Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

The Anti-Defamation League Defames Me



November 20, 2009 – Comments (15)

I suppose it's ok to say hurtful, slanderous, and disgusting things about another human being as long as you claim to be protecting me from those same things while you do it.  In its recent report on anti-government activity, the socially conscious Anti-Defamation League slandered and denigrated every peace loving Libertarian I have ever known, displayed a complete lack of understanding of the new political dynamic occuring in America, and deeply offended any human being that believes in freedom, decency, honesty, peace, and respect for others.

What's even worse, the ADL and other socialist organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center are so afraid of the big bad capitalists they appear as conspiratorial and delusional as the people they profile.  Truly the pot calling the kettle black.

A Rebuttal of the Anti-Defamation League's Special Report

Rage Grows in America: Anti-Government Conspiracies by the Anti Defamation League

[Interesting title choice. Are all conspiracies anti-government?  Are all anti-government folks like David in Qatar crazy conspiracy theorists?  Let's reserve judgment and see how this shakes out.]

Since the election of Barack Obama as president, a current of anti-government hostility has swept across the United States, creating a climate of fervor and activism with manifestations ranging from incivility in public forums to acts of intimidation and violence.

[Question for the audience: how many acts of intimidation and violence have actually occured since the anti-government forces began to stir the pot?  For example, how many acts of violence have been attributed to the Campaign for Liberty - the largest PAC currently associated with the freedom movement?  The answer to that is zero.  On the other hand, how many government agents have acted out violently just in the last few weeks?  Well, I know of one guy that was more dangerous than all your Tea Baggers put together.  Guess who he worked for?]

What characterizes this anti-government hostility is a shared belief that Obama and his administration actually pose a threat to the future of the United States. Some accuse Obama of plotting to bring socialism to the United States, while others claim he will bring about Nazism or fascism. All believe that Obama and his administration will trample on individual freedoms and civil liberties, due to some sinister agenda, and they see his economic and social policies as manifestations of this agenda. In particular anti-government activists used the issue of health care reform as a rallying point, accusing Obama and his administration of dark designs ranging from “socialized medicine” to “death panels,” even when the Obama administration had not come out with a specific health care reform plan. Some even compared the Obama administration’s intentions to Nazi eugenics programs.

[It's not just Obama that poses a threat. I like how they paint Obama as the victim here. Oh poor Obama, the most powerful man in the world is so victimized by the meanie anti-government types!  Why won't they just leave him alone?  As for the trampling of freedoms, Obamacare was a good start, Bernanke's crushing of the dollar helped, Pelosi's ridiculous stimulus package kinda sucked, and I remember Bush, Obama, and McInsane all giving each other hugs and kissings and practically jerking each other off after the first bailout passed.  Seems to me they are all about as worthless as a poop flavored lollipop. But hey, the ADL needs to make this about Obama to be at all relevant. I get it.

And how about this socialized medicine claim?  Far be it for me to accuse a politician in a country that has MEDICARE of wanting to push Socialized medicine on us!  How crazy and conspiratorial of me to think that Congressmen that tell us the VA is wonderful would also embrace Socialized medicine.  I am in need of a psychological readjustment.  What was I thinking?

If the ADL was engaging in sarcasm, this would be their best work.  Unfortunately, they're not and it gets worse.  You will want to pour battery acid on your eyelids by the time this is over.]

The Tea Parties

While most people attending Tea Party events claim they harbor no extreme views, many of the ideas they promote fall outside the mainstream, especially the more conspiratorial ones. Angry protesters have frequently made claims ranging from proclaiming Obama’s “socialist” intentions to making explicit Nazi comparisons to suggesting that the President is defying or even subverting the Constitution.

[You see, they only "claim" to harbor no extreme views.  The ADL could have worded it simply, "most Tea Party attendees do not have extreme views."  End of story. But that's not a story and that doesn't get the Left's panties all in a bunch. 

Here we go again with poor Mr. President Obama, so hopelessly overmatched by this vicious assualts.  I feel so much pity for the MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD. 

And there's that word "Nazi" again.  It was actually the Nazi Socialist German Workers' Party. Get it right, ADL.  It had the freaking word "socialist" right in the Party name!  If a guy thinks Obama is a socialist, why in the world would it surprise you that he also thinks Obama's policies are going to be similiar to the Nazi SOCIALIST Party?  It's a pretty simple jump.  Probably not correct, but simple and unsurprising either way.]

The July Tea Parties appeared to attract fewer attendees and less media attention but they did gain the attention of white supremacists, a number of whom joined protests in different places around the country. White supremacists saw the Tea Parties as an opportunity to express their own opposition to Obama and to see how receptive other protesters might be to their message. Many later posted photographs of their participation to social networking sites. However, such extremists were a tiny minority of Tea Party protesters.

