Anti-Government Extremist Groups Are A Uniquely American Problem

Most other countries simply take the dissenters out and shoot them. They "disappear."

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Violent overthrow of government is a terrible decision unless the government is already firing on the people en masse. That isn't the case now or at any time within the last 200+ years this country has been a country and that includes Waco and even the Civil War (the South started that war).

Seems pretty naïve to claim that waiting until that point to start organizing against the government is the best course of action. To me, stopping it from getting to that point would be the best idea.

Maybe there is more to the reasoning behind why "extremists," as you and others call them, don't react like this until there is a democrat in office. You think you know the reason, and I think that I do, too, but I bet we've come to different conclusions.

But I will concede that "patriot groups" do often seem to turn a blind eye to the heavy hand of a Republican White House and not to a Democratic one, when both do basically the same thing, just maybe not proportionately on both ends of the spectrum.

ETA: Also, anti-government groups are not even close to being just an American thing--it's just that our country was founded on the idea that we have the right--and duty--to dismantle the government by force if it gets too big for its own britches. It's been too big for a long while now.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: Krazysh0t
To add: It is a shame since you would think that partnership with an organization that maintains a bias would be detrimental to justice. And the ADL went after some ATS members a few years back. I'll have to look for that thread.

Here is that ADL thread www.abovetopsecret.com...

I really cannot speak to the ADL's tactics as to how they label haters as I'm not as familiar with them as I am with the SPLC.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Violent overthrow of government is a terrible decision unless the government is already firing on the people en masse. That isn't the case now or at any time within the last 200+ years this country has been a country and that includes Waco and even the Civil War (the South started that war).

Seems pretty naïve to claim that waiting until that point to start organizing against the government is the best course of action. To me, stopping it from getting to that point would be the best idea.

But the problem with that is identifying if the threat is actually REAL or not. The Civil War wouldn't have even happened if the South had just maintained a cooler head upon Lincoln's election. Most of their grievances were unfounded and it wouldn't be until the war had been raging for quite some time that the North changed its tune to mimic their grievances.

Maybe there is more to the reasoning behind why "extremists," as you and others call them, don't react like this until there is a democrat in office. You think you know the reason, and I think that I do, too, but I bet we've come to different conclusions.

But I will concede that "patriot groups" do often seem to turn a blind eye to the heavy hand of a Republican White House and not to a Democratic one, when both do basically the same thing, just maybe not proportionately on both ends of the spectrum.

This is why I don't trust or agree with any "patriot groups" and their grievances. They are largely hypocritical, with many not even knowing what the Constitution ACTUALLY says.

ETA: Also, anti-government groups are not even close to being just an American thing--it's just that our country was founded on the idea that we have the right--and duty--to dismantle the government by force if it gets too big for its own britches. It's been too big for a long while now.

I didn't write the thread title, so I haven't been speaking to it. Go ahead and chalk it up to sensationalism on HuffPo's part because I won't address this point any further than this.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Most other countries simply take the dissenters out and shoot them. They "disappear."

Most?

I'd like to see you prove that one. That's quite the hyperbole you have there.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Only if you act on those ideas to include breaking the law with firearms, holding hostages, seizing property that isn't yours, blowing stuff up, killing someone, etc.

That doesn't include things like nonviolent protests, suing the government, petitioning the government with your grievances, or any other form of working within the system to change it.

Because that's how every other tyrannical government throughout history was thrown down right?



though I don't agree with everything he said in his day, this one sticks out.

It may be taken for granted that, rash as Americans usually are, when they are prudent, there is good reason for it. -Jules Verne

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Being anti-Government should never (more or less) be acquainted with extremism.

Once someone draws a line on how anti-Government one can be, the line can be crossed on both sides and that's a recipe for disaster.


I wouldn't say it's uniquely American either...
Look at what happened in Donestk & Lugansk.

Look at the Middle East.


My main point is my first point.

Well said Chuck

Well said.

Do militia's groups grow under dems? does the sun rise from the east? not debatable/ who cares it makes sense.

militia's are anti-government towards the current style of government, meaning they would either like to revert to an earlier form or succede from the current form.

IS the OP actually suggesting europe does not have active succession movements?


I'll leave one example. Venetian nationalist built a make shift tank from a bulldozer with a cannon with a plan to go to town square with it. 24 arrested on terrorist charges.

*SNIP*

Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

*SNIP*

Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

Continued.....

