—-that should be obvious to all.

        I will agree with “SPLC sometimes paints with such a broad brush of its own”—-all advocacy groups do that—-it’s called “selling your ideas”, and I can live with it as long as they stay pretty much within the bounds of truth, as SLPC does. I can’t buy the overreach in “it includes anyone who opposes a given political agenda”—-that IS using an OVER broad brush, to say nothing of it appearing to be an outright untruth—-i.e., pure unsupported opinion meant to deceive.

      • eddie47d

        I have brought up right wing groups who have done violence on several occassions TML. I doubt very much if you were absent on all those times. I made no disparaging words against the Oath Keepers and there are numerous other groups out there that are a danger to the state.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        Ever since 1971, U.S. Postal Service mailbags have bulged with his fundraising letters, scaring dollars out of the pockets of trembling liberals aghast at his lurid depictions of hate-sodden America, in dire need of legal confrontation by the SPLC. Nine years ago, Ken Silverstein wrote a devastating commentary on Dees and the SPLC in Harper’s, dissecting a typical swatch of Dees’ solicitations. At that time, as Silverstein pointed out, the SPLC was “the wealthiest civil rights group in America,” with $120 million in assets.

        As of October 2008, the net assets of the SPLC were $170,240,129. The merchant of hate himself, Mr. Dees, was paid an annual $273,132 as chief trial counsel, and the SPLC’s president and CEO, Richard Cohen, $290,193. Total revenue in 2007 was $44,727,257 and program expenses $20,804,536. In other words, the Southern Poverty Law Center was raising twice as much as it was spending on its proclaimed mission. Fundraising and administrative expenses accounted for $9 million, leaving $14 million to be put in the center’s vast asset portfolio.

        But where are the haters? That hardy old standby, the KKK, despite the SPLC’s predictable howls about an uptick in its chapters, is a moth-eaten and depleted troupe, at least 10 percent of them on the government payroll as informants for the FBI. As Noel Ignatiev once remarked in his book “Race Traitor,” there isn’t a public school in any county in the U.S.A. that doesn’t represent a menace to blacks a thousand times more potent than that offered by the KKK, just as there aren’t many such schools that probably haven’t been propositioned by Dees to buy one of the SPLC’s “tolerance” programs.

        What school is going to go on record rejecting Dees-sponsored tolerance?
        Dees and his hate-seekers scour the landscape for hate like the arms manufacturers inventing new threats and for the same reason: It’s their staple.

        http://www.creators.com/opinion/alexander-cockburn/king-of-the-hate-business.html

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        RBT: I have begun to read my personal copy of Intelligence Report—-I get it every year since I have supported the SPLC for decades—-it comes with membership.

        I must say, you are one “gullible” palooka, RBT! The SPLC is a money-making hate-machine, nothing more. How can you be so foolish, so gullible?

        The SPLC has become an extraordinarily wealthy organization, and its directors and employees profit very handsomely from it. Morris Dees long ago became a millionaire from this shady scam. Apparently, its main source of revenue is fundraising letters that are sent out to the least intelligent/most gullible liberals in America who actually believe the SPLC’s wild and unproven smears and respond by sending them a check.

        In a Social Contract article entitled “Bashing for Dollars: The SPLC’s Predatory Game,” Brenda Walker writes that by 2005 the organization had an endowment of $174 million. “Very little of the hoard is spent on actual civil right work,” writes Walker. “The major products are smear campaigns,” which are essentially fundraising campaigns.

        In an article entitled “The Church of Morris Dees” in the November 2000 issue of Harper’s magazine Ken Silverstein noted that the SPLC spends such a high percentage of its revenue on salaries, perks, and fundraising that “The American Institute of Philanthropy gives the Center one of the worst rankings of any [nonprofit] group it monitors.” That, I suppose, is how it was able to move into its new palatial headquarters building in Montgomery, Alabama that is known locally as the “Poverty Palace.”

        All of this is undoubtedly why leftist journalist Alexander Cockburn wrote in the New York Press in 2007 that “I’ve long regarded Morris Dees and his Southern Poverty Law Center as collectively one of the greatest frauds in American life. The reasons: a relentless fundraising machine devoted to terrifying mostly low-income gullible-contributors into unbolting ill-spared dollars year after year to an organization that now has an endowment of more than a $100 million . . .” Amen, Brother Cockburn.

        http://www.thesocialcontract.com/answering_our_critics/art2000nov.html

      • Right Brain Thinker

        WTS/JAY is obviously working the night shift too—-he checked out and took 1-1/2 hours for dinner! Nice, JAY—-we didn’t get that kind of time in the schools. Did you have too many martinis? Can we expect drunken mindlessness from you tonight?

        JAY says “I must say, you are one “gullible” palooka, RBT!” Not as gullible as anyone who swallows JAY’s horsepucky, which he has “refreshed” in this “new” comment by sprinkling an assortment of the same old, same old mudslinging and mental diarrhea.

        Let’s get to the point, Jay. I have been following the SPLC for years and am well aware of its alleged failings and all the mud that has been slung at them. SPLC is no worse than groups like the Heritage Foundation or the Cato Institute. Actually, the failings of the typical right wing group are much greater than SPLC’s because at least SPLC is fighting a REAL problem for the benefit of ALL Americans and speaks truth about that problem. I DON’T CARE about anything but that, and I DON”T CARE that they have a fancy headquarters building, money in the bank, and that Morris has a nice house. As long as they are the top dog in the fight and until someone comes along to to a better job and replace them, I will support them.

        So go sit in the corner with the other horsepucky purveyors you cite and sniff each others stuff—-it all smells the same to me—-bad—-maybe you can tell the difference.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        Oh RBT, you gullible-fool, you. You’re upset because i revealed to you what a gullible-fool you are for supporting the “shyster-scumbag” of the likes of Morris Dees. You remind me of all the gullible-dolts that give away their moneys to the televangelist-shysters week after week, month after month, year after year and receiving only a monthly/yearly propaganda publication in return…what suckers you all are! Btw, have you mailed your check yet! LOL!!!!

      • TML

        RBT says, “I paid particular attention to the section “Hysteria Mounts” and saw nothing much there that spoke to the extremism of gun control ADVOCATES, but much that spoke to the extremism of gun control opponents.”

        It’s ironic that all your rants are as if you’re talking about yourself. Are you really drunk? “Saw nothing much there that spoke to the extremism of gun control ADVOCATES” was never the issue. “Much that spoke about the extremism of gun control OPPONENTS” was exactly the point when I said, “it does paint anyone who opposes gun regulations as extremist” and you paraphrased “painted opponents of gun regulation as extremists”. So thank you for admitting the point, genius.

        RBT says, “The “hysteria” the Report points out there is the reaction of the right to O’Bama’s latest gun control initiatives, and the exact words used were that “the reaction on the political right was so harsh that it SEEMED to BORDER on hysteria”.”

        And while you stress “seemed to border” we see the bias context when referencing the ambiguous “radical right”.

        RBT says, “For example, individuals and groups on the right have stated:.
        “MARTIAL LAW IN THE UNITED STATES IS NOW A VERY REAL POSSIBILITY”
        “SUSPENSION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS A VERY REAL POSSIBILITY”
        And from the Oath Keepers “MESSAGE TO THE OATH BREAKERS AND TRAITORS: We will never disarm! Gun control plans are unconstitutional filth”.
        Anyone who reads that and can’t see who is paranoid, delusional, and drunk on ideology is beyond help.”

        I’m sure that just because someone doesn’t see it your way that they should be considered “beyond help”.
        When considering Obama’s record of supporting complete bans on handguns in Illinois, and his statements during the 2nd Presidential debate saying that in addition to an “assault” weapons ban, he would also be looking at “cheap handguns”. Along with numerous others, such as Feinstein, who have indeed come right out and proposed legislation that would significantly disarm the American people. And the emotionally extreme responses from gun control advocates and those who try capitalize on a tragedy to push legislation. The historic precedent for confiscation, including the confiscation that occurred in the midst of the Katrina tragedy, and being in the midst of the so-called war on terror in which the government has claimed the right of indefinite detention without charge or trial. Concerns are legitimate.

        Blatant infringement up to confiscation of some or even all firearms would, by definition, suspend the Constitution, just as many other pieces of legislation have done that already, such as the NDAA. They are breeches of the federal governments constitutional power. Saying such measures are unconstitutional filth is considered “seeming to border on hysteria”? As I said, get real, man.

        Explain to me how the “lawmakers in Arizona, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee who proposed laws [proclaiming state sovereignty] that sought to prevent federal gun control from applying to their states”, borders on hysteria?

        RBT says, “The same with “And I will say it again as well. Criticizing incorrect claims by a group that criticizes groups who (supposedly) advocate violence cannot rightfully be construed as supporting violence”. Again, incorrect—-adding incorrect (your opinion) and “supposedly” (your opinion) does NOT invalidate the opinions of the SPLC (which are supported, unlike yours)”

        You’re like the spin doctor… spin, spin, spin
        Invalidating the opinions of the SPLC was not what was being argued. They, the reports, are in fact their opinions. The initial statement argued against was eddie saying “if you attack SPLC then you endorse that violence.”. My argument to that idea is that those criticizing questionable claims by a group that criticizes groups who (supposedly) advocate violence cannot rightfully be construed as supporting violence”.

