Tea Party leader says group seeks to marginalize him as ‘sovereign citizen guru’

A New York Tea Party activist says he’s being unfairly lumped in with cop killers and domestic terrorists just because he advocates admittedly radical reforms to the legal system.

John Darash, a 61-year-old retired carpenter from Poughkeepsie, N.Y., said he was “shocked” to learn the Anti-Defamation League in a news release last week branded him a “guru” of the sovereign citizen movement, a loosely organized and ill-defined group that has been linked to police killings and extreme hate speech. Darash told FoxNews.com he does not consider himself a sovereign citizen and that he’s never advocated violence to further his goals.

“I’m very concerned with people talking like this, especially in today’s environment,” Darash told FoxNews.com. “To connect people with other people who kill cops, that’s very, very dangerous … Our principles are very simple. We’re not telling people to do evil things. We’re telling people to do Godly things.”

7 Comments - what are your thoughts?

  • Graywolf12 says:

    Read the communist play book. Accuse the opposition of those things you have done, are doing, or intend to do. Smells like soros scum to me.

  • CforUS says:

    John, the liberal/progressive/democrats have no defense against the logic of the Tea Party, a group that wants smaller government, less intrusion, and fiscal responsibility. Their only tool is to marginalize you and make nonexistent connections to groups that have #1 scare the crap out of John Q. Public, and #2 little or nothing to do with the Tea Party. This doesn’t pass the smell test to me. If you could trace this back you’d probably find this is a strategy that was hatched in a Soros “think” tank. Expect more of the same in the future.

    1. I Seigel says:

      I would gladly consider changing colors from blue to red if you could explain the logic of the Tea Party on these issues:

      You want less intrusion in people’s lives. Fine, that’s a good thing. Could you please then explain to me why it’s OK to want the state to control who you marry? Or if a woman wants a doctor-approved abortion, why is it that the state or feds can forbid it? Where is THEIR expertise? You say you want people to make up their own minds up their medical needs, yet you defend the status quo (pre-Obamacare). Tell me – before Obamacare, could YOU make up your own mind about your medical needs, treatments, doctors? I strongly doubt it. You had to get approval from your insurance company for everything. So you REALLY didn’t have the control you’re fighting for.

      You defend the rights of the unborn, yet it seems that as soon as these babies are born, you could care less about them? You don’t seem to support any kind of programs – supported by tax dollars – for pre-K, food stamps, free health care for those that need it, drug treatment for those that need it. If you can explain those 2 SEEMINGLY opposing viewpoints, that would be great.

      You want smaller government. Fine. What would you like to eliminate? Give a specific example and go through the consequences. How about, for instance, eliminating NASA? What do you suppose EVERY politician in Texas or Florida would say to that? The DHS, don’t forget, was passed under the Bush administration. If you think it’s hard to downsize the military right now, how loud would those same people scream if you tried to eliminated DHS? Don’t forget, there were MANY small companies (in the Midwest, for example) that got big grants and contracts for stupid projects that didn’t contribute anything to national security. It was all about lobbying. Thanks Halliburton. Thanks Cheney.

      There are many many other questions I have, but let’s start with these. Please keep your answers on-topic and please don’t include any stereotypical Rush/Hannity ranting. I really want to learn and not just have you name-call.

      1. CforUS says:

        Gladly you make most of my points for me. First of all “marriage” is a religious based tradition and should not be a government function. “Civil Union” is a government function that should be applied to “marriages” performed by licensed individuals like priests and ministers. Historically laws utilize the term as a definition, where Civil Union should be utilized. The current laws, as written, substantially protect the ability (not a right) of same sex couples to participate in a Civil Union. Where they fall short is not allowing same sex couples to have rights of probate to transfer property upon the death of one partner, ability of the partner to make decisions as a spouse in medical emergencies, etc. The laws should have been changed to allow Civil Union partners enjoy the same benefits across the board. As far as the state to control who you marry goes, you bring up a good point. People like you fail to dig deep enough into the subject, or don’t care that the many fringe groups involved in this effort have an agenda to include interspecies “marriage”, incestual “marriage”, and polygamy sanctioned by the state. I’ve heard over and over again by my liberal/progressive/democrat friends that “we didn’t mean to allow all that.” Well, it’s an unintended byproduct. Challenges have already been made in court by a guy that wants to marry his cat, and an entire lesbian club to “marry” each other based on the recent changes to state law. Depending on what court gets the case, we may see both coming to our theaters soon.

        Roe-v-Wade should have never been heard by any court. The states should have all jurisdictions on what medical practices occur in them. Certainly not the Federal Government. Your assumption that doctors are above perversion and coercion is quite naïve. Doctors make decisions every day based on their religious beliefs, lack of beliefs, financial considerations, and just plain old traditional stupidity. Bad choices by a woman are not our affair, unless of course you were part of that bad choice.

        Dang, you really drank the cool aid on Obamacare. You absolutely HAD the option to do what you wanted before Obamacare. If you didn’t like your doctor, you changed. If you didn’t like the coverage you had, you changed companies. Both may have been difficult to accomplish, but it WAS your choice. In my view, the only two things that really needed to be changed before Obamacare existed (which would have taken two paragraphs to accomplish) was not allowing insurance companies to exclude clients based on pre-existing conditions, and the ability of insurance
        companies to sell policies across state lines which would have allowed competition and reduced costs.

        WE shouldn’t be paying for the bad choices of irresponsible women. If she is incapable of making choices of protecting herself, she can move to a state that allows her to conduct her sex life as she likes. If she makes the bad choice, let her live with the decision. You will likely counter with “what about the babies that are born that will live in poverty because of this.” Well, they do with abortion now because there are some women that keep their babies because of the gravy train that follows. No responsibility is expected for bad choices. “Free stuff” is probably the single largest contributor to the destruction of the American family. My suggestion (which is something you can participate in) is the liberal/progressive/democrats should donate (their own money) to foundations, etc. that pay the expenses for
        these irresponsible women to go to states that allow abortions.

        DHS should have never been established. Other than the Department of Education I can’t think of a bigger waste of tax dollars. By the way, I’m glad you brought up Halliburton. I know that you can’t believe that the BO administration is incapable of their own Halliburton. The biggest beef I heard
        when all that was going on was “no bid”, “single source.” I wonder if you know (or if you can admit knowledge) that Michelle Obama’s Princeton classmate (Toni Townes-Whitley) is a top executive at CGI Federal (a CANADIAN company). The company that was awarded the (NO BID) contract to build the $678M contract to build the Obamacare website. “Bu, hum, well, uh, it needed to be done by someone.” Or, “there’s no proof favoritism was involved in the award of the contract.” What will it cost to fix their incompetent effort?

        I’m not sure what point you were trying to make in your science paragraph. If you are referring to someone’s religion, THAT’S NONE OF YOUR FRIGGEN BUSINESS, or the business of any government. That’s their beliefs, and, up until recently, a right guaranteed by the constitution.

        Regarding the 2nd Amendment. It’s not up to any city or state to infringe on a citizen’s right to bear arms by passing
        unconstitutional laws doing so. I’m assuming that you believe that taking guns away from law abiding citizens will reduce gun crimes. Under that logic you will have to remove knives, baseball bats, and hammers from the home. While you are at it amputate the hands of every American. Together they represent the weapons of choice by the majority of the murderers committing that crime nationwide. Do you know that people commit these crimes and not the weapons
        they own? If you want to see the result of not infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens, check out the crime
        statistics (per capita) in the state of Maine (just an example). Geez, nearly every home up there has at least one gun in it. Check out recent statistics from Detroit where “victims” had firearms in the home, AND USED THEM. There is nothing requiring you to buy a gun for self-protection. That’s
        the point. YOU shouldn’t be infringing on my right to do so. Who knows, I may be the one that double taps the guy that wants to rape and murder you in your living room, while you’re wondering what’s taking the police so long to get there.

        Sorry, name-calling and tired clichés are the purview of liberal/progressive/democrats and their DNC propaganda machine.

        1. I Seigel says:

          You’ve said a lot here, but I’m going to take a piece at a time and reply.

          Regarding your statement about Toni Townes-Whitley: there seems to be some major controversy about your conclusions. I use the Snopes website occasionally to get background info on email scams that my mother seems susceptible to. Here is what Snopes says about Townes-Whitle/CGI/Obamacare:


          You’re wrong in your assumption that I want to “take away guns from law abiding citizens”. I have an Expert Marksman rating from the NRA. Registering guns is not the same thing as confiscating them. Background checks will not deter law abiding citizens from buying anything they want. Hunters do not need automatic rifles, nor are they needed to protect one’s home an family. Remember, it was the claim of the NRA not so long ago that law abiding citizens needed guns for hunting and protection. Now their argument is that we need guns… period.

          I agree with you that your beliefs are none of my business or any government. But we seem to be in the midst of an argument that is close to 80 years old now, that of teaching evolution in the schools. And states passing laws that don’t teach scientifically-agreed-upon facts to schools that use taxpayer money, because they’d rather promote creationism. Kansas is one example. I brought up the “science” issue because this is another field – creationism/evolution, climate change – where scientists are overwhelmingly in agreement on a topic, and states promoting a religious agenda don’t want to recognize or even expose those alternate viewpoints to students. You can use religion to promote ANY viewpoint. Just ask the jihadists.

          1. CforUS says:

            My advice to you is to never trust what you read on the internet. Certainly not from Snopes.com. They have been exposed several times for “tainted” proof cited by authors of their analysis. Even Snopes.com suffers from unethical actions by their employee’s.

            I hate to break it to you, but “science” has neither proved or disproved both creatonisim or evolution. That question will likely never be answered, unless of course God shows up some day. I choose to go by Voltare’s take on the issue; “I’d rather believe in God and be wrong than not believe and be wrong.”

            Recent events related to scientists “overwhelmingly” agreeing on anything related to climate change is also seriously in question. Unethical scientists and political operatives in the government have “cooked the books” on the data utilized to make their case. Even in the past few weeks data utilized by the U.S. government was proven to be manipulated, with important data omitted. Internationally scientists that should be trusted to provide accurate research have been exposed coordinating their efforts to slant data to “make their case.” Where does that leave us? Talking about melting ice on glaciers that have been melting nearly constantly since the end of the last ice age 20K years ago, or ice retreats at the North Pole allowing a NW passage which have been occuring on and off for thousands of years. Rarely, if ever, do global warming scientists mention solar cycles, like the one in which we are currently peaking, which cause weather changes here on earth. Nope, sorry, omitting and manipulating data to come to a pre-determined conclusion and/or receive more grant money is no way to run an airline.

          2. I Seigel says:

            And the news from yesterday, that a crystal was discovered in Australia that is over 4 billion years old? Older than the 6000 years old that the Creationists believe the earth is? Because if it’s really 4 billion years old, then all the Creationist theories about dinosaurs and evolution and whatnot are brought into question, are they not? Or is that just another piece of data that’s been manipulated by scientists with an agenda?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Keep the Fake News Media in check.

Don’t let the MSM censor your news as America becomes Great Again. Over 500,000 Americans receive our daily dose of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness along with Breaking News direct to their inbox—and you can too. Sign up to receive news and views from The 1776Coalition!

We know how important your privacy is and your information is SAFE with us. We’ll never sell
your email address and you can unsubscribe at any time directly from your inbox.
View our full privacy policy.