the SPLC uses cop and atf agent to vilify and demonize (so-called) "right wing" (ala janet napolitano's 'returning vets' handout at dhs).
the other day I saw a young guy entering (what I'll call) "Liberalville" with several conservative stickers: Oops! (the two o's as the obama campaign symbol), I don't believe the liberal media, and others...one Extremely Brave Dude.
Did SPLC just make it dangerous to have a ‘conservative’ bumper sticker?November 8th, 2010 10:32 am ET
.Do you like this story?The Southern Poverty Law Center has produced a video, “’Sovereign Citizens’ and Law Enforcement: Understanding the Threat,” warning police that traffic stops involving “right wing” citizens could end up as deadly encounters. I’ve embedded it in the sidebar video player. Go ahead and watch it before reading on.
There’s no question the officers were murdered. The question is, do we blame an ideology or the individuals who committed the act? And if the former is a factor, what responsible actions have the finger-pointers taken to limit the blame to a narrow spectrum of violence initiation advocates—as opposed to conflating their beliefs and actions with those of the broader liberty movement?
With SPLC, the answer is obvious, and the connect-the-dots exploitation/obfuscation kicks into gear once retired ATF Special Agent in Charge James Cavanaugh begins his narration, as the “sovereign citizen” incident transitions seamlessly to the Oklahoma City bombing to Ruby Ridge to Waco.
This fits nicely with a strategy we’ve seen unfolding to portray Constitutionalists as anti-government “hatriots.” We’ve seen SPLC do this ad nauseum with Oath Keepers and gun rights advocates . And what’s chilling is, we’ve seen the Department of Homeland Security pick up on their talking points and we’ve seen them implemented by federal and local law enforcement agencies.
What this video does is intentionally widens the “us vs. them” divide between citizens and police, heightens the paranoia, and makes the most innocuous of encounters much more dangerous. Now, thanks to SPLC, something as simple as having a political bumper sticker on your car, supposedly protected speech, takes a heightened alert situation and urges police to view non-leftist political sentiment as a potentially lethal personal threat. Because with all the conflation, what message will be enough to trigger a protective reaction?
“I am an American National”? “Death to the New World Order”?
How about “Oath Keepers”? Or “III”? Or “We are everywhere’?
How about “I’m the NRA”? Or “Chose Life”?
The ironic thing is, the killers' car in the SPLC video had no bumper sticker, so the warnings wouldn’t have applied in this case.
No, actually, the ironic thing here is, at the time of the shootings, this is what was reported about the killers:
They were part of the Aryan Nation back in the 90s…
The SPLC itself describes Aryan Nations ideology as “Neo-Nazi.”
Nazi’s are hardly “anti-government.” They like ‘em strong, national and socialist. “Nazi” was adapted from Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP), the National Socialist German Worker’s Party.
So we're talking about killers with demonstrable sympathies to...left wing extremism? No doubt the socialists try to disaffiliate themselves from this embarrassing reality, claiming Hitler was really…whatever the hell lie they want to make up to justify their slavish faith to a jackbooted central government. I refer you to “Hitler and the Socialist Dream” by George Watson. Read the whole thing and bookmark it for future reference, but here’s his conclusion in a nutshell:
It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too. The title of National Socialism was not hypocritical.
Perhaps not. But the title “progressive” the collectivist hate-mongers apply to themselves sure is.
As hypocritical as making accusations of extremism and hate against those who believe all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…and using a propaganda campaign aimed at provoking a law enforcement response to advance that agenda.
Tomorrow: Barring anything pushing it to the back burner, let's take a look at "Waco Jim" Cavanaugh.
UPDATE: Anthony G. Martin adds his observations.
SPLC warning could get conservatives killedNovember 8th, 2010 1:33 pm ET
.Do you like this story?The infamous 'Southern Poverty Law Center' of Montgomery, Alabama, which is known more for its lies and attacks against conservatives than providing legal assistance to the poor, has issued a warning to law enforcement officers that could get conservatives killed.
