Hate Groups In America
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-08-08/hate-groups-america
The number of active hate groups in the U.S. has doubled in the last 10 years. New studies indicate there are now more than a thousand of these groups in America today. High unemployment, changing demographics and anger at a black president are among the factors attracting new members. The shooting rampage by a white supremacist at a Sikh temple in suburban Wisconsin has raised concerns about the danger posed by these groups, which are treated differently than foreign terrorists by law enforcement. Diane and guests discuss the rising threat of hate groups and what can be done to track their members.
Guests
David Gomez
president and CEO of HLS Global Consulting Group, and a former FBI Special Agent.
Mark Potok
senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Michael Greenberger
founder and director at the University of Maryland Center for Health and Homeland Security, and professor at the University of Maryland Carey School of Law.
Arno Michaelis
former Wisconsin white power leader and author of "My Life After Hate."
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Once again Diane is an epic fail in her inability to separate schizophrenia from hate.
This conversation makes me physically ill and emotionally distressed. If any of these groups were comprised of folks of color, they FBI would have already infiltrated their org, thrown a bunch of people under jail, assassinated their leader. But 'oh no' we must protect their first amendment rights. We must consider their mental health (Jared Loughner vs. Marvin Wilson, yeah). We must not jump to conclusions because... reverse racism! Give me a break. White men have a long long long history of domestic terrorism (from the Klan to OKC to Columbine to the recent attacks on the Sikh community). Anyone who doesn't see a pattern is being deliberately blind.
partisan politics on August 7, 2012 @ 11:43 am wrote: “The NAACP, La Raza (the race) and the National Socialists, is there any difference?”
The fact that you even ask the question is proof (as if any more were needed) of your partisan and ideological blindness, as well as your inability to reason.
National Socialists have called for genocide: the deliberate extermination of an entire group of people (based on a lunatic racial theory). They have employed violence to achieve their ends, and continue to advocate violence.
When did either the NAACP or La Raza do any of that? The NAACP has worked strictly within the law, and never preached violence or hatred. It’s “weapons” have been legitimate political action, it’s “warriors” - lawyers. And as far as I know, La Raza is the same.
Next time try to preserve a shred of credibility by refraining from obviously false comparisons, and inane statements.
(And you question why Republi-Cons are perceived by many as a bunch of violence prone, or enabling, bigots! Look in a mirror for part of the answer.)
P.S. - And here's a truly radical idea: Why not wait until a show actually airs before posting a Comment!
I`d forgotten about the FEMA concentration camps. If they existed why wasn`t Limbaugh the 1st. guest?
"TAKE AMERICA BACK", simply is a racist dog whistle.
To urbanrage.....what function of the SPLC do you disagree with? Their investigation - and subsequent bringing to justice - of the klan group that lynched a young black man? Or their same efforts in the case of Tom Metzger and the Aryan Nation who beat to death a teen-age Ethiopian immigrant? I read your link to the article by Dan Amato. He - (and by extension, you?) - is one scary dude.
I would add that racial/ethnic exclusivity is indicative of a hallmark of extremist groups. The NAACP not only has white (and other members of various backgrounds) members, but was in part helped founded by whites...hardly comparable to organizations like the National Socialists or Aryan Nations. I know conservatives don't want to hear this, but most of mass shootings of late have connections to extreme RIGHT-wing ideology, not leftist (remember, most of THEM are busy "tree-hugging" and committing acts of eco-terror).
http://beyond-the-political-spectrum.blogspot.com/2012/03/lets-talk-abou...