        TML says, “how on earth respecting the declared sovereignty of a state can be interpreted as an insurrection or rebellion?”

        RBT says, “Simple—-states can’t “declare sovereignty”. The last time some states declared sovereignty and seceded, it was an insurrection and rebellion, and that is exactly what the “hysterics” on the right are advocating right now”

        States are already sovereign, except for those powers specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. Any federal law that is not pursuant to the Constitution is not a valid law. Thus, resolutions are passed to proclaim that sovereignty and nullify that law. But if you want to talk about secession I will start by saying this isn’t the 1860’s anymore, and that secession is not in any sense an insurrection or rebellion if it is done directly in response exceeding violations of the compact. Besides, your initial comment was about the Oath Keepers saying they will not go against any state that declares sovereignty an act of rebellion or insurrection by those people. Since you are dancing around the question, I’m telling you…It is NOT insurrection or rebellion to respect the declared sovereignty of a state, for reasons of usurpation of the Bill of Rights and Constitution, by those individuals whom have sworn an oath to uphold them.

        RBT says, “understand that you all have been sold a bill of goods by those who want to use you for their own purposes—-and that is not to preserve the Constitution, but to pervert it so that they can establish the corporate fascist state.”

        Oh come on, who’s being hysterical here? You don’t know how to talk to someone without trying your best to insult them with some long winded rants that you think makes you look smart or witty, but here try to say that we’re just being used under the auspices of preserving the constitution, with the grand scheme to establish a “corporate fascist state”. Seriously, put down the booze.

        RBT says, “ The illogical claims about gun regulation come from those on the right that have sold out.”

        Still a slave to that ambiguous left/right paradigm eh? What claims by whom?

        RBT says, “O’Bama was never big on gun control in his first term and is only doing what he must because of what a few crazies have done over the past year. All your mindless opposition to ANY gun regulation is actually playing into the hands of the gun control advocates—-sanity appears to be on their side, not on yours (ours)—-you’re hurting us.”

        Yet, all of what you claim he is doing because he must, would not even prevented those few crazies from their crimes. The legislation is being pushed by shear emotion, not reason. Btw, I never claimed to be against ANY gun regulations. You assume way too much. I have debated at length in other threads to the very specific regulations or bans that I am against and why I am against them.

        RBT says, “I will agree with “SPLC sometimes paints with such a broad brush of its own”—-all advocacy groups do that—-it’s called “selling your ideas””

        So, when advocacy groups which you support do it, it’s called selling your ideas, but when an advocacy on the “right” does it, it borders on hysteria and extremism. Haha, you’re a hoot.

        RBT says, “I can’t buy the overreach in “it includes anyone who opposes a given political agenda”—-that IS using an OVER broad brush, to say nothing of it appearing to be an outright untruth—-i.e., pure unsupported opinion meant to deceive.”

        So now you accuse me of intent to deceive, lol… no, I just call things as I see them.
        Interesting that everyone mentioned in the “Hysteria Mounts” section was at the forefront of opponents to further gun legislation that they deem unnecessary and unconstitutional.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        TML is another of the PLD posters who fancies himself a logician and master debater. Too bad he is in such a hurry to score what he perceives as “points” that he can’t really be bothered to read carefully and think. He is one of the “ready, fire, look for the target, think” folks that so confuse our discussions. One of the best illustrations of that is his closing comments,

        “So now you accuse me of intent to deceive, lol… no, I just call things as I see them”. Uh, yes, that’s exactly what I said—-“pure UNSUPPORTED opinion based on pure BELIEF rather than rational analysis, and my opinion that it’s “meant to deceive” IS supported by the body of my comment (which you apparently didn’t read). And “Interesting that everyone mentioned in the “Hysteria Mounts” section was at the forefront of opponents to further gun legislation that they deem unnecessary and unconstitutional”. Nothing new or interesting AT ALL about that—-what’s your point? The positions of the gun legislation opponents are extreme enough that they DO “border on hysteria”—-and I will repeat, “Anyone who reads that and can’t see who is paranoid, delusional, and drunk on ideology is beyond help”.

        TML says, “So, when advocacy groups which you support do it, it’s called selling your ideas, but when an advocacy on the “right” does it, it borders on hysteria and extremism. Haha, you’re a hoot”. TML is, unfortunately, NOT a hoot when he again demonstrates his continued mindless reading into my comments what he WANTS them to say rather than what they do say. He again is trying to deceive all when he “interprets” my comment the way he does. “ALL advocacy groups do that (ALL includes right wing)—-it’s called selling your ideas (including the wrong-headed ideas of the right)” and it’s really a separate issue from the “borders on hysteria and extremism” one.

        RBT says, “O’Bama was never big on gun control in his first term and is only doing what he must because of what a few crazies have done over the past year. All your mindless opposition to ANY gun regulation is actually playing into the hands of the gun control advocates—-sanity appears to be on their side, not on yours (ours)—-you’re hurting us.”

        TML evades addressing what I said with “Yet, all of what you claim he is doing because he must, would not even prevented those few crazies from their crimes. The legislation is being pushed by sheer emotion, not reason”. Really? It is “unreasonable” to be concerned that 6-year-olds are slaughtered in school or folks are killed in a movie theater in the middle of the night or “sovereign citizens” are shooting law officers all over the country? And “Btw, I never claimed to be against ANY gun regulations. You assume way too much. I have debated at length in other threads to the very specific regulations or bans that I am against and why I am against them” is just more evasion by TML—my “your” is not specific to TML (and he knows it)—I refer to the sum total of the opposition to gun regulation, and we need look no further than TML’s present comments to see that he is a hypocrite here—-he DOES make noises here that indicate he supports the “borders on hysteria folks” and says little that would make one think he is a moderate on gun regulation—my SUPPORTABLE opinion.

        RBT says, “The “hysteria” the Report points out there is the reaction of the right to O’Bama’s latest gun control initiatives, and the exact words used were that “the reaction on the political right was so harsh that it SEEMED to BORDER on hysteria”.”
        TML yet AGAIN fails to read or think when he says “And while you stress “seemed to border” we see the bias context when referencing the ambiguous “radical right”. TML sees the “bias context because he WANTS to see it. I “stressed” the exact words because TML twisted them and I was bringing us back to reality. And I DIDN’T say “radical right”—I said just plain “right”. Another reading “fail”? Or just the usual confirmation bias on TML’s part?

        “So thank you for admitting the point, genius” is just more of TML’s smugness in his belief that he is “winning” this whack-a-mole game. The only thing he is winning is the “I run my mouth without thinking” award. Which he again demonstrates with, “I’m sure that just because someone doesn’t see it your way that they should be considered “beyond help”. When will he ever read what I say and try to understand it? .
        “You’re like the spin doctor… spin, spin, spin”? That’s typical mindless motivated reasoning—-TML is the one who defies logic and rationality as he continually tries to restate the same illogical and unreasoned horsepucky. My “spin” is just ongoing attempts to expose TML to some truth and rationality, and as I predicted, TML is quite resistant. He insists on trying to make a point that can’t be made.

        TML then makes what he considers to be a reasoned and logical series of statements ranging from O’Bama through Feinstein to “the emotionally extreme responses from gun control advocates” to “historic precedent for confiscation”, to “indefinite detention without charge or trial”, “confiscation of some or even all firearms would, BY DEFINITION, suspend the Constitution”,. “breaches of the federal governments constitutional power”, and denying that “saying such measures are unconstitutional filth” is bordering on hysteria”, and then says to me “As I said, get real, man”. I AM “real”, TML, you are not—-you are a mindless parrot of all the tired old right wing talking points and boogeymen.

        I will repeat myself yet again, “understand that you all have been sold a bill of goods by those who want to use you for their own purposes—-and that is not to preserve the Constitution, but to pervert it so that they can establish the corporate fascist state.” and “ The illogical claims about gun regulation come from those on the right that have sold out.” Wake up and see the truth.

        “States are already sovereign, except for those powers specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. Any federal law that is not pursuant to the Constitution is not a valid law. Thus, resolutions are passed to proclaim that sovereignty and nullify that law. But if you want to talk about secession I will start by saying this isn’t the 1860’s anymore, and that secession is not in any sense an insurrection or rebellion if it is done directly in response exceeding violations of the compact. Besides, your initial comment was about the Oath Keepers saying they will not go against any state that declares sovereignty an act of rebellion or insurrection by those people. Since you are dancing around the question, I’m telling you…It is NOT insurrection or rebellion to respect the declared sovereignty of a state, for reasons of usurpation of the Bill of Rights and Constitution, by those individuals whom have sworn an oath to uphold them.”

        All that is just more mindless parroting of a “position” and “opinions”. It is not YOUR place to DECLARE laws “invalid” and talk about “nullification” (remember what Andrew Jackson did?). It is not your place to DECLARE that secession is not insurrection or rebellion IF—-if it suits your purposes, is what you mean. I’m not dancing, I’m stating that you are flat out WRONG in your “interpretations” and that the Oath Keepers are in fact defying the Constitution when they say they are defending it.

