SPLC: "Meet the 'Patriots"

The Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization which claims to be a "civil rights organization dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society", just published a hit piece on numerous Americans.  Among those listed were Judge Napolitano, Michele Bachman, Ron Paul,  Glenn Beck, and Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party.  In the piece they list numerous members or founders of state militias and many off-base NWO wackjobs, a few media members and at least 2 standing politicians.

Besides the obvious question of what do any of these people have to do with "civil rights" or "hate and bigotry", one wonders exactly what point the SPLC is trying to make?  Is it that strong constitutionalists like Ron Paul and Judge Napolitano's beliefs are detrimental to civil rights? ...does an original intent interpretation of the constitution lead to hate and bigotry?  Not likely.

In their 'Patriot' Movement timeline they list April 19th's Second Amendment March with this annotation:

April 19, 2010: Antigovernment Patriot groups, including the Oath Keepers, plan to play prominent roles at a Second Amendment March in Washington, D.C. The website promoting the march is topped by a picture of a colonial militiaman, and key supporters include Larry Pratt, a long-time militia enthusiast, and Richard Mack, a former sheriff and militia hero.

Someone tell me what exactly is the matter with groups like the Oath Keepers which stress that law enforcement should abide by their oath (hence the name) to strive to uphold the constitution rather than follow orders.  If officers upheld their oaths first and followed orders second, many people (of all races and socio-economic statuses) wouldn't have been disarmed during Katrina.

Is that a bad thing to want to protect the rights of ordinary citizens as much as the elite? If so then I must be one of those Right Wing Extremists.

Obama Hates Your Bill of Rights

Alright, so I got your attention. I guess it would've been more accurate to title the post "Obama (and Bush before him) Hates Your Bill of Rights"

What am I talking about, you say? The supposed Health Care Reform? Nope. The out of control growth of government? Nope. The rapid inflation rate and the rising price of gold? Nope.

The Washington Post published an article today talking about Obama wanting to renew three provisions in the Patriot Act that are about to expire. The three provisions that Obama wants renewed include: permission for 'roving wiretaps'; seizure of certain business records; and the monitoring of 'lone wolf' terrorists. All of these would require no warrant.

This is a dangerous license we'll be handing the government. Believe me. I hate evil doers as much as the next guy, perhaps even moreso, but for that one case in 1,000 where the 'evil doer' is innocent we NEED provisions that protect the accused.

Skirting the constitution in the name of security is a dangerous and slippery slope. Let's not grease our feet and start down it.

Pro Libertate: The Triumph of the Torture State

Pro Libertate Blog has a good post on torture (and specifically controlled drowning-i.e. waterboarding).

I admit that this subject of torture ("enhanced interrogation techniques") is one that I tend to flip-flop on.

Part of me wants to say the "enemy" doesn't deserve any rights and the ends always justify the means regardless of what kind of "interrogation technique" used. We now know that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was captured supposedly as a result of information gained by these sort of "interrogation techniques" and we're told that this information has saved countless American lives. But all at what cost?

This very opinion is one that many "terrorist" Muslims point to as a reasoning for their attacking of America and I know that our founding fathers would disagree with an "ends justify the means" approach to treatment of prisoners (even "enemy combatants") in the name of keeping the American public safe.

A wise man once said, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," and I heartily agree.

My litmus test has always been, would you want your government to have this power/right to exercise over you?

What if something crazy happened and our government more resembled the Big Brother from George Orwell's 1984 than a constitutional republic that seeks to safeguard the liberty of it's citzens? Would you want the government to be able to suspend your habeus corpus and be able to torture you by fear of death and infliction of psychological torment?

By many sources, the "terrorist" watch list has grown to well over 1 million people (USA Today, The New American, Voice of America, & ACLU) and many of them are probably folks like you (well, not the feds reading this probably) and I. This should concern you greatly.

If things don't change, this War on Terror (and the fear that it inspires) will be the stepping stone to unravel all of our Bill of Rights.

Be very afraid, and ask yourself: If you lived in 1950's U.S.S.R. (or 1930's Germany) would you want your government to have this power over you? Why should it be different because you live in a 21st Century United States?

WND & Wash. Times: Fed's Monitoring 'Right-wing-extremists'

Well I'd just like to take the time to say Hi! to all of our wonderful government friends that stop by from time to time to see what I'm blabbering about...

Let me be the first to extend a warm handshake to you.

WND Headline: Homeland Security on guard for 'right-wing extremists'

WASHINGTON – A newly unclassified Department of Homeland Security report warns against the possibility of violence by unnamed "right-wing extremists" concerned about illegal immigration,increasing federal power, , restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty and singles out returning war veterans as particular threats.

The report, titled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," dated April 7, states that "threats from white supremacist and violent anti-government groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts."READ MORE>>>

Let me just say to all of you spooks out there that this news is very troubling to me, and I'm perplexed to why it's not troubling to you as well.

First of all, let me clear a few things up for you.

I am not a white supremacist. I believe like many 'right-wing-extremists' that we were all created in the image of God, and frankly I cringe every time someone tries to label people as anything other than human. I am a member of one race (and one race only), the HUMAN RACE.

I am not a violent anti-government group nor am I a member of any afformentioned groups.

I am not against government; although, I do feel that we have too much government. Our government is a bloated and festering wound on the side of Lady Liberty. Here in lies the problem. Liberty and Government directly oppose each other. Government wants more control and Liberty wants less control. Yes, you can have liberty and government, but it's much like walking a tight rope. A careful balance must be achieved and then maintained to assure that we stay as citizens with liberty and not subjects owned by the government.

So you're probably wondering why the 'Right-wing-extremist' title then?

My name and URL was spurred by the late great Barry Goldwater and the perception that those that support American Sovereignty, Liberty, Gun Ownership, Smaller Government, Federalism, a Right To Life, and other Constitutional Issues as "right wing extremists".

NYT: Ginsberg Supports Foreign Law Influence in US Courts

This should come as no surprise to those that know how far off base Justice Ginsberg is with the constitution and the American public.

In wide-ranging remarks here, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg defended the use of foreign law by American judges...

“I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law,” Justice Ginsburg said in her comments on Friday.

The court’s more conservative members — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — oppose the citation of foreign law in constitutional cases.

“If we’re relying on a decision from a German judge about what our Constitution means, no president accountable to the people appointed that judge and no Senate accountable to the people confirmed that judge,” Chief Justice Roberts said at his confirmation hearing. “And yet he’s playing a role in shaping the law that binds the people in this country.” READMORE>>>

This is just one of the reasons why the President you elect is of the utmost importance and a strong reason why every other country's fight for freedom is as important as our own.

If we have revolutionary Supreme Court Justices that believe that the courts in the U.K. (or Saudia Arabia for that matter) can set precedence here in America we should be very scared.

After all, the American public didn't elect the Judges in Great Britain or Germany or any other country, so why should the decisions made in that country be able to influence the laws in America?

Would you like to see the U.S. to go the way of Cuba; the U.K.; or "The People's" Republic of China?

I mean this in the most respectful way, but I hope when Ginsberg dies she gets replaced with an American that loves and values this country and the ideals which make it great and will only interpret laws based on the United States Constitution.

---

YouTube: Justice Ginsburg Argues Foreign Laws Should Have Influence On American Laws

An Anonymous Patriot