(s) Sometime in June 2014, Rhonda Karges, Field Manager for the BLM, and her husband Chad Karges, Refuge Manager for the Malheur Wildlife Refuge (which surrounds the Hammond ranch), along with attorney Frank Papagni exemplifying further vindictive behavior by filing an appeal with the 9th District Federal Court seeking Dwight's and Steven's return to federal prison for the entire 5 years.*

Hammond Family
(t) In October 2015, the 9th District Court "resentenced" Dwight and Steven, requiring them to return to prison for several more years. Steven (46) has a wife and 3 children. Dwight (74) will leave Susan (74) to be alone after 55 years of marriage. If he survives, he will be 79 when he is released.
(u) During the court preceding the Hammonds were forced to grant the BLM first right of refusal. If the Hammonds ever sold their ranch they would have to sell it to the BLM.

(v) Dwight and Steven are ordered to report to federal prison again on January 4th, 2016 to begin their resentencing. Both their wives will have to manage the ranch for several years without them. To date they have paid $200,000 to the BLM, and the remainder $200,000 must be paid before the end of this year (2015). If the Hammonds cannot pay the fines to the BLM, they will be forced to sell the ranch to the BLM or face further prosecution.

Notes:

S* Rhonda Karges – Resource Field Manager for the BLM is the wife of Chad Karges Refuge Manager for the Malheur Wildlife refuge.

Rhonda specifically deals with all the BLM issues relating to the area in and around Hammonds property including "grazing denial". Her husband just happens to be the person in charge of all the issues surrounding the Hammonds ranch such as "water and access".

b* Soon after the water rights dispute the federal government influenced the State of Oregon to change their water law in favor of federal agencies. Wildlife is now considered in the State of Oregon as an accepted beneficial use for government agencies only.

k* Being convicted as Terrorist made the Hammonds felons. They have been striped of their right to have guns. The Hammond live 53 miles from the closets town and have no practical way of defending themselves or their cattle. Several times they have watched baby calves be eaten by predators and could do nothing to prevent it.

Now I doubt you read this far, but this IS NOT a terrorist situation, it is a Protest, something akin to civil disobedience which has a long tradition from Rosa Parks to the Vietnam War sit-ins. If you read the article, the BLM's own study states as a wildlife refuge the land is no longer good habitat. Due to the BLM's own stewardship no less!!!
The BLM has lost many court actions, so you saying the Hammond's should pursue this, well it's already been done. Currently by invoking the Terrorist Law in a way it was never intended to be used, the BLM has circumvented court actions that have been tried and the BLM lost.

Sitting on your computer tossing labels around without knowing the history of the situation and hassling other posters is ludicrous. The article you linked to does nothing more than spin this into a democrat vs. republican agenda and speaks not one whit to the actual situation. Which is over-reach within a federal agency, nepotism and a host of other violations.

This is one huge media storm over one small building, already closed for the season that WE THE PEOPLE own via our taxes paid. Trespass or unauthorized use is about all the laws broken so far. The media $%@#-storm is a VERY disproportionate response to a small civil protest. I'd be looking at why that is, instead of Victim-Blaming.

btw.....I'm not happy with the source article either, but it had the most concise history of the situation.
www.naturalnews.com...#

theconservativetreehouse.com... -hammond-family-persecution/

More of the Factual story including an Affidavit from one of the lawyers outlining all the legal abuse by the prosecution.


www.scribd.com...

One of the more relevant parts....

To December 14, 2015, neither Harney County District Court nor Harney County Office of the District
Attorney ever notified Dwight for a Hearing or an Arraignment pertaining to the accusations or charges.
w-Bundy Affidavit IMP OR-D Page 2 of 3 15 12 31 10:05 lp
District Attorney Tim Colahan dismissed all charges after reviewing them; and, allowed the charges to move
into statutory expiration.
In 2010, five (5) days before the Statute of Limitations expired; almost five (5) years after the 2006 fire, the
Office of U.S. Federal Court Attorney Frank Papagni notified Dwight in writing that Papagni was charging
Dwight with “Terrorism” under the Federal Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 in the
case of the 2006 backfire and the 2001 grass burn; charges vastly different from the original State charges of
2006.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Your meme is about owning guns. Where did I ever say that you shouldn't be allowed to own guns?

By the way, violent revolutions more often than not result in tyrannical dictators taking over and making things far worse. The US was a major exception, but that is because George Washington didn't want to be President for life. If he'd had allowed that, our country would have walked down a VERY different path.

For precedent, I cite Napoleon after the French Revolution. Stalin after their revolution. Mao after China's. Castro after Cuba's.

a reply to: Caver78

I skipped your multi-post wall of text and copy paste (which I'm pretty sure is against the T&C) to tell you that I'm not labeling the Hammonds as terrorists. I'm labeling the Bundy's and co who are occupying federal land illegally as terrorists. The Hammonds are arsonists and likely just assholes.

Where to start on this pack of lies?

How about the SPLC, allowing a partisan group to tell our government who is and who isn't terrorist organizations.
If you think the US government hasn't been killing protesters you don't know your history.
The Confederacy did not start the civil war, Lincoln did by not relinquishing Ft. Sumter to the state of South Carolina whose property the island belonged to. Even if you take Fort Sumter as provocation does that give one sufficient reason to invade the South, burn cities, steal livestock and kill a quarter million Southerners?

Countless strikes by steel, railway and coal mine workers were ruthlessly put down by government troops, killing dozens.
Don't forget the American Indian tribes and events like Wounded Knee or Black Kettles camp where 300 men, women and children were massacred. "Nits make lice" was the reasoning future governor of Colorado Chivington gave for the brutal assault.

How about the Palmer raids when thousands of Americans were imprisoned WITHOUT TRIAL during WW1 for protesting against the US getting involved. Lincoln did the same to Northern sympathizers with the Confederacy.

Waco? Gee, that was only 80 average people murdered in cold blood when they could have easily taken in Koresh when he went to town. The government wanted a showdown - to make an example of this group over "alleged" firearm infractions that were never substantiated.

Wasn't there a 2nd Waco when 9 bikers were killed by police snipers?

Nearly every week in this country some SWAT team raids the wrong house or kills someone who is completely innocent.

The NSA has access to all our digital information even though it flies in the face of the 4th Amendment.

We have "Free speech zones" as if to imply free speech isn't legal anywhere else?

The PATRIOT ACT has singularly done the most damage to our Constitution.

Our God-given rights have been stolen incrementally by unscrupulous people who are now so completely entrenched in power nothing short of violence will remove them. The American people are loathe to commit acts of mass violence and would rather long suffer these abuses. Yet there comes a point where THE PEOPLE have to say enough is enough and be willing to put their lives on the line to ensure our rights are passed on to future generations.

Right now there is a PR campaign to make the Oregon protesters look like hillbillies and whackos when in truth they are just average Americans who have had enough of government overreach and power grabbing.

Considering how many guns there are in the US and how much abuse our own government has heaped upon the people the lack of violence in return shows how dearly they value peace and human life. They have amazing patience but like any child who is never punished for doing wrong our government will cross that line where the American people will say en masse; "Enough!"

We may already be in that territory now because America is not being governed by the people or for the good of the people. We are in fact being run by foreign interests that have infiltrated the halls of Washington.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

No one is saying our country is perfect. Your complaints here pretty much sum up as "My country isn't ABSOLUTELY perfect in everything it does!"

But hey, no one has successfully managed to overthrow the government, yet somehow our government has changed throughout the years to correct many of the actions we've undertook in the past. Do you think the government could get away with locking all the Japanese into internment camps if WWII were to happen today? Just look at Trump's remarks about Muslims and the reaction to it and you'll know the answer to that.

Also, I see you complaining about the Patriot Act. Something I pointed out was implemented under a Republican President. Perhaps you'd like to tell me why the data trends show a partisan slant in domestic extremist groups while a Democrat is in office but a drop off during a Republican Presidency? ESPECIALLY the one where the Patriot Act was signed into law.

www.abc.net.au...

Look Australian Sovereign citizens...
Darn it I thought we were special.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The SPLC is a partisan group KS.
They are nothing more than a Democratic think tank.
People can label anyone anything it doesn't make it true.
Thus the imaginary chart of right-wing "hate groups" holds little, if any water.
It can be argued we have a Muslim president
There is no debate the head of the CIA John Brennan is a Muslim convert.
Or Hillary Clinton's head advisor Huma Abedin is also Muslim.
Then there's the head of DHS who is Muslim.
As is Valerie Jarrett, Obama's head advisor.
Nah, no foreign influence in this government.

I don't buy in to partisan politics.
The Republicans and the Democrats all answer to the same elites and corporate powers.
They do not represent The People which is reason enough to throw out an illegitimate government.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The SPLC is a partisan group KS.
They are nothing more than a Democratic think tank.
People can label anyone anything it doesn't make it true.

So you don't believe the stats that anti-government groups are more numerous during Democrat Presidencies and drop off during Republican ones? Because I've certainly noticed that trend myself. Now I'm speaking anecdotally here and I don't like anecdotes, but I see little reason to doubt those stats.

Thus the imaginary chart of right-wing "hate groups" holds little, if any water.
It can be argued we have a Muslim president

No it can't.

There is no debate the head of the CIA John Brennan is a Muslim convert.

What?

Or Hillary Clinton's head advisor Huma Abedin is also Muslim.

So? Is that illegal or something?

Then there's the head of DHS who is Muslim.
As is Valerie Jarrett, Obama's head advisor.
Nah, no foreign influence in this government.

Wait... You are equating "Muslim" with "foreign"? You do know that there are American Muslims too right? Heck we have at least one serving in Congress.
Keith Ellison

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Does it make me an extremist that I think both parties suck and that the government is inefficient, inept and dangerous?

According to the SPLC and HUFF N' STUFF the answer is -
A resounding YES!!