        TML says, “how on earth respecting the declared sovereignty of a state can be interpreted as an insurrection or rebellion?” Again, reading what he wants to read in my comments. SECESSION is insurrection and rebellion, not “respecting” (whatever that means) the sovereignty of a state. And the circumstances of “declaration” are quite important too—-some might think (and I’m one of them) that the “lawmakers in Arizona, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee who proposed laws [proclaiming state sovereignty] that sought to prevent federal gun control from applying to their states”, do in fact BORDER on hysteria.. It’s an overreaction to the situation.

        TML must sense that he’s really not saying much of substance and is at a loss for a response when he says, ”Oh come on, who’s being hysterical here? You don’t know how to talk to someone without trying your best to insult them with some long winded rants that you think makes you look smart or witty, but here try to say that we’re just being used under the auspices of preserving the constitution, with the grand scheme to establish a “corporate fascist state”. Yes, we’re being used, and “they” are counting on your “borderline hysteria” because it gets in the way of real progress, which is what “they” want. My “long winded rants” are just long enough to make the points, and ARE “smart” in that YOU can’t counter what I say without angry long winded rants of illogic and circular reasoning. And if TML is “insulted” by truth, it’s because he insists on accepting only his “truth”, and just can’t stand the thought it might be wrong. Not my fault.

      • TML

        RBT says, “pure UNSUPPORTED opinion based on pure BELIEF rather than rational analysis, and my opinion that it’s “meant to deceive””

        Interesting, that is exactly what I claim about the SPLC’s section of discussion. Unsupported opinion based on pure belief meant to deceive due to the preconceived position on firearms and the legality of regulation. My analysis in objective… I have no hate, nor love for the SPLC. You on the other hand are actually a monetary supporter, so I would suspect your entire opinion to be bias.

        The positions of the gun legislation opponents are extreme enough that they DO “border on hysteria”—-and I will repeat, “Anyone who reads that and can’t see who is paranoid, delusional, and drunk on ideology is beyond help”.

        Hysteria is a relative term, RBT. Perhaps the legitimate positions of those gun legislation opponents is beyond your understanding, and thus bordering on hysteria, else you are simply saying so merely because you are an opponent to their main arguments.

        RBT says, “TML evades addressing what I said with “Yet, all of what you claim he is doing because he must, would not even prevented those few crazies from their crimes. The legislation is being pushed by sheer emotion, not reason”. Really? It is “unreasonable” to be concerned that 6-year-olds are slaughtered in school or folks are killed in a movie theater in the middle of the night or “sovereign citizens” are shooting law officers all over the country?”

        When legislation is drummed through in the wake of an emotional tragedy, it is clear that it is not reason which drives that legislation, but emotion. Again, none of the gun legislation even proposed would stop such incidents from occurring. That fact alone negates your appeal to pity. Take “gun free zones”, which are pushed under the auspices of a reasonable concern for the children, which function no less that setting out lambs for slaughter, since clearly, criminals don’t care about those ‘signs’.

        RBT says, “And “Btw, I never claimed to be against ANY gun regulations. You assume way too much. I have debated at length in other threads to the very specific regulations or bans that I am against and why I am against them” is just more evasion by TML—my “your” is not specific to TML (and he knows it)”

        Really? Perhaps if you didn’t constantly respond to me in the third person, I might have actually caught something like that. You like the guy that can’t look me in the eye as he speaks.

        RBT says, “I refer to the sum total of the opposition to gun regulation, and we need look no further than TML’s present comments to see that he is a hypocrite here—-he DOES make noises here that indicate he supports the “borders on hysteria folks” and says little that would make one think he is a moderate on gun regulation—my SUPPORTABLE opinion.”

        There were a couple of statements ni that section which I would legitimately say “border on hysteria” but I would not agree that most do. Which is the entire point of my argument since those who should not be seen as such, are lumped in with those who are, for no other reason than speaking out against gun control. I consider myself a moderate on gun regulation, but not on the same side of the fence as you. Your left/right paradigm blindness tricks you into thinking that anyone to the ‘right’ of your opinion is not moderate. Wakey wakey, RBT. And that is my supportable opinion.

        RBT says, “TML yet AGAIN fails to read or think when he says “And while you stress “seemed to border” we see the bias context when referencing the ambiguous “radical right”. TML sees the “bias context because he WANTS to see it. I “stressed” the exact words because TML twisted them and I was bringing us back to reality. And I DIDN’T say “radical right”—I said just plain “right”. Another reading “fail”? Or just the usual confirmation bias on TML’s part?”

        No, the it’s the usual confirmation bias on your part, as you again fail reading comprehension. I didn’t say you said, “radical right”, that is the exact term used in that SPLC report, in the section under discussion, to describe those who opposed gun legislation.

        RBT says, “The only thing he is winning is the “I run my mouth without thinking” award. Which he again demonstrates with, “I’m sure that just because someone doesn’t see it your way that they should be considered “beyond help”. When will he ever read what I say and try to understand it? .”

        Hah… considering that it is you who started running your mouth (in response to my 4 small paragraphs at March 7, 2013 at 3:22 pm above) and spewing ad hominem because you can’t make rationally objective arguments… who is the one running their mouth again? LoL. I try my best to read and understand what you try to say, but your rants go on and on splattered with personal insults along the way, most people don’t even bother reading half your tripe. That seems to be your intent, and then believe you actually won an argument.

        RBT says, “My “spin” is just ongoing attempts to expose TML to some truth and rationality, and as I predicted, TML is quite resistant. He insists on trying to make a point that can’t be made.”

        It has already been made, you simply refuse to submit. Which is why you resort to personal attacks.

        RBT says, “Wake up and see the truth.”

        I could say the same to you, oh egocentric one.

        RBT says, “All that is just more mindless parroting of a “position” and “opinions”. It is not YOUR place to DECLARE laws “invalid” and talk about “nullification” (remember what Andrew Jackson did?). It is not your place to DECLARE that secession is not insurrection or rebellion IF—-if it suits your purposes, is what you mean. I’m not dancing, I’m stating that you are flat out WRONG in your “interpretations” and that the Oath Keepers are in fact defying the Constitution when they say they are defending it.

        And I pointed out quite clearly that you are the one who is wrong. You simply dismiss it with the same old “that’s just middles parroting” while offering no real counter argument of substance… only your own UNSUPPORTED opinion. Btw, I never said it was MY place, it is the place of the STATE. You seriously do have a sociopathic complex to constantly accuse others of what you do repeatedly.

        “BRT says, “TML says, “how on earth respecting the declared sovereignty of a state can be interpreted as an insurrection or rebellion?” Again, reading what he wants to read in my comments. SECESSION is insurrection and rebellion, not “respecting” (whatever that means) the sovereignty of a state.”

        LOL! No, calling it an insurrection or rebellion is reading into it what you want. If you don’t even understand what respect is (not surprising really) then we have no basis for further conversation. You have become boring and turned this into nothing but a mud-slinging contest as always, and offer no sound counter arguments.

        Good day sir.

  • Harold Olsen

    In July of 2010 AP ran a story about SPLC. In the story, they said that SPLC had labeled the TEA party a militia and a hate group. Why? What was it about the TEA party that scared them? The TEA party demanded that the US Constitution be upheld and enforced. The story was actually about a group called Oath Keepers, or something like that. They were a group of sheriffs who demanded the same thing. Uphold and enforce the Constitution. They labeled this group as a militia and hate group as well. These sheriffs also stated that should the FBI enter their jurisdiction uninvited, they’d be arrested. I consider the SPLC to be not only a hate group but a terrorist group.

    • wizzardous

      Incredible that these race-frauds would label Oath Keepers as a “terrorist” group. The oath I took is simply:
      I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
      And the principles of Oath Keepers are:
      1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
      2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
      3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.
      4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
      5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
      6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
      7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
      8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control.”
      9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
      10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

      The administration can’t have this, so they are cashiering senior officers whose primary loyalty is to the Constitution and the country and cultivating a cadre of younger military officers whose primary loyalty is to the president and who will “fire on the crowd”.

      It would not surprise me if there were a link between the WH and SPLC encouraging a contrived “Intelligence Report” to give the administration cover to further harass, intimidate and suppress anyone who disagrees with them. It would be charmingly childish if it weren’t so scary to see the fraudulent intent of including on a list of true hate groups those groups that just differ with the WH, such as the Tea Party. Sort of taking guidance from the ghost of Hugo Chavez.

      • eddie47d

        I admire your points if you are truly willing to stand up for those beliefs. If you remember the experience the American people had with Nixon in going after citizens,wiretapping and turning his “pit bulls” loose then I’m with you. Nixon and Agnew set the stage for government interference and taking away rights. Agnew called any opposition Brownshirts so would you approve or disapprove of their government behavior? After the Kent State killing Nixon agreed with what happened in shooting innocent students. Sadly the majority of American people (those interviewed) also said it was okay and “more should have been killed”. I’m going to assume that the Oath Keepers would not fire into a crowd such as Kent State even if it meant being punished.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        and wiz doubles down with paranoia, conspiracy, and THE GHOST OF CESAR CHAVEZ!!!! LOL and Lord love a duck, wiz! The Repugs have really done an “Alinsky” on you! Wake the F up before it’s too late!