Plenty of articles out there about how 97% of Homeland Security funding goes to Jewish groups. 97% for heavens sake. That is criminal and inside burglary by Senator Lieberman who I believe is still the chair of Homeland Security. Talk about proof of elitism and racism. Still wondering if the Mosque in Joplin Missouri had received any HSFunding? How that would compare to the funding that Jewish groups had received in the same area? Were the threats well known? Can the Mosque receive the funding that they should have received from HSFunding before they were attacked and destroyed now to rebuild
Plenty of articles out there about how 97% of Homeland Security funding goes to Jewish groups. 97% for heavens sake. That is criminal and inside burglary by Senator Lieberman who I believe is still the chair of Homeland Security. Talk about proof of elitism and racism. Still wondering if the Mosque in Joplin Missouri had received any HSFunding? How that would compare to the funding that Jewish groups had received in the same area? Were the threats well known? Can the Mosque receive the funding that they should have received from HSFunding before they were attacked and destroyed now to rebuild
partisan politics on August 7, 2012 @ 10:52 pm wrote (replying to Teece Bowman): “Sounds like your trying to pin these crimes on the political right, despite the best efforts of the liberal media to do just that, these murdering lunatics almost always turn out to be apolitical, to say otherwise is a deliberate deception.”
Sorry, charley, while I agree that not all of the incidences on that list can be laid at the door of the “political right”, several directly can be. Among them:
Item 1: Timothy McVeigh was a member of the militia movement (right-wing), and acted in revenge for the assault on the Branch Davidians (right-wing religious group that violated gun laws) and Ruby Ridge (militia movement), and repeatedly quoted the infamous “Turner Diaries”. Hardly “apolitical”.
Item 2: The Branch Davidians in Waco (see above). Again, hardly “apolitical”.
Item 6: The Sikh Temple Shooter was a neo-Nazi and a member of a White supremacy movement (see my prior Comment about the difference between Nazis and the NAACP).
And many of the others are the direct result of the easy and almost uncontrolled access to guns, which is definitely the result of the “political right”, and also of a philosophy which holds our government to by tyrannical, and which advocates violent rebellion as the solution (not exactly “unheard of” among the “political right”).
Finally, there’s the “coincidence” Teece alludes to that the victims of these attacks almost always seem to be on the “political left”. I would include on that list JFK, RFK, Martin Luther King, Jr., among others. In contrast, the only “conservative” victims I’ve heard of were George Wallace and Ronald Reagan - both of whom were truly the victims of apolitical nuts. (Wallace’s shooter merely wanted notoriety, and actually favored segregation. As for Reagan’s shooter - well, “love” makes people do strange things.)
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
The issue isn’t whether the “main stream” left or right is intolerant of murder or violence, it’s the fact that what passes for today’s “main stream right” encourages both the ideology which leads to violence, and supports an extreme view of “gun rights” which enables it. Republi-Cons love to play the “guilt by association” game with Obama, but scream bloody murder when the same tactic is employed against them (with greater justification, I might add).
Oh, and care to provide some proof for your slander that “Murder, rape and property destruction are hallmarks of the democrat party embraced occupy movement”?
partisan politics on August 8, 2012 @ 10:14 am wrote: “We have a president that has successfully divided the country into voting blocks of hate.”
No, that would be the Republi-Cons, and the right-wing “media”.
Tell me, charley, where has the President ever declared one group “a threat” to this nation, and proposed they must be “rooted out” (you know, like the Red Scare in the 50’s, or it’s anti-Muslim revival courtesy of Bachmann and other members of the Republican Party)? When has he ever suggested that only members of a specific faith (say conservative Christians) should be elected to office? When has he declared that a specific group of people (gays and lesbians for example) should be deprived of equal rights under the law (comparing them to rapists, child molesters, and other loathsome examples)? When has he ever invoked his “Second Amendment rights” should he not get his way at the ballot box?
ANSWER: never!
But, as the examples I cited demonstrate, one can find all of that “coming from the right”.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote: "care to provide some proof"
Why bother, your a blind dishonest fool.
To urbanrage, writing on August 8, 2012 @ 10:32 am:
Yeah, an exercise in slander produced by one man obsessed with immigration issues (and with no background in journalism) is obviously a credible source.
NOT!
