Mark Potok Of Southern Poverty Law Center Attacks The Oathkeepers

…and the ‘right-wing rebellion’ of the tea parties.  Mark seems to know us better than ourselves, since I did not realize that I am secretly terrified of the federal government building concentration camps that we can be herded off to by foreign soldiers. I also did not realize that the democrats and indies that come to this site were double agents for the right-wing conservative movement.  My readers have totally snowed me, and I thought I had a clue about the pulse of the people.

How is it that a member of a organization that “tracks hate groups” could think it a good idea to attack the Oathkeepers.  At this point, considering what we don’t know about our federal government, I’m glad the Oathkeepers are standing on the wall.  How about you?  Mr. Potok seems to be overly concerned that the Oathkeepers include police officers that could be laboring under paranoid ideas and then pull a weapon.  I’m more concerned going to the store after dark and getting mugged.  As much as I detest Bill O’Reilly, I must give him credit for offering an invitation to the Oathkeepers for an interview on tomorrow’s show.  We will have to see what transpires.

On a totally different but related note, I have been background processing, and am currently working on an op-ed piece about Glenn Beck and the current media circus surrounding the tea party movement.  I wanted to see if my readers think the rule below seems altogether too familiar right now.

Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals:

Rule #13:

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’…

“…any target can always say, ‘Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?’ When your ‘freeze the target,’ you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments…. Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the ‘others’ come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target…’

My message to you – stand together, don’t scatter.  There are many more of us now than ever before.

7 thoughts on “Mark Potok Of Southern Poverty Law Center Attacks The Oathkeepers”

  1. If they have to attack the Oathkeepers then it tells me that they really do intend to do us real harm. And if there wasn’t some real danger why would the Oathkeepers have organized in the first place? Nobody will EVER stray me away from this movement. I am here to stay. And nobody will convince me that I am crazy to beleive the way I do, although some try.

  2. is it me, or have others noticed “attacks” on conservatives from within lately? the conservative movement is at significant risk of tearing itself apart without any help from the progressives. (though i have no doubt the progressives add fuel to the fire whenever possible). this has historically been an issue whenever you try to “herd cats”. their independence can be a positive trait; however, it can also be what sabotages the movement from within.

    if we want to save our republic, we must stand together. we must allow for some difference of ideology within the group, as long as the core principles are respected. there are so many issues to address; however, the single most important issue is the return of our nation to the constitutional republic given to us by the founding fathers. ALL other issues pale in comparison and will be corrected only by staying the course to save our republic.

  3. Everyone please keep in mind that Mark Potok has his own view – consider the source. I don’t think his attacks = malevolent intentions from anybody. I think he’s just a hack who wants others to be afraid too.

  4. I don’t think our government was set up for a party system. Maybe the tea party movement will be the beginning of the end of the party system. Most of us in the movement are disgusted with both parties. We will choose candidates on their individual merits and policies. No need for parties and partisan fighting.

  5. A very dangerous point of view Nancy. Do away with political parties and you’re doing away with one of the most recognizable and powerful “Checks and balances” on power in the government itself. Abolishing all political parties and having only one? Sounds like a totalitarian state to me. Is that not what happened in the Soviet Union? Germany came close to doing the same. China, and several of the military dictatorships in Latin America all followed that path to their own destruction. I realize I should not expect much when you’ve spelled nonsense incorrectly. At any rate, there need not be any nonsense but at least use common sense if nothing else.

  6. Mat,

    If it’s a dangerous point of view, it is one shared by radicals such as George Washington. Political parties help no one – they exist to line the pockets of the elite.

    No one is suggesting a single-party system; we want a no party system.

    BTW – isn’t it rather unusual to spell your name like something we all step on?

Comments are closed.

Bad Behavior has blocked 1104 access attempts in the last 7 days.

%d bloggers like this: