YouTubers Wearing MAGA Hats And Carrying Guns Spur Terrorism Experts to Issue Warnings

There’s a growing group of activists across the country calling themselves the First Amendment auditor movement. So far, it has involved individuals filming themselves going government buildings and posting footage of their confrontations with the people working there.

They say their goal is to hold public employees accountable for respecting constitutional rights. Terrorism experts, however, worry that the movement is rapidly becoming a vehicle for so-called sovereign citizens to provoke law enforcement into confrontations – confrontations which have the potential to become violent.

While on the surface, the First Amendment auditors movement sounds like it may be a new tactic being employed by civil rights activists, the actual interactions send a rather different message.

Patrick Roth is an emerging star among the movement, having established a name for himself through his YouTube channel News Now Patrick. He has hundreds of videos of his various “audits” in states including Texas, Missouri, Oklahoma and Kansas, with the most popular video having been viewed 1 million times. In some cases, he is accompanied by other popular “auditors,” including Tim Harper and James Freeman.

Some have accused these “auditors” of being affiliated with the right-wing sovereign citizen movement – which gained national attention after both the Bundy ranch standoff in 2014 and the takeover of a wildlife refuge in Oregon in 2016 – considered a serious domestic terrorism threat by the FBI.

Some, like Roth, are adamant that the First Amendment auditing movement has no connection to sovereign citizen groups.

Harper and Freeman, however, are known for their participation in sovereign citizen activities. In many cases, both men openly carry firearms during their “audits” while wearing red “Make America Great Again” hats.

Roth insists he and other “auditors’” “intent is never to scare anybody,” insisting that he is “not radical” and “not crazy.” Accounts from those he and other “auditors” have encountered paint a different picture.

In many videos of these so-called “audits,” public workers are aggressively confronted and called out by name while the “auditors” refuse to identify themselves. In some cases, “auditors” stream live and call on their followers to harass the institution and its workers by making phone calls or taking to social media.

Experts have expressed concern that it is only a matter of time before “auditors” successfully provoke a violent confrontation – either by overstepping their constitutional rights or encouraging followers of the movement to participate in more dangerous behavior.

Ironically, for a movement supposedly trying to expose civil rights violations, they may very well be encouraging greater restrictions on the rights they purport to champion, be it the ability to film law enforcement or to open carry firearms in a courthouse.

However, civil rights advocacy is just a prop for these people – they are a manifestation of an increasingly frustrated group of white men who see threats and aggression against their “traditional values” which kept them firmly at the top of society’s power chain. Groups like sovereign citizens and these First Amendment auditors are an expression of frustration over these changes. These “audits” are them flexing their muscles and trying to prove to themselves and others like them that, at least for now, they still are on top.

Not convinced? Try, if you can, to imagine if there was a similar group consisting of black men or Muslim, turban-wearing men, doing what Roth and Harper are doing. They wouldn’t, knowing full well that they wouldn’t be walking away unscathed.

Photo Credit: News Now Patrick via YouTube

106 comments

Susanne R
Susanne R2 months ago

Paul B. - (Continued...)
They are legally entitled to present themselves at the border to ask for asylum. They are then taken to a detention center and interviewed by an asylum officer. Most of their asylum requests will ultimately be denied by immigration judges and they will be returned to their country of origin."

"The myths discussed above (NOT INCLUDED in this comment) won't fade easily because there are politicians that need illegal immigration to remain a "crisis" and thus a campaign issue." https://www.illuminateourworld.org/single-post/2018/08/26/10-Illegal-Immigration-Myths-Debunked-Some-History-on-US-Immigration-Policy?

To read about all the myths, please access the following link:

https://www.illuminateourworld.org/single-post/2018/08/26/10-Illegal-Immigration-Myths-Debunked-Some-History-on-US-Immigration-Policy?gclid=CjwKCAiAyrXiBRAjEiwATI95mQVx3HWFk21DpKXYBZdCUEHgjn6u2tJg70KgyRSbWkWBOEMLVsrxRhoCqMQQAvD_BwE

SEND
Susanne R
Susanne R2 months ago

Paul B. said: "BTW, many of these asylum seekers don't qualify. By allowing them in anyway to await trial, for which only about 3% do, you have basically given anyone who crosses the border free access. That is not fair to anyone, legal immigrant, citizens, or all those awaiting legal processing to enter the country. How is that considered the right thing to do?"