Esju10 on August 8, 2012 @ 10:29 am wrote: “I think the U.S. needs to stop putting people in a box and trying to divide us by having to ‘check boxes’ on all government forms. . . . Why do Jewish people identify themselves as Jewish and not by race? . . . . We also need to teach World religion in the U.S.”
1) The only Federal form I know of that requires “checking a box” with an ethnic designation is the Census. If there are others I’d love to hear about it. (School tests are created by the local governments, not the U.S. government.) The purpose of the Census is to get an accurate picture of the make-up of this country, so asking about ethnicity is a valid question. We are not a monolithic and homogenous society, and we can't ignore the differences between us to pretend otherwise. The original national motto was E pluribus unum ("From the many, one.") Although it arose in a different context, I'd say we need to return to its idea of unity with diversity.
2) Judaism is as much about “race” (nationality would be a better term) as it is about religion. One becomes a Jew by being born to a Jewish mother who has not converted. Just as one becomes an American by being born to American parents. Most of Judaism is an attempt to preserve the laws, traditions, and culture of the Jewish people during the Diaspora (the exile from Israel). So the distinction between religion and culture (or ethnicity) you appear to be relying on doesn’t apply in this case. Judaism is both a religion and a culture.
3) Agreed. Particularly in a “shrinking world” (Marshall McLuhan’s “Global Village”) our ignorance of the religions of the world is a recipe for disaster!
urbanrage on August 8, 2012 @ 10:38 am wrote: :Unfortunately, the lovely dept of Homeland Security is now militarizing the police departments all across the country and labeling ordinary white males as domestic terrorist.”
Fortunately, you have no proof to back up that slander. Only right wing “talking points”.
urbanrage on August 8, 2012 @ 10:55 am wrote: “If you want to know the TRUTH about timothy mcvey, read 'A Noble Lie'. . . .”
Oh please, not another conspiracy theory!
I know: Pearl Harbor was a set-up, Oswald didn’t kill JFK, 9/11 was a “false flag” job.
Hey, want to hear my “take” on the “birther” conspiracy?
Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Orly Tatz, Donald Trump, et. al. are actually part of the cover-up!
I have it on good authority that Obama is actually a Cardassian in league with the Daleks. The evil Time Lord known as the Master used his TARDIS to back in time and plant all the phony evidence of Obama’s Hawaiian birth (including the contemporaneous newspaper announcements, which none of the “birthers” have ever accounted for).
Oh, and my “source” for this? The Prophets of Bajor, of course.
kathleen on August 8, 2012 @ 11:53 am wrote: “Plenty of articles out there . . . .”
Provide links, or at least the titles, for them. Time to “put up or shut up”!
And stop pressing the “Save” button four or five times in a row. That’s called SPAMMING!
By the FBI definition of domestic terrorism, wouldn't this country have been founded by so-called terrorists? Doesn't the constitution effectively allow such activity i.e. the use of force to overthrow a government that no longer suits its citizens?
Based on some of these posts, the "spin" doctors are hard a work again; and you'd be hard pressed to convince me that "hate" has just one political affiliation. Might be splitting hairs here; but the shooting at the Sikh Temple...was that a "hate crime?", "terrorism?", or both? As you know, "one man's terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter"...just ask the President of Syria. Unfortunately, the chain of thoughts we use to either justify or condemn an act such as this one, are arbitrary and refuse to be simply categorized. Killing innocent people is a crime. And it won't stop anyone from doing it again, especially if they are willing to sacrifice their own lives for what they believe in (suicide bombers in the middle east). So what is fueling these "hate groups"? I think it has everything to do with feeling that your way of life is threatened! and our normal perpensity to resist change! The guy who shot people at the Sikh Temple was a "hater", the Colorado Movie shooter was a "nutjob", two different animals. You can try to suppress people's rights to express their opinions, but you'll just run these groups underground, and they'll be more difficult to track. The President of Iran has expressed his feelings on Israel in no uncertain terms, "they need to be wiped off the map". And what's being done about that? Us Westerners are considered "infidels" by the muslim world. How does that make you feel? This "hate" permeates our entire world, and will most likely lead to our end.
partisan politics on August 8, 2012 @ 12:11 pm wrote: “Why bother, your a blind dishonest fool.”