[White supramacists are a tiny minority. Thanks for pointing that out.  It doesn't stop the ADL from painting any anti-government person like myself as a possible violent extremist racist, but hey, it's better than nothing.]

The Town Hall Meeting Disruptions

At a town hall meeting in Washington State, a member of the audience informed Representative Brian Beard that he was a Marine Corps veteran who had taken an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. He angrily accused Beard of trying to “indoctrinate” his children and shouted, “Stay away from my kids.” He then stated that the Nazis took over finance, the car industry and health care, in an apparent comparison to the actions of the Obama administration. The man then demanded of Beard, “I’ve kept my oath. Do you ever intend to keep yours?”

[Wait, this guy was a Marine?  You mean he worked for the government?  Can someone explain to me why the government hires so many extremists and violent people?]

Reaction was even more extreme at a town hall meeting held by Senator Ben Cardin in Hagerstown, Maryland. A man, later turned over to the Secret Service, held up a sign that read “Death to Obama”and “Death to Michelle and her two stupid kids.”

[$20 says he used to work for the government too.]

In Phoenix, a number of people wearing guns (it is legal to openly display firearms in Arizona) showed up at a demonstration at a site where Obama had given a speech to veterans.

[Oh no! People doing legal things! People doing legal things! Someone make it illegal already!]

At a town hall meeting attended by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that same month on a visit to Denver, Colorado, a young man wore a T-shirt depicting President Obama and the words, “Hitler gave great speeches, too.” A young child in a stroller was given a sign to hold that read, “No to fascism,” and contained a swastika image in a circle with a line through it.

["Hilter gave great speeches too!"  ROFL!  That's funny and apropos.  Well, I guess the ADL just doesn't have a sense of humor.  Too bad, but they're all pedophiles so what can you expect?]

The widespread use of Holocaust and Nazi analogies and comparisons, which still continues, goes well beyond legitimate or even exaggerated criticism of the Obama administration and its policies. By comparing Obama to Hitler, a man widely perceived as the epitome of evil in the modern world, people who use such comparisons demonize Obama and make even the most extreme conspiracy theories about his ultimate intentions more plausible.

[While I don't think it's fair to compare Obama to Hitler - he's really more like Mussolini - it is a subjective evaluation to consider some speech legitimate and others not.  It's personal preference and most people I associate with don't talk like that.  In fact, I tend to stay away from those people.  According to the ADL, since there are people who compare Obama to Hitler among the anit-government types, I should be watched very carefully.  Stereotyping when practiced by the ADL is apparently not hate speech. No double standard there!]

Conspiracy Theories Prompting Action: Richard Poplawski

Anti-government conspiracy theories seem clearly to have played a role in April 2009, in Pittsburgh, when a young man named Richard Poplawski allegedly gunned down three Pittsburgh Police Bureau officers responding to a 911 domestic disturbance call at his residence.

Poplawski was a budding white supremacist who became angry after the election of Obama. Like Nancy Genovese, a New York woman whose conspiratorial beliefs led to her arrest for trespassing on an Air National Guard base, Poplawski paid attention to Alex Jones and other conspiracy theorists. He, like Genovese, became concerned about issues like gun confiscation, the military being used against citizens, and FEMA concentration camps. And, like her, he also purchased an assault rifle.

[Does anyone remember who Poplawski worked for before he gunned down those policemen?  If you said, the government go to the front of the class. 

Again, I am confused.  Why is the topic of the ADL's paper about anti-government rage and violence, while the violent people are clearly the ones working for the government?]

The Oath Keepers

One manifestation of the ideology of resistance was the creation in March 2009 of the Oath Keepers, an anti-government group that tries to recruit police and military personnel and veterans. Members refuse to obey hypothetical “orders” from the government, “orders” that speak more to their own paranoid and conspiratorial beliefs than to any realistic government action.

[More government employees acting crazy.  Yet another sign that a person like David in Qatar, that crazy anarchist, is someone to watch!  The icing on the cake here is that the Oath Keepers take an oath to abstain from violence against Americans as part of their Oath, yet that part is actually a problem for the ADL.  No wonder government employees are so confused!]


There's a lot more drivel in this report if you wish to read on, but at this point I have done enough damage to my brain cells.  The only thing wacko conspiracy theorists I can see are the nut cases at the ADL (and the SPLC for that matter) who think I'm a threat to the government and that poor, little Mr. President of the Free World is somehow in danger because I feel that government is outdated and barbaric.