      • eddie47d

        Well Wiz would you or wouldn’t you?

      • http://www.personalliberty.com Julie

        I hope you are right. I feel it’s up to the elder law enforcers to educate the younger law enforcers about our constitutional rights, and the oath they take to the constitution. And that also goes to our military.
        Right Brain Thinker must be left handed like Obama.

  • Joe Gunz

    It seems the IDIOTS of the SPLC are government puppets & like Opal said if your views differ from theirs you are a “hate group” & potential terrorist. But it’s funny I don’t think they’ve said anything about a REAL hate group like WBC who go around “demonstrating” at the funerals of OUR men & women who died fighting a war WE should NOT have been in. Who are the SPLC to say that entire states are “hate groups” or potential terrorists when ALL they are doing is protecting the rights of their people!? The SPLC is just another group of WACKO’S who are SEVERELY up the “collective” ASS of our federal government.

    • ? Chocopot

      To the left-wing wackos who run SPLC, anyone who believes in the Constitution and the rights it gives us, and anyone who opposes the Marxist in the White House and his agenda of destroying this country, is a racist and must be branded as a member of some hate group.

  • EXPLETIVE DELETED

    When he mentions sovereign citizens, does he mean the largest group of law breakers (illegal alien)making demands not paying taxes. And worst of all their employers and topping the list would be the racist federal government for placing them ahead of the people following the law to become citizens.

  • EXPLETIVE DELETED

    P.S. and don’t forget both parties showing us that racial favoritism , and I quote (latino) vote vs citizens vote

  • rendarsmith

    If SPLC exposes hate groups, why hasn’t it listed the Radfem Hub? This is a site where radical feminists talk about mutilating little boys, castrating or killing all males, wanting to throw boys out windows, calling them “future rapists”, and several other horrible things. Look up the Agent Orange files from Radfem Hub. All the evidence you need.

    Could it be because Radfem Hub gives donations to the SPLC?

  • Cait Perez

    I want to go I record and ask about those non-Islam terror attacks since 2000???? If they happened, the media would be all over those patriots. The only terror is being spewed from governments and their advocates to compel otherwise decent people to throw their hands up in despair or become that which patriotic Americans are being accused of. Why is violence, mob attacks, and other shootings all coming from democratic operatives if patriots are the problem??? Where is the letter on those people?

  • cawmun cents

    Socially Progressive Liberal Caucus?
    Anyone out there want to play Acronym Adjustor with me?

    Cheers!
    -CC.

  • J.

    The splc that hires no minority lawyers; however, will be the first to point fingers and yell racism is once again going to be the pot calling the kettle black. the splc recieves its marching orders from morris dees who makes his living off people he considers to feeble minded to think for themselves. And just where does he live ? Talk about a hypocrit

    • eddie47d

      The SPLC does have blacks working for them so maybe no person of color has applied for a lawyer position. Few if any Conservative groups have any blacks at the helm or even in the front office. If you remember the Republican Convention you had to strain to find even a half dozen black faces. I think you are to feeble minded to have noticed.

  • J.

    “He’s the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker of the civil-rights movement,” attorney Millard Farmer says of Dees, “though I don’t mean to malign Jim and Tammy Faye.” According to former SPLC legal fellow Pamela Summers, “What they are doing in the [SPLC] legal department is not done for the best interest of everybody [but] is done as though the sole, overriding goal is to make money. They’re drowning in their own affluence.” The Baltimore Sun characterizes SPLC’s operations this way: “Its business is fundraising, and its success at raking in the cash is based on its ability to sell gullible people on the idea that present-day America is awash in white racism and anti-Semitism, which it will fight tooth-and-nail as the public interest law firm it purports to be.” Perhaps the strongest rebuke comes from Stephen Bright, president of the Southern Center for Human Rights, who in 1996 called Dees “a fraud and a con man,” deriding him for “your failure to respond to the most desperate needs of the poor and powerless despite your millions upon millions, your fund-raising techniques, the fact that you spend so much, accomplish so little, and promote yourself so shamelessly.”

    • eddie47d

      There again you are wrong because it takes time and effort to expose radical hate organizations like the Klan and millions more to shut them down. Their money is spent on tackling the big issues in civil rights not necessarily small neighborhood racial problems. Although they occasional support those causes too.

  • Gary

    Well, I do hate the SPLC! And maybe it’s time to take out the enemies of freedom!?

  • WILDFIRE

    one thing is for certain, any charts, bar graphs or records and stats of any kind good or bad have made absolute jumps either up or down. Example: this chart above, since Obama come on scene he has caused a unprecedented increase in patriot & militia groups. Far more than even the terrorist Bin Laden accomplished when he purportedly attacked the USA either time.

    Another unprecedented graph to look at is government spending and debt created under this administration (all the while promising to cut it in half, he has doubled it) Just for the record, if Obama held to his promise, our debt should be around 5 trillion today, it what close to 17 trillion today? You can’t blame all the other presidents for our national debt being 10 trillion and not blame any of our debt on the current president. He is every bit equally responsible for his nearly 7 trillion dollar debt as was all the other presidents before him.

    another unprecedented statistic is guns and weapons sales have sky rocketed to their highest levels ever in this world history. Not even during the WW’s did so many arms sell here in America.

    Racism and divide has grown in leaps and bounds also to levels not seen since more than 50 years ago.

    I guess that is Obama’s idea of “FORWARD” by pushing us back 50-60 years and not just here in America, Obama insist that Israel reverts back to their 1960′s borders and give those areas back to the Palestinians. What is next? Obama want the US to revert back decades ago and give back to Mexico land in which we won?

    I look for it to come out of his mouth before 2016

    The lists go on and on

  • WILDFIRE

    I wonder if the “New Black Panthers” falls into those hate groups? Where they have blatantly and openly declared to “kill whitey” and place bounties on peoples head that eliminate black hoodlums and stand post at voting polls with batons to intimidate “whitey”.

    • eddie47d

      Surprise! Surprise! Yes they do! Now do you have the KKK,The Council of Conservative Citizens,The Aryan Terror Brigade or maybe the Supreme White Alliance on your list of bad guys?

    • ibcamn

      widfire,he can’t put them on list(BPP)they attend white house functions!but whet is funny is how all the liberals who have threatened conservatives(unions on lawns,breaking windows in conservatives offices,etc..)they are not on this list!and dont forget the group that tried to sink the Cole,oh wait,Obama’s protecting them,sorry i forgot!they need to build mosks across this great country!but those groups will never be on these peoples radar,because they are on their side and think alike!(Gore and Aljeerz)

      And old whitey that they don’t want to vote,it’s because they vote(against what they want)thats why Obamacare doesn’t want them to live very long!

  • JUKEBOX

    The first thing that is bogus about the SPLC is their name. You would think such an organization would be operating out of a modest storefront somewhere, instead of operating out of a multi million dollar office building within sight of the Alabama Capitol Building. Every one of their spokesmen spouts vitriolic remarks about conservatives on any program that will have them.

    • rocketride

      The only poverty they should be worrying about is their own mental poverty.

  • ibcamn

    So he says theres a rise of terrorist threats and terrorist plots!?!so theres a bunch of exposed plots from Americans?i heard of one group having a plot,they are in jail!and the bombers attemps to blow up parts of this country was done by like minded idiots who wanted to play suiside bomber(72 virgins) wannabe’s that switched sides,joined the circus,traiters,that sort of thing!the guys who went online to get brainwashed(jihad jane)and went to a bomber training camp!those guys ive heard of,where are all these others he talks about,just because we don’t agree with his way of progressive thinking we are the enemy?!aahhh yeah,liberal thinking,got it!this guy should be kept away from us then because we like to voice what we have to say.not do it behind closed doors and secret meetings and lie and threaten everyone to get our way!that’s their way,so if those things are reason to go to jail or be targeted by gov’t,then they themselves should be jailed and so on and so on!if i follow his train of thought!so in turn he wrote a threatening letter to the president to cause personal infringment and harm to some American citizens,wouldnt that be a threat to people………..aahhhh,it’s like a bad repetative dream!he’s guilty of what he accuses others of!right?

    I havn’t had my coffee yet……….

  • http://yahoo Don

    owebunhole sure seems to stir up crap between everyone. all these anti-gun groups aout there all the people who are concerned with the state of the nation are left out. why were the states who oppose gun control is mentioned. at least they are into the true constitutional rights instead of the tyranical policies of the federall government. we need to vote this type of thing out before we end up with something like thew people of china live under. i think if owebunhole has his way thats what we’d have.

  • ranger09

    History has taught us That anyone going againest the Constitution is to be considered a Traitor.

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    The original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white, according to a new television program and book, which describe how the Democrats started the KKK and for decades harassed the GOP with lynchings and threats.

    An estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites died at the end of KKK ropes from 1882 to 1964.

    The documentation has been assembled by David Barton of Wallbu More..ilders and published in his book “Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White,” which reveals that not only did the Democrats work hand-in-glove with the Ku Klux Klan for generations, they started the KKK and endorsed its mayhem.