Don’t have any proof, eh? Thought so.
And when it comes to being dishonest, you’re the expert, charley.
Concerned123 on August 8, 2012 @ 1:00 pm wrote: “Doesn't the constitution effectively allow such activity i.e. the use of force to overthrow a government that no longer suits its citizens?”
No.
“The Congress shall have the power: . . . To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.” - Art. 1, Sec. 8, Paragraph 15 (emphasis added).
“Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” - Art. 3, Section 3, Paragraph 1.
So far as I know, the Constitution allows only two ways to change the government: 1) by elections, or 2) by amending the Constitution. The “use of force” isn’t allowed for either.
mrbvlo on August 8, 2012 @ 1:00 pm wrote: “Based on some of these posts, the ‘spin’ doctors are hard a work again; and you'd be hard pressed to convince me that ‘hate’ has just one political affiliation. Might be splitting hairs here; but the shooting at the Sikh Temple...was that a ‘hate crime?’, ‘terrorism?’, or both? As you know, ‘one man's terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter’...just ask the President of Syria.”
Well, that’s certainly a nice piece of “spin”. (Or should I say “sophistry”?)
Something is a “hate crime” if it is directed against a member of a particular group because of hatred towards that group. For example: George Zimmerman may not have shot Trayvon Martin because the latter was Black. In which case the shooting was not a hate crime. (It may still have been a crime, or at least grossly irresponsible and negligent. The courts will decide all of that.) On the other hand, if he shot Martin solely or even partly because the kid was Black, then it could be a hate crime.
Terrorism? I’d say shooting up a Temple of peaceful worshippers who (so far as we know) never did anything to the shooter qualifies as an act of terrorism (if done for political purposes) and a hate crime, if motivated by prejudice. (In this case, probably, misdirected prejudice against Muslims. Like too many bigots, the shooter appears to have been ignorant, and doesn’t realize that not all Muslims wear turbins, and not all people wearing turbins are Muslims.)
Now, was that really so hard to understand?!
One final thought:
Don't assume my defense of accusations against "right-wing" hatred means I endorse some of the "left-wing" bias posted here. I refuse to buy into "conspiracy theories" of "wealthy White males" being out to destroy all of us. There are plenty of wealthy people who are generous and good, ditto for Whites and males. And heaven knows, there are plenty of "poor" non-White females (etc.) who are bigoted idiots too.
The real enemy is stupidity! It's the cause; bigotry, prejudice, hatred and violence are just the result.
Ciao.
Keep in mind that the SPLC only survives by fomenting fear of various groups. A few years ago, they produced a map dotted with Confederate Battle Flags, and claimed that their was a resurgence of "neo-confederate hate groups."
The SPLC lost all credibility when it was discovered that their map merely reflected locations where the United Daughters of the Confederacy and Sons of Confederate veterans had active chapters. All those UDC grandmas and SCV grandpas holding pancake breakfasts and battle re-enactments were stunned and insulted to be described as the next wave of domestic terror by the SPLC.
The SPLC should be sued for their serial slander.
As for me, I am part of a group who promotes a separate homeland for our people; as well as discouraging intermarriage. Terrorist White Supremacists? No. I am part of the Jewish community.
Why is it perfectly OK for our Jewish community to seek our own land, but when White groups or Palestinian groups say the same thing, they are, "terrorists?"
AIPAC and J Street are devoted to Israel whose existence is premised on the non-existence of Palestinians. If "hate" is to have meaning as a legal term, it would cover a case like this. To paraphrase Cardozo, there is no hatred in the air. He said, "There is no negligence in the air." That is, there is not an eternal Platonic form called "hatred" whose mystical earthly manifestations the clerical staff of the Leader are competent to identify and punish. When people are evidently motivated by the desire to destroy someone, you may justifiably call this a hate group. So if you see evidence where one group of people has moved heaven and earth to make another group of people disappear: from the streets, from the news, from the law, from the textbooks, from the earth: you have to anticipate that most people will use your term "hate" to apply to this genocidal group.
Pssst.....Hey, I heard women taking birth control is like the attack on Pearl Harbor.....Pssst ....Shhhhh....Boy,that darned Obama and his helping women...SOCIALIST !!
kathleen-
Your Comment posting is now up to 4 iterations per.
Your computer or your computer interacting with a DRShow problem may be at fault.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
Etaoin Shrdlu on 08 Aug @ 1:27 p.m. "The real enemy is stupidity! It's the cause; bigotry, prejudice, hatred and violence are just the result."
I agree with your statement, and would like to "spin" it thus:
"I would submit that prejudice, bigotry, hatred, and violence are already built into our nature as human beings. Stupidity is when you allow one of these natural tendencies to overcome your better judgement and cost some else their life. WE ARE THE REAL ENEMIES OF OURSELVES."
Like many political partisans you are observant, analytical, and intelligent when pointing out the failings and shortcomings of your enemies. Yet when it comes to the same failings on your own side, you are blind to the obvious. Crickets? Let me complete your list.
1) A gifted Mathematics PhD institutes his own strategic well thought out bombing campaign against scientists who are developing technologies he fears (and history is bearing him out) will degrade the place of the individual in society. His name Ted Kaczynski.
2) A group of religious nut cases hell bent on creating a utopia of race tolerant people leave the United States for the jungles of New Guinea. They go on to commit mass suicide in the name of obeying the orders of their crazed leader.
3) A groups of disgruntled Students for a Democratic Society tire of the political process take up arms, rob banks, kidnap, bomb, and burn those who they think are standing between them and justice.
4) Sara Jane Moore decides that “I didn’t want to kill anybody, but there comes a point when the only way you can make a statement is to pick up a gun.” Like the Seike Temple shooter she was interviewed by the Secret Service and lawfully acquired her gun. Before her assassination attempt the Secret Service had decided she posed no threat. Absent being charged and convicted she had her rights. That's the risk we take in our society. That's the experiment that is individual freedom.
It's unfortunate that humanity is made up of people who think like Sara Jane Moore that violence is the only way you can make a statement. Mr Teece Bowman has taken the first step in this direction. By accusing his opponents of a comic book simplicity he himself comes across as a comic book character by painting a simple world view wrapped in self righteous morality. The truth is the world is complex, and violence makes little real sense and adds to nothing except setting up the next conflict.
Tyler on August 8, 2012 @ 1:57 pm wrote: “Keep in mind that the SPLC only survives by fomenting fear of various groups. A few years ago, they produced a map dotted with Confederate Battle Flags, and claimed that their was a resurgence of ‘neo-confederate hate groups.’ ”
Once again, it would be nice if people making accusations bothered to back up their claims with a little proof !
Here’s two articles from the SPLC about those “innocent” Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) and other neo-confederate groups:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-iss...
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/neo-co...
Hmm, in 1996 one of its leaders declared that slavery could be defended biblically, and said slavery wasn’t so bad because there “have been times that I wish someone had said to me, 'I'll give you a job for the rest of your life.' ”
Branches of this organization condemned the Emancipation Proclamation.
Prominent members of the SCV are white supremacists.
Oh yeah, one can really “feel the love”!
And let’s not forget that (at best) these groups are busy romanticizing an attempt to destroy the United States of America (the Confederacy) in order to preserve the “peculiar institution” of slavery. In short, they celebrate treason! (And, indeed, many of them spew the same rhetoric and ideology as the original traitors.) What next? Will you defend those who “celebrate” the Holocaust, and argue it was a “good thing”?
I’d say it’s your credibility that is questionable.