Militia Activist Has History of Inciting Revolution » ADL Blogs
Latest Developments and Trends in Extremism & Terrorism
July 15, 2014 3

Militia Activist Has History of Inciting Revolution

In a response to the on-going cri­sis involv­ing juve­nile undoc­u­mented migrants cross­ing the U.S. bor­der with Mex­ico, mem­bers of a small right-wing extrem­ist mili­tia group in Texas recently issued a call for mili­tia groups to “guard” the border.chris-davis-anti-government

Local media noticed the leader of the group, “Com­man­der” Christo­pher Davis of Poteet, had posted a YouTube video in which he seemed to instruct peo­ple to point weapons at migrants and threaten to shoot them.

In response, Davis removed his YouTube videos and Face­book pro­file and assured reporters that he was just going to “sup­ple­ment” law enforce­ment and “help them.” Said Davis, “There’s noth­ing mali­cious …We’re just here to serve free­dom, lib­erty, and national sov­er­eignty.” Davis even announced inten­tions to meet with law enforce­ment in the Laredo area.

Yet a closer look at Davis reveals a his­tory of atti­tudes towards gov­ern­ment that seems not nearly so help­ful and benign. In fact, until Davis started “Secure Our Bor­der – Laredo Sec­tor” in recent weeks, his anger and rhetoric were directed not at immi­gra­tion, but almost totally against the fed­eral government.

An analy­sis of Face­book and Twit­ter post­ings by Davis dat­ing back to 2012 reveals extreme antag­o­nism towards the fed­eral gov­ern­ment. Claim­ing not to rec­og­nize any law or author­ity that “goes against the Con­sti­tu­tion,” Davis has repeat­edly expressed his will­ing­ness to phys­i­cally con­front a “tyran­ni­cal” fed­eral government.

Wait­ing on the gov­ern­ment to make the first move, Davis claimed in Decem­ber 2012 on Twit­ter, “is like step­ping into a bear trap to dis­en­gage it.” Rather, as he explained the fol­low­ing April, “when tyranny becomes law, rev­o­lu­tion becomes duty.” In Jan­u­ary 2014, Davis swore an oath on Face­book to defend Amer­ica “against the cur­rent tyran­ni­cal government.”

Davis has repeat­edly claimed that peo­ple have only two options left: “mass civil dis­obe­di­ence or another 1776.” Some­times Davis has urged the for­mer, while at other times, as in a Feb­ru­ary 2014 twit­ter com­ment, he has warned peo­ple not to be con­tent “to merely march” when the gov­ern­ment is using “fear, force, and vio­lence as weapons of oppression.”

In March, Davis declared on Face­book that “we will attempt to arrest the tyrants” and that there was only “a min­i­mal chance of suc­cess with­out vio­lent con­fronta­tion.” But Davis said that he and oth­ers were “will­ing to lay down our lives, if needed.”

What­ever path Davis envi­sions, war with the gov­ern­ment seems to be at the end of it. In a June 2 tweet, Davis argued that there are only three options: 1) a “plan of action in a last ditch effort to take our coun­try back,” 2) “take up arms and phys­i­cally remove the tyrants,” and 3) “stay reac­tive, they drop the ham­mer down…pockets of resistance…try to fight back.” All three options “will lead to war.”

To date, Davis’s efforts to mobi­lize mili­tia groups at the bor­der have met with lit­tle suc­cess, rais­ing the ques­tion of whether he may once again turn his focus to his favorite per­ceived enemy: the fed­eral government.

  • Chucker

    There is absolutely noth­ing wrong with any of the state­ments that Com­man­der Davis has made. If a gov­ern­ment is demon­stra­bly becom­ing a tyran­ni­cal state devoid of the rule of moral law, then it cer­tainly is the duty of the cit­i­zens of such a state resist by all mean nec­es­sary such a tyranny. A tyranny in any state would include a gov­ern­ment that col­lects and pos­si­bly mon­i­tors the com­mu­ni­ca­tions of its cit­i­zens with­out prob­a­ble cause of a crime, arro­gates to itself the right to incar­cer­ate any cit­i­zen it sees fit for the pur­pose of “pub­lic safety,” dis­re­spects the rights of cit­i­zens in the mat­ters of pri­vate prop­erty and pri­vacy of iden­tity and infor­ma­tion, care­lessly exe­cutes war­rants against non-violent indi­vid­u­als, uses vio­lent force in reac­tion to cit­i­zens peace­ably assem­bling and pub­licly (and pri­vately) peti­tion­ing for a redress of griev­ances (OWS), favors cer­tain cit­i­zens with leg­is­la­tion aimed for the ben­e­fit of orga­ni­za­tions that sup­port a merger of cor­po­ra­tion and state, uti­lizes prison labor to an extent that rep­re­sents mass plan­ta­tion orga­ni­za­tion, cre­ates laws and vio­la­tions to cre­ate crim­i­nals to fill such a prison sys­tem, mil­i­ta­rizes its police force(s), con­ducts con­fis­ca­tory tax­a­tion with­out rea­son­able ben­e­fit to the col­lectee, seeks to reg­u­late and/or tax every trans­ac­tion of com­merce between its cit­i­zens, con­ducts what can only be described as “resource mil­i­tarism,” in the Amer­i­can impe­r­ial case the resource in ques­tion is oil, and many other egre­gious acts. Our so-called Repub­lic is most cer­tainly afflicted with all of these mal­adies; this is what Com­man­der Davis and mil­lions of other Amer­i­cans are resist­ing and right­fully so. Color of law is not rule of law. We are not right-wing and most cer­tainly are not a small group of individuals.

  • Dspot7070

    This poorly thought out attempt at a smear job reads more like good pub­lic­ity for Davis.

  • AZRanger

    How typ­i­cal of the ADL to take a topic of cur­rent inter­est, and use it to fur­ther their own polit­i­cal agenda! You crit­i­cized him for para­phras­ing a state­ment made by Thomas Jef­fer­son; “When injus­tice becomes law, resis­tance becomes duty.” He said; “when tyranny becomes law, rev­o­lu­tion becomes duty.” If any­thing, the 2nd state­ment has even more rel­e­vance today!
    He is accused of mak­ing hor­ri­ble state­ments say­ing that he was will­ing to lay down his life to defend the Con­sti­tu­tion, and the peo­ple of this coun­try! And, he quotes the Army officer’s