    “Of all forms of violent intimidation, lynchings were by far the most effective,” Barton said in his book. “Republicans often led the efforts to pass federal anti-lynching laws and their platforms consistently called for a ban on lynching. Democrats successfully blocked those bills and their platforms never did condemn lynchings.”

    Further, the first grand wizard of the KKK was honored at the 1868 Democratic National Convention, no Democrats voted for the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship to former slaves and, to this day, the party website ignores those decades of racism, he said.

    “Although it is relatively unreported today, historical documents are unequivocal that the Klan was established by Democrats and that the Klan played a prominent role in the Democratic Party,” Barton writes in his book. “In fact, a 13-volume set of congressional investigations from 1872 conclusively and irrefutably documents that fact.

    “The Klan terrorized black Americans through murders and public floggings; relief was granted only if individuals promised not to vote for Republican tickets, and violation of this oath was punishable by death,” he said. “Since the Klan targeted Republicans in general, it did not limit its violence simply to black Republicans; white Republicans were also included.”

    Barton also has covered the subject in one episode of his American Heritage Series of television programs, which is being broadcast now on Trinity Broadcasting Network and Cornerstone Television.

    Barton told WND his comments are not a condemnation or endorsement of any party or candidate, but rather a warning that voters even today should be aware of what their parties and candidates stand for.

    His book outlines the aggressive pro-slavery agenda held by the Democratic Party for generations leading up to the Civil War, and how that did not die with the Union victory in that war of rebellion.

    Even as the South was being rebuilt, the votes in Congress consistently revealed a continuing pro-slavery philosophy on the part of the Democrats, the book reveals.

    Three years after Appomattox, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, granting blacks citizenship in the United States, came before Congress: 94 percent of Republicans endorsed it.

    “The records of Congress reveal that not one Democrat either in the House or the Senate voted for the 14th Amendment,” Barton wrote. “Three years after the Civil War, and the Democrats from the North as well as the South were still refusing to recognize any rights of citizenship for black Americans.”

    He also noted that South Carolina Gov. Wade Hampton at the 1868 Democratic National Convention inserted a clause in the party platform declaring the Congress’ civil rights laws were “unconstitutional, revolutionary, and void.”

    It was the same convention when Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, the first grand wizard of the KKK, was honored for his leadership.

    Barton’s book notes that in 1868, Congress heard testimony from election worker Robert Flournoy, who confessed while he was canvassing the state of Mississippi in support of the 13th and 14th Amendments, he could find only one black, in a population of 444,000 in the state, who admitted being a Democrat.

    more: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2309727/posts

    • eddie47d

      That is where the Republicans should have maintained the moral high ground on Civil Rights issues but instead they rejected most everything. That made them look worse than those Democrats. The Democrats changed and the Republicans regressed and some have cloned themselves into what the Old Conservative Democrat Party was like.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        The Democratic party is a party of racism. The harder they point the finger at the GOP with accusations of racism the more painfully obvious it becomes. Democrats are race obsessed. And why shouldn’t they be? It worked last election. Obama was elected solely based on his race. He was supposed to represent a finale to the civil rights movement; to prove to the country that we’ve finally moved beyond the days of slavery and segregation. “Look how progressive we are; how far we’ve come. We elected an African American to be our president”. Never mind the nation didn’t know a thing about him at the time. He was charming and slick. And black. And that was all that mattered.

        However, we know him a little better now. We’ve observed his attack on religious freedoms, his inability to grasp the most basic concepts of financial prudence, his cronyism, his sympathy to Muslims, and his contempt for the unborn to the extremest extents. So naturally, when held up to scrutiny, Obama returned to the old working strategy of racism in the hopes of avoiding scrutiny.

        So here we are again, where Democrats have effectively divided the nation into Minority Groups V. Big-Bad-Rich-White-People. This is a genius and alternately lazy debating tactic. Genius because the focus has been turned around, yet again, on race and deflected off of Obama’s glaring failures. It’s lazy, in that name calling and emotionally charged rhetoric is next to impossible to logically debate. Race is the perfect Straw Man.

      • eddie47d

        Yes and you are doing a mighty fine job of it! Thanks for the history lesson but I think you just became the straw man.

    • Robert Smith

      Plagerise much? See: http://www.wnd.com/2007/10/44171/

      Rob

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        The link is posted at the bottom the article, you imbecile!

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    KKK Terrorist Arm of the Democratic Party
    By Frances Rice

    History shows that the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party.

    This ugly fact about the Democrat Party is detailed in the book, A Short History of Reconstruction, (Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 1990) by Dr. Eric Foner, the renown liberal historian who is the DeWitt Clinton Professor of History at Columbia University. As a further testament to his impeccable credentials, Professor Foner is only the second person to serve as president of the three major professional organizations: the Organization of American Historians, American Historical Association, and Society of American Historians.

    Democrats in the last century did not hide their connections to the Ku Klux Klan. Georgia-born Democrat Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan wrote on page 21 of the September 1928 edition of the Klan’s “The Kourier Magazine”: “I have never voted for any man who was not a regular Democrat. My father … never voted for any man who was not a Democrat. My grandfather was …the head of the Ku Klux Klan in reconstruction days…. My great-grandfather was a life-long Democrat…. My great-great-grandfather was…one of the founders of the Democratic party.”

    Dr. Foner in his book explores the history of the origins of Ku Klux Klan and provides a chilling account of the atrocities committed by Democrats against Republicans, black and white.

    On page 146 of his book, Professor Foner wrote: “Founded in 1866 as a Tennessee social club, the Ku Klux Klan spread into nearly every Southern state, launching a ‘reign of terror‘ against Republican leaders black and white.” Page 184 of his book contains the definitive statements: “In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy. It aimed to destroy the Republican party’s infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.”

    Heartbreaking are Professor Foner’s recitations of the horrific acts of terror inflicted by Democrats on black and white Republicans. Recounted on pages 184-185 of his book is one such act of terror: “Jack Dupree, a victim of a particularly brutal murder in Monroe County, Mississippi – assailants cut his throat and disemboweled him, all within sight of his wife, who had just given birth to twins – was ‘president of a republican club‘ and known as a man who ‘would speak his mind.’”

    “White gangs roamed New Orleans, intimidating blacks and breaking up Republican meetings,“ wrote Dr. Foner on page 146 of his book. On page 186, he wrote: “An even more extensive ‘reign of terror’ engulfed Jackson, a plantation county in Florida’s panhandle. ‘That is where Satan has his seat,‘ remarked a black clergyman; all told over 150 persons were killed, among them black leaders and Jewish merchant Samuel Fleischman, resented for his Republican views and for dealing fairly with black customers.“

    Frances Rice is the Chairman of the National Black Republican Association and may be contacted at: http://www.nbra.info/

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    Long owning the default position, the pure, tolerant Democrats easily assume a morally superior attitude while labeling those who differ from their point of view as morally deficient, quickly dousing dissenters with the 2008-2012 election buzz word–racist.

    Uh, uh; I know better and so do you and so does Charlie Martin of PJ Tatler, factually exposing the Democrats as the real racists. Long term, pervasive racists at that, but no surprise there.

    A few examples:

    It was Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Democrat, who founded the Ku Klux Klan.

    Woodrow Wilson segregated Federal Buildings and jobs after 50 years of integration under largely Republican administrations.

    It was the Democrat Party in the South that instituted Jim Crow Laws.

    It was the Democrat Party in the South that instituted “separate but equal”.

    It was the Democrat Party in the South that supported the Ku Klux Klan.

    It was George Wallace and the Democrat Party in the South that said “Segregation Forever”.

    It was Orval Faubus and the Democrat Party that wanted the Arkansas National Guard to enforce segregation, and Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican President, that sent the 101st Airborne to integrate the schools.

    It was Bull Connor, a member of the Democrat National Committee, who turned the hoses on the marchers in Birmingham, and it was the Republicans who made up the majority that passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, over the filibuster of such Democrat paragons as William Fulbright and Al Gore Sr. – and Grand Kleagle Byrd.

    It was the Democrats who kept Grand Kleagle Byrd in the party.

    It was Democrats who called General Colin Powell a “house nigger”.

    It was Democrats who called Condi Rice – who grew up with and knew the little girls in Birmingham who were blown up, by Democrats – an “Aunt Jemima” and ran cartoons of her with fat lips doing Hattie McDaniel riffs.

    It was Democrats, or at least Obama supporters, who called Stacy Dash a hundred different racist names for daring to leave the Democrat plantation.

    It’s the Democrats who hold annual dinners honoring Andrew Jackson, who owned slaves and who orchestrated the Removal, the Trail of Tears, the near genocide of several of the Indian Nations.

    Add your own examples; there are many.

    To get you started: the Democratic racism of low expectations known as affirmative action along with its diversity and pluralism relatives encompassing only certain so called minorities, contempt for those clinging to their guns and/or religion, suburban dwellers, NASCAR aficionados.