For those curious, I don't have many guiding principles in my life, but as I've mentioned on this site before,  The Non-Aggression Principle is a pretty good one:

Anarcho-capitalism, as formulated by Rothbard and others, holds strongly to the central libertarian nonaggression axiom:

[...] The basic axiom of libertarian political theory holds that every man is a self owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, this means that no one else may justly invade, or aggress against, another's person. It follows then that each person justly owns whatever previously unowned resources he appropriates or "mixes his labor with". From these twin axioms – self-ownership and "homesteading" – stem the justification for the entire system of property rights titles in a free-market society. This system establishes the right of every man to his own person, the right of donation, of bequest (and, concomitantly, the right to receive the bequest or inheritance), and the right of contractual exchange of property titles.

Rothbard's defense of the self-ownership principle stems from what he believed to be his falsification of all other alternatives, namely that either a group of people can own another group of people, or the other alternative, that no single person has full ownership over one's self. Rothbard dismisses these two cases on the basis that they cannot result in a universal ethic, i.e., a just natural law that can govern all people, independent of place and time. The only alternative that remains to Rothbard is self-ownership, which he believes is both axiomatic and universal.

In general, the nonaggression axiom can be said to be a prohibition against the initiation of force, or the threat of force, against persons (i.e., direct violence, assault, murder) or property (i.e., fraud, burglary, theft, taxation). The initiation of force is usually referred to as aggression or coercion. The difference between anarcho-capitalists and other libertarians is largely one of the degree to which they take this axiom. Minarchist libertarians, such as most people involved in libertarian political parties, would retain the state in some smaller and less invasive form, retaining at the very least public police, courts and military; others, however, might give further allowance for other government programs. In contrast, anarcho-capitalists reject any level of state intervention, defining the state as a coercive monopoly and, as the only entity in human society that derives its income from legal aggression, an entity that inherently violates the central axiom of libertarianism.

Some anarcho-capitalists, such as Rothbard, accept the nonaggression axiom on an intrinsic moral or natural law basis. It is in terms of the non-aggression principle that Rothbard defined anarchism; he defined "anarchism as a system which provides no legal sanction for such aggression ['against person and property']" and said that "what anarchism proposes to do, then, is to abolish the State, i.e. to abolish the regularized institution of aggressive coercion."  In an interview with New Banner, Rothbard said that "capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism."


I think it's obvious that the Anti-Defamation League has no idea what I believe, and their ignorance leads them to engage in the exact same behavior they swear to fight.  They have become another outdated, culturally irrelevant mouthpiece of ignorance.  I'd be happy if they wanted to get to know me, but that probably will never happen.  Instead, I'll try to ignore them and hope they do the same.

David in Qatar

15 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On November 20, 2009 at 9:58 AM, DaretothREdux (53.99) wrote:

I'm sure we're both on "the List."


Report this comment
#2) On November 20, 2009 at 12:50 PM, nzsvz9 (< 20) wrote:


The the ADL states that it "fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all". And in it's founding "The immediate object of the League is to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. Its ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens." [from wikipedia]

How does this article adhere to the principles of the league? The objecitve reader would conclude it does not - and for political purposes of excusing the current administration which seems to hold the same policy objecitves as the leaders of the ADL. That is my view on the article.

The tea party attendees (for the record I was not one - although I was curious) and town hall protesters (Again, just for the record, I did not attend any town halls, but have been to city meetings and talked to local elected officials on occasion) were expressing views in what is most certainly defensible protected speech under the first amendment. To slander them by association to criminals who may or may not have similar or exaggerated views is, well, at best, poor.

To so blindly dismiss the nationalistic policies of the current administration, and avoid the parallels to past history in Germany is to ignore facts. But that would mean that socialism, whether of the current soft-Euopean variety or hard Germany pre-war variety is collectivism nonetheless. It tramples the individual in the pursuit of the rights of groups of persons. In this way, and this way alone, do I even read the ADL adhering to its principles - defending socialists as a body or sect of the people of the nation.


"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. " - Samuel Adams

"If once they ["our people"] become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. " - Thomas Jefferson, letter from Paris, 1787

"Still one thing more, fellow citizens -- a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government. " - Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, 1801


So, by these words, the ADL would similarly demonize BOTH Adams and Jefferson.

I'm appalled, but not surprised.

Known by Dare and David as nzsvz9

Report this comment
#3) On November 20, 2009 at 1:01 PM, starbucks4ever (87.63) wrote:

I found it hard to understand what ADL wants. If obama came under attack for being Jewish, that's one thing, but as far as I know, nobody is accusing him of that :)

Report this comment
#4) On November 20, 2009 at 1:17 PM, dargus (80.47) wrote:

Yeah, what possible reasons could the ADL have for being upset about comparisons between the current administration and the Nazi's or the Holocaust?