According to colleague David Codrea, National Gun Rights Examiner, the SPLC issued an alert to law enforcement stating that their lives are in danger during traffic stops if they pull over drivers with 'right wing bumper stickers.' The consequence of such a warning is that the lives of thousands of conservatives are placed at high risk. If law enforcement officials believe that their lives are in danger from every driver who has a conservative bumper sticker, it is not far-fetched to imagine a scenario in which citizens are shot and killed due to the unnecessary and ridiculous assumption by officers that their lives are automatically endangered in such encounters. To further ingnite the hysteria, the SPLC issued a video--embedded in the left column of Codrea's article--that engages in outright fear-mongering designed to do nothing more than malign and possibly threaten the lives of conservative citizens. As Codrea states in his article, "We’ve seen SPLC do this ad nauseum with Oath Keepers and gun rights advocates . And what’s chilling is, we’ve seen the Department of Homeland Security pick up on their talking points and we’ve seen them implemented by federal and local law enforcement agencies. "What this video does is intentionally widens the “us vs. them” divide between citizens and police, heightens the paranoia, and makes the most innocuous of encounters much more dangerous. Now, thanks to SPLC, something as simple as having a political bumper sticker on your car, supposedly protected speech, takes a heightened alert situation and urges police to view non-leftist political sentiment as a potentially lethal personal threat. Because with all the conflation, what message will be enough to trigger a protective reaction?" The ramifications of such a mindset are ominous. Homeland Security and law enforcement agencies are gradually being indoctrinated into believing that ordinary citizens who love liberty, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution are potential threats to the nation...'potential homegrown terrorists,' as Janet Napolitano once called them. Since Barack Obama took office in 2008 with a heavy Democratic majority in the Congress to back him, a philosophy has been gradually developed within significant sectors of government that presumes ANY citizen who opposes socialism, Marxism, the U.N, abortion, and other such benchmarks of conservatism is to be viewed as a potential threat to law enforcement, the government, and the life and safety of Americans in general. Such an unconsionable and despicable smear campaign against conservatives is the mark of extremist Leftwing subersives who wish to fly under the radar screen by accusing conservatives of what they themselves are doing. The dangerous ones, without doubt, are the ones making these outrageous claims about conservatives. Be sure to catch my blog at The Liberty Sphere. Like what you see? Subscribe by clicking on the box at the top of the page. An email of Conservative Examiner will be sent to your inbox each time a new article is published.
Why I Now Vote Party, not Individual There is an American tradition of voting not for the party, but "for the man." Unlike Europeans, who are more ideologically driven, Americans have prided themselves in assessing individuals of both parties, and then voting for the more personally impressive candidate. The European parliamentary system of government fosters ideological voting whereas the American political system does to a much lesser degree. With only two parties competing in American elections, each party has had to encompass a much wider spectrum of ideologies.
This is no longer the case. For better or for worse, the notion of voting for the candidate rather than the party is now mostly naive idealism. The Democratic Party is now fully left-wing, and is simply the American version of any European Social Democratic party. It is the party of ever-expanding government. (The Republican Party, in contrast, is — at long last — the party of small government.)
There are two reasons to vote Democrat: either one is a Leftist or one has come to believe the Left's demonization of its opponents as SIXHIRB (Sexist, Intolerant, Xenophobic, Homophobic, Islamophobic, Racist, Bigoted).
Oh, yes, there is a third reason to vote Democrat: More and more Americans are employed by the government, and more and more Americans receive significant material benefits from it. So one does not have to have left-wing values or believe in the demonization of conservatives to vote Democrat. All one has to do is vote according to where one's livelihood comes from.
Along with the minority groups that it has effectively convinced it alone protects, the Democratic Party has, therefore, created a built-in voting bloc that is formidable.
Why, then, will Republicans do well this year? Because the Democrats went too far left and the country has serious economic problems.
Of course, Republicans cannot and should not depend on economic recessions to win elections. They have to make the case as clearly as possible why America's success is the result of its most distinguishing trait: limited government. They have to show that the Democratic Party undermines the primary reason for America's success — limited government, America's most distinguishing trait. And Republicans need to make clear the connection between Democratic policies and America's economic problems.