    What spurred Martin’s tirade was the certain Democratic plant appearing at a Romney rally prominently clad in a black t shirt plastered with a small Romney/Ryan logo over glaring white print proclaiming PUT THE WHITE BACK IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

    Yep, that’s how Democrats really think.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/the_democratic_partys_long_history_of_racism.html

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    Contrary to what the Democrat-owned media wants us to believe, the
    Republican party played an integral part in thwarting Democrat racism, and passing civil rights legislation in the United States. The following was sent to me via email. Democrat history of racism.

    Senator Everett Dirksen (R-IL)
    “The master key to victory for the Civil Rights Act of 1964″
    From David Lemon via email with some additions by Maggie
    Source: Astonishing History of Democrat Racism at nodnc.com

    The Klu Klux Klan was created by the Democrats for the express reason of terrorizing blacks and Republicans in the South to prevent them from voting, and that every known Klansman that were members of Congress have been Democrats.

    …imagine if you will, what a far different nation the United States would be had not the Republicans been around to block the Democrats’ efforts.

    From WorldNetDaily:

    Further, the first grand wizard of the KKK was honored at the 1868 Democratic National Convention, no Democrats voted for the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship to former slaves and, to this day, the party website ignores those decades of racism….

    Three years after Appomattox, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, granting blacks citizenship in the United States, came before the Congress: 94 percent of Republicans endorsed.

    “The records of Congress reveal that not one Democrat — either in the House of or the Senate — voted for the 14th Amendment…Three years after the Civil War and the Democrats from the North as well as the South were still refusing to recognize any rights of citizenship for black Americans. [David Barton]

    the Timeline:

    March 20, 1854 Opponents of Democrats’ pro-slavery policies meet in Ripon, Wisconsin to establish the Republican Party

    May 30, 1854 Democrat President Franklin Pierce signs Democrats’ Kansas-Nebraska Act, expanding slavery into U.S. territories; opponents unite to form the Republican Party

    June 16, 1854 Newspaper editor Horace Greeley calls on opponents of slavery to unite in the Republican Party

    July 6, 1854 First state Republican Party officially organized in Jackson, Michigan, to oppose Democrats’ pro-slavery policies

    February 11, 1856 Republican Montgomery Blair argues before U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of his client, the slave Dred Scott; later served in [Republican] President Lincoln’s Cabinet

    February 22, 1856 First national meeting of the Republican Party, in Pittsburgh, to coordinate opposition to Democrats’ pro-slavery policies

    March 27, 1856 First meeting of Republican National Committee in Washington, DC to oppose Democrats’ pro-slavery policies

    May 22, 1856 For denouncing Democrats’ pro-slavery policy, Republican U.S. Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) is beaten nearly to death on floor of Senate by U.S. Rep. Preston Brooks (D-SC), takes three years to recover

    March 6, 1857 Republican Supreme Court Justice John McLean issues strenuous dissent from decision by 7 Democrats in infamous Dred Scott case that African-Americans had no rights “which any white man was bound to respect”

    June 26, 1857 Abraham Lincoln declares Republican position that slavery is “cruelly wrong,” while Democrats “cultivate and excite hatred” for blacks

    October 13, 1858 During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”; Douglas became Democratic Party’s 1860 presidential nominee

    October 25, 1858 U.S. Senator William Seward (R-NY) describes Democratic Party as “inextricably committed to the designs of the slaveholders”; as President Abraham Lincoln’s Secretary of State, helped draft Emancipation Proclamation

    June 4, 1860 Republican U.S. Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) delivers his classic address, The Barbarism of Slavery

    April 7, 1862 President Lincoln concludes treaty with Britain for suppression of slave trade

    April 16, 1862 President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no.

    time-line continued: http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2010/04/how-republicans-thwarted-democrats-racist-history/

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    Black Activists Sue Democrat Party For History of Racism & Abuse

    When the Civil War ended, and after Republican President Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves, Democrats initiated Jim Crow laws to keep the black man down. Democrats didn’t much like blacks. In fact, the KKK, as you know, was founded as the the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party.

    The Ku Klux Klan assassinated many Republicans including Republican Representative James M. Hinds (December 5, 1833—October 22, 1868) of Little Rock. Hinds represented Arkansas in the United States Congress from June 24, 1868 through October 22, 1868.

    Setting the Record Straight

    A group of black activists led by Wayne Perryman has filed a brief against the Democrat Party for its long history of racism and discrimination of the black community.
    Zilla reported:

    Suing President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party for racism would be a joke if the Plaintiffs were anyone other than Rev. Wayne Perryman, a respected black minister and community activist. Perryman, an author, lecturer and a former newspaper publisher and radio talk show host who has received a multitude of honors and awards for his work and community service, was recently recognized by Chairman Benjamin Jealous of the NAACP for his latest research on racism and politics.

    On September 11, 2011, Perryman brought together blacks from the West Coast and the East Coast to sign one of the most comprehensive legal briefs ever prepared for a racial discrimination lawsuit. The suit was to filed on September 12, 2011 in US District Court against President Barack Obama and the DNC. The plaintiffs, who refer to the defendants as the “Father of Racism,” allege that as an organization, the Democratic Party has consistently refused to apologize for the role they played in slavery, Jim Crow and for other subsequent racist practices from 1792 to 2011. Mrs. Frances P. Rice, the Chair of the National Black Republican Association is also a named plaintiff in the class action lawsuit.

    The case cites the collective work of over 350 legal scholars and includes Congressional records, case law, research from our nation’s top history professors, racist statements from Democratic elected officials, citations from the Democrat’s National Platforms regarding their support of slavery, excepts of speeches from Senator Obama, individual testimonies from blacks who lived in the Jim Crow South and opinions from the NAACP.

    Perryman said President Obama was named as a defendant not only because he is the official leader of the Democratic Party, but because of certain statements he made about his own party in his book, Dreams from My Father.

    Kudos to Wayne Perryman and the brave black activists who joined him in this historic pursuit of justice.

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/12/black-activists-sue-democrat-party-for-history-of-racism-abuse/

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a man with a clear knowledge of history and purpose, voted Republican. Let us take his advise, and judge our parties on the Content of their Character…

    The following is a very small, truncated list of Democrat civil rights offenses, and Republican civil rights accomplishments, going all the way back to Lincoln, which were often achieved over strident Democrat opposition.

    M y 23, 2003: U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) introduces bill to establish National Museum of African American History and Culture.

    Aug. 20, 1996: As part of the Republicans’ “Contract With America” platform, which was vilified and denounced by most Democrats, a bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, becomes law.

    November 21, 1991: President George H. W. Bush signs the Civil Rights Act of 1991, to strengthen federal civil rights legislation crafted by Republicans in 1965.

    Aug. 10, 1988: President Ronald Reagan signs Civil Liberties Act of 1988, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of their civil rights and property, during the World War II internment forced on them by Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who authorized Executive Order 9066.

    Feb. 19, 1976: President Gerald Ford formally rescinds Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066.

    August 6, 1965: Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law.

    Aug. 4, 1965: Despite Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act, 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose.

    June 20, 1964: The Chicago Defender, renowned African-American newspaper, praises Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) for leading passage of 1964 Civil Rights Act.

    Jun. 9, 1964: Republicans condemn Democrat Senator Robert Byrd’s (D-WV) 14-hour filibuster against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He was a former Ku Klux Klansman. The Act was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate, and opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr.

    May 2, 1963: Democrat sheriff of Birmingham, AL. arrests over 2,000 African-American schoolchildren, because they were marching for their civil rights.

    May 6, 1960: President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats.

    Sep. 24, 1957: Despite criticism from such heavyweight Democrats as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR. to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools.

    Nov. 6, 1956: Civil rights leaders Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Ralph Abernathy proudly vote Republican Dwight Eisenhower, for president.

    Mar. 12, 1956: Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Brown v. Board of Education, and vow to continue segregation.

    Sep. 30, 1953: Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren, California’s three-term Republican Governor, writes the landmark decision, Brown v. Board of Education.

    Aug. 17, 1937: Republicans oppose former Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black, appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan status had been hidden until after confirmation.

    Oct. 3, 1924: Republicans denounce three-time Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan, because he’d been defending the Ku Klux Klan at the 1924 Democratic National Convention.

    Jan. 26, 1922: Congress passes a bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats filibuster to block it.

    Feb. 12, 1909: On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birthday, black Republicans and Women’s Suffragists Ida Wells & Mary Terrell, co-found the NAACP.

    Feb. 8, 1894: A Democrat Congress and Democrat President join forces to repeal the Republicans’ Enforcement Act, which had enabled blacks to vote nationally.

    Mar. 1, 1875: Civil Rights Act of 1875 passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition.

    Sep. 14, 1874: 27 people are killed when Democrat white-supremacists seize the Louisiana Statehouse to overthrow the racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg.

    Nov. 18, 1872: After boasting that she voted “the Republican ticket, straight” Susan B. Anthony is arrested for voting.

    Apr. 20, 1871: The Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing the Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist group, is enacted by a Republican majority.

    Feb. 3, 1870: 15th Amendment is ratified, granting the vote to all Americans regardless of race, with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition.

    Oct. 22, 1868: While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by the Democrat endorsed Ku Klux Klan.

    Oct. 7, 1868: Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule.”

    Mar. 30, 1868: Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men!” fumes, while Republicans begin his impeachment trial.

    May 10, 1866: Republicans in Congress introduce the14th Amendment, guaranteeing due process and equal protection under the law to ALL citizens, of every race. 100% of Democrats vote no.

    Jun. 8, 1866: 14th Amendment gets to the Senate, 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no.

    Apr. 9, 1866: Republican Congress ushers in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on American Blacks.

    Nov. 22, 1865: Democrat legislature of Mississippi enacts the “black codes,” institutionalizing discrimination.

    Jan. 31, 1865: The 13th Amendment, which bans slavery, is passed with unanimous Republican support, and intense Democrat opposition.

    Apr. 16, 1862: President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no.

    July 17, 1862: Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free.”

    Oct. 13, 1858: During the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) intones: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever.”

    March 6, 1857: Republican Supreme Court Justice John McLean issues strenuous dissent from decision by 7 Democrats in the infamous Dred Scott case, which said that African-Americans had no rights “which any white man was bound to respect.”

    If modern Democrats are now the inheritors of the old Conservative Republican ethos, why do Liberal Democrats still revere all the old Liberal Democrats like ~KKK Grand Klegal~ West Virginia’s Sr. Senator Robert Byrd who served until he passed away on June 28th, 2010? Or FDR, the Democrat President who took us off the Gold Standard back in the 30s and sent Japanese Americans to Internment Camps?

    Liberal Democrats still hold evil and excoriate 50s Conservative Republicans like McCarthy and Goldwater. Liberal Democrats fought hard to exonerate convicted Communist spies like Alger Hiss back in the late 40s. Liberal Democrats celebrated Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini as “brilliant men” back in the early to mid 30s.

    I know its fun for Liberal Democrats to “hope” it “changed”, but they are STILL the party of Segregation and Racial Suicide, and Conservative Republicans never have been. Just because you SAY that it was progressives in the Republican party, does not make it so…

    As Ron Reagan once said “Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.”

    http://guardianlv.com/2012/11/obamas-liberal-democrat-party-is-the-party-of-institutionalized-racism-and-always-has-been/

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    How Did Republicans Become Branded Racist

    In the 1850s there was a strong movement of republicans who were staunchly against slavery. Democrats were mostly confined to the southern states where slavery flourished. When democrats made an attempt to add Nebraska as a slavery state, the anti slavery republicans saw this move as an attempt to grow and make the entire country slave territory, which led to the anti slavery republicans popularity more than doubling from 1854-1859.

    Republicanism as we know it today was solidified during these years when the old Whig party became practically obsolete. The republican party fought hard and argued their point that free-market labor is superior to slavery. Freedom of the people to live, work, and prosper are some of those fundamentals that Reagan stood up for in the 80s and the very same ideals are being carried on by Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

    Abraham Lincoln was a republican president elected in 1860, and the largely christian republicans had made the abolition of slavery its priority which meant that Lincoln had to face the pro slavery democrats of the north and south, and eventually signed the emancipation proclamation that put an end to slavery once and for all. This was just the beginning of freedom for black people in general. In 1870 black men got the right to vote.

    So how is it that the democrats have so many believing that the republican party is based around racism?

    Simple-

    The democratic party wanted to separate itself from its racist roots because the facts became clear that black people account for a large percentage of votes. If democrats can do everything on earth to draw attention away from their ugly past and somehow make people think that republicans actually want to put black people back in chains, as Biden recently tried to do, then they will pick up the majority of black votes automatically.

    Similarly, the democrats talk about how sensitive they are toward women and have all the women who are particularly sensitive to women’s issues ready to vote democrat without giving it another thought. When it comes right down to it though, when one of their democrat men does the ultimate disrespect to a woman such as Bill Clinton running around with all the women he could get his hands on while in the white house, the democrats stand by their man. They supported Bill Clinton without a care for poor Hillary as any abused wife makes excuses for why her man was in a bad mood and slapped her.

    For some reason being “sensitive and respectful” to women goes out the window during these moments when women’s issues are inconvenient. – The democrats actually came up with statements such as, “all the really brilliant men in history have had affairs.” Yes, I personally will never forget that one. The talking heads of the liberal media said that Clinton’s poor treatment of his wife and family was actually evidence of his superior intelligence as they read out a list of intelligent men through history who were unfaithful to their wives. I guess in the eyes of democrats these republican men, such as Mitt Romney, have respectfully been faithful to their wives because they are too stupid to cheat.

    The democratic party is making an effort to gain Muslim votes because of the growing Muslim population. I wonder why female democrats are not more afraid of their party kowtowing to a group of people who have the ultimate disrespect for women by making them wear sacks and throwing acid in their faces when they try to educate themselves. The democratic party is “woman sensitive” when it is convenient- only when they need female votes – as we have seen Obama recently showing tremendous concern for women’s issues as time drew closer to his possible re-election.

    I periodically will watch very liberal biased news channels such as CNN or MSNBC just to see what stories they are spinning. I heard one of the talking heads recently say that democratic president FDR was so kind to Jesse Owens, the black Olympic gold medal winner in the 1930s. Liberal stations get away with these blatant distortions of facts because they know that most people do not read much and will simply swallow this as- “democrats have always been for the black people.”

    Being one to read a lot, I distinctly remember reading Jesse Owens biography and reading his own words which I believe to be more credible than any propaganda from MSNBC. He said that “Hitler didn’t snub me – it was FDR who snubbed me. The president (FDR) didn’t even send me a telegram.” Owens went on to say that even Hitler sent him a commemorative inscribed cabinet photograph of himself. Owens was also never invited to the White House nor were honors bestowed upon him by democratic President FDR or his successor- the extremely liberal Harry Truman.

    The fact is that in 1955, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower honored Owens by naming him an “Ambassador of Sports.” These are facts that the sportsman himself said, and you wont hear these facts on CNN at anytime, as it does not support the fabricated image of republicans and democrats that they would like the majority to believe.

    Racism—-

    The facts point to the left, but the liberal media points to the right.

    When Mitt Romney announced that Paul Ryan was going to be his VP, the liberal media went wild immediately with racist statements such as “two white guys.” Its a wonder that so many democrats who consider themselves to be non racist can’t hear how racist and unfair that statement really is.

    Then Joe Biden took it a step further when he spoke in black dialect, “they gonna but y’all back in chains”, in what many African American politicians viewed as “unprofessional and racist.” But, Joe Biden’s statement was true to democratic tradition, – try to make the people think that republicans were the ones who had slaves, and the democrats were the emancipators.

    http://skarlet.hubpages.com/hub/Racist-Democrats-or-Republicans

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    Exposing the Racist Underbelly of the Democrat Party

    As we near the end of February, this article also closes a series in honor of Black History Month. In previous articles, we’ve reviewed the establishment of the Republican Party for the express purpose of ending the moral failure of slavery.

    We’ve looked at the accomplishments of Republicans in securing liberty for black Americans, from the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, to the 1866 Civil Rights Act (with Democrats refusing to uphold the law, and a Democrat-appointed Supreme Court later repealing the laws).

    We also looked at the violent, bloody history of Democrats and their sister organization, the Ku Klux Klan, which terrorized and murdered thousands of blacks.

    Despite the clear facts outlined in history, somehow the Democrat Party has audaciously claimed the mantel as the party that protects blacks, a claim as ridiculous as it is incredulous. Granted, the Democrat Party no longer relies on cross-burning and lynching to keep blacks in their place. However, today it uses far more subtle and sinister tactics to keep blacks on the government “plantation.” And despite their public proclamation of love for blacks in America, their private comments, and the disastrous results of Democrat policies, show us that the Democrats are not now, nor have they ever been, a friend to blacks.

    Democrats like to take credit for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and claim Republicans were against civil rights efforts. Yet the truth is that when the 1964 Civil Rights law was passed, it only passed because of overwhelming support from Republicans, who were a heavy minority in both the House and Senate. Without 80 percent of Republicans voting in favor, the law would not have passed because of opposition from nearly 40 percent of Democrats.

    The longest filibuster in Senate history came about as Democrats attempted to derail the passage of the law. Among those deeply opposing civil rights for blacks were Albert Gore (father of former VP Al Gore), Robert “KKK” Byrd, and Democrat Sen. Richard Russell, who said of the bill, “We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states.” Democrats named the oldest Senate office building in his honor.

    The bill was signed into law by Democrat Lyndon Johnson, which was interesting in and of itself, since Johnson had staunchly opposed passage during his tenure in Congress. In fact, it was Johnson who removed the enforcement “teeth” from the 1957 Civil Rights Act signed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, the same president who desegregated the military.

    How does one reconcile the sudden change of heart by Johnson?

    Perhaps we understand it in a better light when we understand that Johnson was perhaps the shrewdest, most ruthless political operator in American history and a master at turning events to his advantage. Though he signed the bill, it is hard to imagine he’d had a complete change of heart when his private thoughts are revealed. According to testimony of Robert M. MacMillan (who served on Air Force One under Johnson), LBJ was once taking a flight when he bragged to the two governors accompanying him, “I’ll have them [nig**rs] voting Democratic for two hundred years.”

    continued: http://www.daily-tribune.com/bookmark/21802220/article-Exposing%20the%20Racist%20Underbelly%20of%20the%20Democrat%20Party

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    SPLC: AMERICA’S LEFT-WING HATE MACHINE

    Founded by direct-mail wizard Morris Dees, who raised money for the presidential campaigns of left-wing leaders Ted Kennedy and George McGovern, the SPLC gained a national reputation in 1987 when it won a verdict in a civil suit against the United Klans of America for its alleged role in the death of a black man. At the time, the Klan was a broken, fragmented, and politically insignificant shell with little money, few members, and virtually no influence.

    Aided by a wave of favorable publicity for the suit, SPLC’s subsequent direct-mail fund-raising campaign based on an inflated, and perhaps even imaginary, vision of the KKK and other politically impotent fringe groups enhanced the SPLC’s public image as a seeker of justice against the dark forces of hate. But a review of the ideological leanings, political habits, and political associations of its officers, directors, and publications reveals that in stark contrast to the image of virtuous advocacy of tolerance and justice carefully crafted by its public relations materials, inside the SPLC lurks a more sinister reality that promotes the very vices of hate, bigotry, and racial animosity that the group piously pretends to oppose. Especially troubling is the repeated and continued willingness of the SPLC to associate itself with, or make recommendations for, a variety of hate-driven, anti-American political groups, including communists and communist-friendly individuals and organizations.

    In 1990, Morris Dees himself received an award named for an advocate of communism. Called the Roger Baldwin Award, this dubious honor is conferred by the left-wing American Civil Liberties Union, which Baldwin founded.

    “I am for socialism,” Baldwin wrote. “I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”

    Baldwin was a friend and admirer of anarchist Emma Goldman, a.k.a. “Red Emma,” who advocated murder and violence to further revolution. A Russian immigrant to the U.S., in the 1890s she plotted with her lover to kill the manager of the Carnegie Steel Company, and later openly spoke in defense of Leon Czolgosz, the fellow anarchist executed for assassinating President William McKinley. She was eventually deported for her subversive activities. Baldwin wrote in a letter to her, “you always remain one of the chief inspirations of my life….”

    Another inspiration for Baldwin was communist-anarchist intellectual Prince Peter Kropotkin. In 1927, Baldwin published an English language edition of his hero’s works, entitled Kropotkin’s Revolutionary Pamphlets for which he wrote a glowing introduction.

    The character of the Baldwin Award was highlighted when the ACLU bestowed it on activist Anne Braden, identified by an undercover FBI informant in sworn testimony before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee as a member of the Soviet-linked Communist Party USA. Anne and her husband Carl — also identified as a CPUSA member — were active in party efforts to provoke racial tensions between blacks and whites in the South.

    To gauge the political significance of Dees’ acceptance of the award, consider what it might mean if a conservative activist — say, someone like Phyllis Schlafly — had accepted an award named for George Lincoln Rockwell.

    That the millionaire Dees would accept an award named for a self-professed communist who sought to abolish private property indicates much more than simple Tartuffery. Dees’ willingness to associate himself with the Red anarchist is part of a larger pattern of the SPLC’s links with the extremist left and communist-friendly groups that shows its own hate-driven political extremism…

    continued:
    http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_20_3/tsc_20_3_woodruff.shtml

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    MORRIS DEES FACT SHEET

    “‘Til the Cash Comes Flowing Like a River…”In an article titled Poverty Palace, Morris Dees told journalist John Edgerton that “I had a traditional white Southerner’s feeling for segregation.”…

    “Morris Dees and I [Millard Fuller], from the first day of our partnership, shared one overriding purpose: to make a pile of money. We were not particular about how we did it; we just wanted to be independently rich. During the eight years we worked together we never wavered in that resolve.”…

    In 1961 when Freedom Riders were beaten by a white mob at a Montgomery bus station, Dees [and Fuller] expressed openly his sympathies and support for what had happened at the bus station.

    When one of the men charged with beating the Freedom Riders came to their office for legal representation, Dees and Fuller took the case. The legal fee was paid by the Ku Klux Klan and the White Citizen’s Council. [Fuller, Millard. Love in the Mortar Joints. New Century Press: 1980 and The Progressive, July 1988]…

    Arrested and removed from court in 1975 for attempting to suborn perjury [bribing a witness] in the Joan Little murder trial in North Carolina….

    Acted as a fundraiser for both Ted Kennedy’s 1980 and Gary Hart’s 1984 presidential campaigns and received their mailing lists as reward.

    Perhaps explaining the SPLC’s ‘Gay’ rights activism, Dees was cited in 1979 by his ex-wife with a homosexual encounter during their marriage. She also cited numerous affairs with women including his daughter-in-law and underage stepdaughter….

    The SPLC’s fundraising practices have provoked the disapproval of watchdog groups that monitor charities: In 1993, the American Institute of Philanthropy assigned the SPLC a ‘D’ grade on a scale of A to F. [American Institute of Philanthropy 1993 Charity Watchdog Report]…

    Today, the SPLC’s treasury bulges with $120 million, and it spends twice as much on fund-raising-$5.76 million last year-as it does on legal services for victims of civil rights abuses…

    “What is the Southern Poverty Law Center doing…? Mostly making money…

    In 1994 the Montgomery Advertiser won a journalism award for a series of incisive and penetrating investigative articles exposing the unethical fundraising practices of Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center…

    The SPLC which has crusaded for the rights of blacks for 23 years, is controlled by whites. It has hired only two black staff attorneys in its history, both of whom left unhappy.

    12 of 13 former Black employees interviewed by the Montgomery Advertiser complained they experienced or observed racial problems during their employment. Several said the SPLC was “more like a plantation.”…

    In 1986 the entire SPLC legal staff resigned in protest of Dees refusal to address issues such as poverty, homelessness, voter registration and other issues they considered more pertinent to poor minorities rather than to get rich fighting a Klan chimera….

    Dees has actively campaigned for laws in which “associations of two or more persons” who train in the use of firearms for defensive purposes are declared “illegal militias.”…

    Full article: http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/MorrisDeesFactSheet.pdf

  • Right Brain Thinker

    Let’s see. 11 comments from WTS/JAY out of the total of 50 made on the thread. And they are the type of mental and mandibular diarrhea that JAY specializes in, and which so effectively poisons dialogue on a thread and shuts it down.

    Hmmmmmm? What are we to make of this massive outpouring of horsepucky from JAY? At 12:31, 1:31, 1:47, 2:00, 2:05, 3:10, 3:20, 3:31, 3:48, 4:02, 5:36, and 5:58.

    RBT’s are good at looking at things and finding patterns, and I see some. To wit.

    JAY has said nothing original in any of it but has just copied horsepucky from wing nut sites.
    (or has been fed it all by a coworker art the shill shop—they have “researchers” and “on air talent” too—-Jay may just be the “talent”—-the pretty face that we see)
    This can serve no purpose but to destroy further dialogue on the thread.
    Why would JAY do this?
    His employer at “Shills ‘n Trolls ‘r Us” told him to do it.
    Why?
    His employer hates SPLC and any talk that SPLC may do any good.
    Who is JAY’s employer?
    (figure it out for yourselves—-I can’t think for you all the time)
    JAY punches out at 6:00 today.
    (I’m getting a nice pattern of days worked and days off for JAY and what “shifts” he works).

    (I have been stymied by a bit by DaveH’s banishment but I am still gathering data on the frequency of appearance of JAY and certain other PLD-ers, who they talk to (and “argue” with), what times they “work”, and what my speech analysis software shows about who is using what “handles” at different times and on different threads. Not ready to share yet)

    • Vicki

      Right Brain Thinker says:
      “Let’s see. 11 comments from WTS/JAY out of the total of 50 made on the thread. And they are the type of mental and mandibular diarrhea that JAY specializes in, and which so effectively poisons dialogue on a thread and shuts it down. ”

      Hmmmm… Ad hominem. Do you have any useful comment?

      Have you resolved to find a way to combat violence no matter what tool is used other than punishing the

      ~300 MILLION Americans who didn’t shoot anyone?

      Stop punishing the INNOCENT for the acts of a few.

      Stop it.
      Stop it NOW.

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    Morris Dees — Child Molester, Pervert, and Liar? Part I

    For the past several years, the Major Media has portrayed Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center as an “expert” on terrorism, militias, and the Patriot Movement.

    Is Morris Dees a trustworthy and truthful source of information, on a subject so dear to the American people as their liberties?

    Decide for yourself after reading the following court document. This was forwarded to me by email several years ago. I make no claim as to it’s authenticity… Research the facts for yourself. I merely reproduce it here in the public interest. WEB

    http://www.zianet.com/web/dees1.htm

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    SOUTHERN POVERTY FRAUD CENTER

    Southern Poverty Law Center Maligns SIOA as “Hate Group”

    Photo of the multi-million dollar mansion of Morris Dees, founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center — how’s that exploiting going for ya, Moe? Check out these 60 photos of his multi-million dollar complex. Not to mention his perversions and pedophilia (read his divorce papers).

    http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/02/-southern-poverty-law-fraud-center.html

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.