Report this comment
#5) On November 20, 2009 at 1:46 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:


Thanks man. Spot on comment. You hit on the head and its exactly what I was trying to express, and did it much better than I. Always glad to hear your thoughts.

Dare and zloj,

Thanks to both of you guys for reading. Always appreciate it.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#6) On November 20, 2009 at 1:54 PM, nthought (< 20) wrote:

To state that the tea party protestors do not harbor extreme views is quite diplomatic of the ADL.  Opposition to having the government provide people access to health care is an extreme view, not shared by most people in this country.  About 40% of health care cost in the U.S. is shouldered by government through programs such as Medicare.  I consider the denial of necessary social services to the poor to be an authoritarian political position.  Privatization of these services, for instance, through the imposition of corporate health care, is a threat to democracy because it denies people any voice as to how these programs should be run.


BTW, I also oppose the health care bill, but for different reasons.  I'll leave it to the nitwits to derail it.   

Report this comment
#7) On November 20, 2009 at 2:37 PM, dargus (80.47) wrote:

David, for someone who so often references Dr. Paul, have you ever seen him at a Tea Party? At least one since they were high jacked by the right wing media? While we both know he agrees in principle with limited government, has he ringingly endorsed these events? I have yet to see it and, in fact, he seems to be quite wary of them himself. If these Tea Parties are really just a celebration of Libertarianism, why wouldn't he be strongly endorsing them? The answer is they aren't just a celebration of Libertarianism. These mass media hyped Tea Parties are more about opposition to Obama than they are about freedom or Libertarianism. This seems to be along the lines of what the ADL is saying, and your offhanded “Oh, poor Obama” misses the point. If these events were really a spontaneous gathering of freedom loving people, which some of them are, you’d have a point. However, the largest rallies were Fox News hyped events, with lots of Fox News coverage.


I personally love Dr. Paul and hope every day that the right will embrace his ideals. His positions are a well thought out and an academically sound alternative to big government collectivism. An honest debate between these two ideas can only strengthen our system of government. That said, I live in the Midwest and know several Tea Party goers. My bosses, for example, are devout conservatives and love the whole movement.  They also believe President Obama is a secret Muslim, Manchurian candidate who is going to sell us out to the Middle East. This is not an uncommon belief here in my experience. While I support the Libertarian ideals, I will not support a movement that fosters this kind of delusion. It seems to me the criticisms by the ADL are valid. The reason Obama is referenced so often is because he is a major target of all this vitriol. You can’t deny this. Also, your claims about the people complaining being government workers makes no sense. Their employer is meaningless unless they are acting in an official work capacity. These were people acting freely on their personal time. If anything, your attack makes these people appear even more foolish.


It seems to me that your attack on this article doesn’t take seriously the issues raised. When one speaks of Nazis they generally aren’t attempting to raise the idea of socialism, but rather the idea of murdering 6 million people of a specific ethnic group, and I would suggest these examples are no different. I find it disturbing that you can so easily gloss over these comparisons as if they aren’t malicious.

Report this comment
#8) On November 20, 2009 at 5:40 PM, nthought (< 20) wrote:

NAZI's were also frighteningly militaristic, advocates of genetic superiority of the German race, and imperial expansionists.  Anyone who honestly believes that Obama or people who advocate for universal health care are NAZI's really does need a mental break from politics, and is probably an extremist of some sort. 

 Here's a fun article.


Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be 


Report this comment
#9) On November 20, 2009 at 9:52 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:


Thanks for reading and recing.

Let me start with healthcare. Refusing to pay for another person's health care is not denying them. Denying them means to prevent them. Without universal health care, you still can get health care. I can't stop a person from accepting charity. As I've pointed out many times before, pre-government involvement in health care there were hundreds of Christian hospitals across the U.S. and never once did anyone die on their doorstep because they were denied treatment. Calling opposition to universal health care a denial of service is dishonest. The word "deny" means "to prevent."

My problem with the ADL is that they paint with a broad brush. Out of the millions of Tea Party protestors, the vast majority of whom are just as disgusted with Republicans as they are with Democrats (they are quite a few great YT videos where Repubs get booed/heckled off stage during these rallies). The fact some people compare Obama to Hitler shows their lack of creativity, but it is not necessarily wrong or deregotary.

1. We have no idea why an individual claims that Obama=Hitler. It's possible that some think he will exterminate 6 million people. Possible, but not likely. It's more likely that they just want to be radical/confrontational, which is a sign of their frustration. That doesn't make it right, but certainly understandable and not at all shocking. During the Bush presidency, Leftist rallies consistently portrayed Bush as Hitler too. Again, not very clever but not entirely wrong.