It is probably accurate to say that no country in the world has less government intervention in the lives of its citizens than America does. But Democrats do not like such American distinctiveness. They want America to be like other countries. The president, recall, does not believe in American exceptionalism.
For all these reasons, I admit that I am prepared to vote for a less personally impressive Republican over a more personally impressive Democrat.
The Republican will vote for America's values (E Pluribus Unum, In God We Trust, and Liberty, which by definition means small government). The Democrat, no matter how personally charismatic, will not vote for these values.
This is my response to the liberal media, which have portrayed virtually every popular conservative in my lifetime as a mediocrity at best, a dummy at worst. In not one case — from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush to Sarah Palin — was the media's depiction accurate. To give but one example, George W. Bush can probably run rings around Vice President Joseph Biden in his understanding and knowledge of history and of the world.
But even if the media's depictions were accurate, it wouldn't matter to me. I will take common sense and values over intellect any day and in any election. Left-wing intellectuals have abysmal track records when it comes to confronting great evil in the world. Their willingness to fight tyrants and despots is one of consistent and abject moral failure.
Take the left's favorite Republican to depict as a dummy, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
This country would be in considerably better shape if Palin were either vice president or president. Palin would have confronted Iran rather than place her faith in negotiations and the United Nations. She would not have sought to impose a peace on Israel (as if peace can ever be imposed by outsiders on any countries, let alone upon those in which one of the parties seeks to annihilate the other). She would not have bought into Keynesian economics and spent nearly a trillion dollars largely to keep overpaid and overcompensated government workers voting Democrat. She would not have expanded the number of government agencies and "czars" to the point that this country may well be governed for the next two years not by congressional laws but by unelected and unaccountable federal agencies. She would not have declared a date by which America will leave Afghanistan and thereby ensured that fewer and fewer Afghans fight alongside America. She would not have signed a 2,000-page bill about anything, let alone health care. She would have expanded oil drilling in America so that we can actually begin the long journey to energy independence, not the imaginary journey to windmills and solar panels. She would never have considered taxing energy, the engine of our economy, on the increasingly absurd claims that human carbon dioxide emissions will bring the planet to ruin.
So, it is time for us Americans to realize that the old days of choosing the better candidate are gone. The Democrats have, at least in this way, achieved their goal of rendering us more European — we will have to vote by party.
That's the bad news. The good news is that in almost no case is the choice between a more impressive Democrat and a less impressive Republican. The quality of most Republican candidates this election is the highest in post-war American history, Republican or Democrat. But even if it weren't, a Republican mediocrity would get my vote. My first concern is America's greatness, not the candidate's.
Dennis Prager hosts a nationally syndicated radio talk show and is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He is the author of four books, most recently "Happiness Is a Serious Problem" (HarperCollins). His website is http://www.dennisprager.com.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
Republicans, now's your chance.
The core of socialism is hatred of freedom and independence from officials. It is an impairment of insisting on control of others for soothing relief from personal suffering as if social change will become personal balm for old wounds.
The idea that some officials feel so threatened by patriotism confirms the fears of patriots. Officials and patriotism should go hand in hand, but do not since the sixties. Too many wish patriots ill. These are the very last people to have political power.
But if the incoming Congress does not see this in colleagues and others, we're just as cooked as without them. It is this sort of go-along-to-get-along values system which makes it hard to see any difference in the parties. Republicans talk about conservative values, but will compromise with leftists who hate America even when they are sent to Washington to be partisan. Lady Liberty is partisan, for Pete's sake.
Otherwise, now's your chance, Republicans, to serve the Republic. It means no such thing as sensible gun laws, it means no tolerance for official spitefulness against patriotism, and it means being so much in touch with liberty constituents that there really is no future for socialist candidates.
Republicans were not sent to Washington to see things their way, but sent to Washington to see things our way.
Click to view image: '7d9d7c5a142b-only_ones_versus_hatriots.jpg'
|Liveleak on Facebook|