So please do tell us what is "fair" to asylum seekers who don't qualify (and please outline the circumstances that would 'disqualify" women and children seeking refuge from violence from qualifying). After traveling 2,000 miles, often by foot and with a hot and thirsty child and all their earthly belongings strapped to their back, should they be turned away and sent back to the terror from which they were fleeing? The Mexican government is taking them in, providing them with food and shelter, and offering training programs for jobs that are available in that country. And many have chosen to stay there. Why is it that the Mecixan president can do it, but trump can't?

FROM: Illuminate Our World. TITLE: 10 Illegal Immigration Myths Debunked & Some History on US Immigration Policy.
"Most of the folks that you have seen on television in the last few months, such as those in the "caravan" attempting to enter the United States via the Southern border are asylum-seekers from Honduras or Guatemala. They are legally entitled to present themselves at the border to ask for asylum.

SEND
Susanne R
Susanne R2 months ago

Paul B. - This information is posted on the website of the National Immigration Forum:

"Affirmative asylum process - Individuals can apply for asylum affirmatively if they are physically present in the U.S., regardless of how they entered the country within one year after arrival. They can also apply for asylum at ports of entry. In an affirmative asylum process, an USCIS officer decides whether the individual will be granted asylum in the U.S. If USCIS denies an asylum application in the affirmative asylum process after the individual's visa has expired, he or she is referred for removal but can utilize the defensive asylum process to renew his or her request for asylum."

"Under prior administrations, immigration authorities regularly released migrants from custody while their cases were pending in the immigration court system. Those migrants were still required to check in with immigration authorities and attend hearings in immigration court. The Trump administration has modified these policies to release as few asylum seekers as possible. A recent federal court decision requiring case-by-case determinations as to whether asylum seekers pose a flight risk or threat to public safety is likely to lead to more releases pending their hearings."

Trump is a racist and a hater. You think he's God's gift to mankind. Maybe it's time for some introspection. (Or an intervention.)


SEND
Susanne R
Susanne R2 months ago

Paul B. - You didn't read my comment if you think I said that I didn't read the article. Or perhaps you're pulling a "trump." Here is what I said about the article in the Guardian:

"Also, I read the Guardian article earlier today before I posted my comments. I couldn't find enough information to use for or against my arguments. Offering "alternative facts" to defend what he said after one of his comments is [I should have said "was"] proven to be untrue and creating negative publicity is a tactic that trump and other pathological liars use when their lies are revealed, so asking me to read his after-the-fact comments doesn't cut the mustard." Scroll down and see for yourself.

You obviously didn't read ANY of the information I provided. If there were more ports of entry that were properly manned by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, people wouldn't be forced to enter wherever they find an opening. After walking 2,000 or more miles, suffering from dehydration, exhaustion, hunger, and exposure to intense heat and predators, should they really have to walk hundreds more miles to find a legal port of entry? Consider this: There are 48 U.S.-Mexico border crossings, with 330 ports of entry along a border that spans 1,954 miles. If you want them to enter following the proper protocol, we should have more fully-manned ports of entry.

SEND
Karen Swenson
Karen Swenson2 months ago

@Paul B---You must have a handbook for Dummies on "Undecipherable languages" in order to understand anything the Toxic Orange Fluff in the White house is saying. He rambles on like some 4 yr old on a sugar high. Your sycophantic love for this embarrassment is bewildering and "SAD." Have a "Peachy Dory" day!

SEND
Paul B
Paul B2 months ago

BTW, many of these asylum seekers don't qualify. By allowing them in anyway to await trial, for which only about 3% do, you have basically given anyone who crosses the border free access. That is not fair to anyone, legal immigrant, citizens, or all those awaiting legal processing to enter the country. How is that considered the right thing to do?

SEND
Paul B
Paul B2 months ago

Susanne,
So you didn't read the article? I am disappointed that you didn't care to understand the context of the statement he made and to whom it was directed.
All your other stats in no way change the narrative that these illegal migrants are breaking our laws, regardless of their motivation. We have laws to deal with them when they arrive at our border. Allowing them direct, free entry into the US allows for criminal elements to do the same thing. Even if only a small percent are dangerous, that still amounts to a large number. Would you welcome those criminals into your home? Doubtful, so why should ANY community do the same thing.
I agree that we need immigration reform, so does Trump as he explained in his speech today. You should listen to the WHOLE speech he gave, not just the snippets surrounded by a host of biased reporting and make your own decision based on what HE said, not the talking heads. It is up to CONGRESS to pass laws regarding immigration reform, which Trump has offered more than once, but the Dems are unwilling to even talk about it. THAT is the problem, not Trump, not people like me, not anyone else on this site. It is up to our lawmakers to fix this problem, but we can't continue to allow illegal migration into this country.
B TW, many of these asylum seekers don't qualify. By allowing them in anyway to await trial, for which only about 3% do, you have basically given anyone who crosses the border fr

SEND
Tabot T
Tabot T2 months ago

Thanks for sharing!

SEND
Susanne R
Susanne R2 months ago

Paul B. - The information that appears below is from an article titled "The U.S. Government's 2018 Border Data Clearly Shows Why the Trump Administration is on the Wrong Track." Here are the reasons why:

1. THERE IS NO MIGRANT CRISIS. IN FACT, THE FLOW IS NEAR ITS LOWEST POINT IN HALF A CENTURY.
2. THE PROFILE OF A TYPICAL MIGRANT HAS CHANGED DRAMATICALLY OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS. TWO IN FIVE ARE NOW CHILDREN AND FAMILY MEMBERS. THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE.
3. THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE APPREHENDED BY BORDER PATROL HAS DRAMATICALLY DECREASED OVER THE YEARS, BECAUSE LESS PEOPLE ARE ATTEMPTING TO CROSS.
4. TOUGH TALK, THREATS, AND "ZERO TOLERANCE" WON'T DISSUADE KIDS AND FAMILIES FROM FLEEING.
5. ACCESS TO ASYLUM IS BEING THROTTLED AT THE OFFICIAL BORDER CROSSINGS.
6. MEXICO APPREHENDS NEARLY AS MANY CENTRAL AMERICAN MIGRANTS AS THE UNITED STATES DOES. SOMETIMES, MEXICO APPREHENDS MORE.
7. IT IS EXTREMELY, VANISHINGLY RARE TO FIND SUSPECTED GANG MEMBERS MIXED IN WITH FAMILIES AND UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN.
8. IT IS EXTREMELY RARE TO FIND MIGRANTS AT THE BORDER FROM COUNTRIES WHOSE CITIZENS THE PRESIDENT WISHES TO BAR FROM ENTERING THE UNITED STATES "UNTIL WE CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT IS GOING ON."
9. LOOK FOR SOLUTIONS IN OUR ASYLUM PROCESS AND IN OUR PORTS OF ENTRY. BOTH ARE IN URGENT NEED OF HELP.

Let's have a civil conversation after you've read the article. The link appears in my previous post.

SEND
Susanne R
Susanne R2 months ago

Paul B. - You said, "Trump has also REPEATEDLY stated that his isn't against immigration, it just needs to be legally." Read this and educate yourself with unbiased information:

"The president's midterm-campaign rhetoric of "invasions" and "national emergencies" is distracting us from a vastly different reality at the border. This reality bears no resemblance to what the president describes in his rallies. But we do face a historic humanitarian crisis, and the U.S. government urgently needs to change what it's doing in order to deal with it.

This "hidden" reality is in full view in U.S. border authorities' own security and immigration statistics, most of them produced in the past few months. (Source documents are listed and linked at the end of this analysis. {You'll need to access the article to read them.]

The data about migration, and about what crosses the U.S.-Mexico border illicitly, point to problems at the border. But they're not the problems that the president is talking about. Instead, they point to a need to adapt our asylum system to a very different profile of U.S.-bound migration, and to build up our official border crossings-our ports of entry-instead of our walls and barriers."

https://www.wola.org/analysis/us-government-2018-border-data-trump-immigration-asylum-policy/

SEND