2. Not everyone can compare Obama to Hitler as subtely as I did.

3. The problem is Collectivism, not any one individual. Focusing on the evil of Hitler misses the point, and both sides of the debate are guilty of this. Socialism has lead to the deaths of a hundred million people (and counting.) It is the most evil idea ever planted into men's minds. Hitler has nothing on that.

4. I agree that Republicans have tried to hijack / coattail off the Libertarian enthusiasm that started the Tea Party movement (the idea sprung from Campaign for Liberty supporters and the first Tea Parties were entirely Libertarian in nature.) The Repubs will fail. They're a dead party and old news.

5. I love Ron Paul too, but I don't agree with him on everything. He's taking a diplomatic approach with the Tea Parties, a calculated move in case they backfire. That's his prerogative. Besides, he gets 10,000 attendees wherever he speaks. He doesn't need the Tea Parties to spread his message, whether I like it or not.

My two cents.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#10) On November 20, 2009 at 11:37 PM, starbucks4ever (87.63) wrote:

Hi whereaminow,

When I see that 100 mln figure, I'm not sure how to reply to that. On the one hand, I can't deny that this figure is accurate to an order of magnitude, so you could always ask me, "and what difference does it make if was just 60 mln instead of a 100?" But on the other hand, if you look the other way as the authors are adding a million here and a million understand why it's a bad idea. Propagandists of all stripes will exploit your forgiveness to push the edges of the envelope. It's like portfolio management fees: 2% here and 1% there doesn't seem like a lot, but if you don't stop the rot early, they add up over the years. An objective count should produce something like 60 million, if you count both direct and indirect victims. I would put the number for Russia at 17-18 million (split about evenly between Lenin and Stalin), and for China at 25-30 million at most, but certainly not 65 million. Note how the authors say "perhaps 65 million", but the word "perhaps" will never be quoted by the people who cite the book, so the reader takes the number at its face value. The reader does not understand that the authors simply took the highest estimate out of those available - the one that is least likely to be true. I don't doubt the number for Cambodia, but Cambodia seems to be a very special case where the leader just went nuts. The talk about "millions" of victims in Eastern Europe is hogwash. I doubt there were even as much as 10,000. Latin America is a more complex case, but it seems that most of the "victims" there were victims of the US-sponsored organizations like the Nicaraguan "contras". Socialist governments in these countries were not run by angels, but they were relatively vegetatian by the region's standards.



Report this comment
#11) On November 21, 2009 at 12:20 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:


I understand and I think you have a good point. it's really a trap that I fall into. I need to understand why so many people have been killed or left for dead by various governments over the years, so I look for something to blame. It's probably not fair.

On the other hand, I don't think anti-government types like me should be the ones people should be concerned with. Are we really the violent ones?

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#12) On November 21, 2009 at 12:53 AM, starbucks4ever (87.63) wrote:

"Are we really the violent ones?"

No, but your ideas haven't been tried yet. Compare the behavior of Christians before and after their religion became established. So don't relax too early, those nonviolent religions have a way of taking a sudden change for the worse, LOL. 

Report this comment
#13) On November 21, 2009 at 1:54 PM, nthought (< 20) wrote:



Private insurance companies do deny people coverage, and hence prevent them from accessing the health care they need.  You seem to know enough about private markets to understand that they derive part of their efficiency based on exclusion of those who do not want, or cannot afford the service.



Report this comment
#14) On November 21, 2009 at 10:39 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:


There is nothing "private" about private insurance companies, nor are they "insurance" in any meaningful way.

There are regulated coverage companies. They are forced to provide a certain level of coverage (while competitors are excluded from entering the market), employers are forced to use them, private citizens are limited in their options by government regulation, and the insurance companies don't "insure" you by any reasonable definition. Insurance is the pooling of risk among similar groups.

American health care is a mess, but it's not the result of free markets. See the 1973 Health Maintenance Organization Act. That's how we got where we are today.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#15) On November 22, 2009 at 11:45 AM, nthought (< 20) wrote:

You're bogging this down in semantics.  I agree with your last point.  It's not truly a free market system at this point, and hasn't been in a long time.  That's because democratic people demand that necessities be provided for everyone, and markets cannot do that.  It's private in the sense that these are corporations operating for profit, selling stock, etc.  We got here today because every time the public asks the American political system to do something about this, our politicians are pressured by lobbyists  to ensure that they can still profit off the system.  It's a monstrosity at this point. 

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners