Top Leaderboard, Site wide
October 1, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


China and Its Challenges




The Underground Girls of Kabul


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

The Tea Party: It’s Worse Than You Think

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Oct 7, 2010
Flickr / Fibonacci Blue (CC-BY)

A protester brandishes his poster at a tax day tea party rally in St. Paul, Minn., on April 15, 2010.

By The Rev. Madison Shockley

A debate has raged over the last 18 months as to whether the tea party movement is racist. Never mind that the inauguration of the first black president in January 2009 was followed in February by the first of the tea party “moments”—when CNBC’s Rick Santelli called for a Chicago tea party on national television from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Never mind that April 15 of 2009 saw the first nationally organized protest of the tea partyers in cities across the country. When the summer of 2009 arrived, all tea party guns (some real firearms were openly carried at Obama events) turned on President Barack Obama and his health insurance reform proposals. Obama was demonized with invective that included being called Hitler, Stalin and the Antichrist.

I propose to put this debate to rest. The tea party is racist. Its followers have deployed a brilliant strategy to deflect charges of racism by using a form of the legislative provision known as severability. Whenever a tea party group or person is “caught” with a racist sign, or saying explicitly racist comments, they simply “sever” that person from the movement by saying, “That person does not represent the tea party.” They get away with it because they claim the status of a “movement” with no structure, leadership or cohesive identity except allegiance to the three magic phrases: “Constitutional Republic,” “Founding Fathers” and “I want my country back!”

I submit that their defense, while clever, is inadequate. Racism virtually drips from their lips when they spew out their ridicule of President Obama. It lies just underneath the surface of all the signs imaging him as a native African, a Muslim or an animal. But, one might note, they never called Obama by a racial slur. They have never said they don’t like him because he is black. Well, they don’t have to say it—he is black. And to say, “I don’t like [black] Obama because he is black” would be redundant.

However, I will make my argument for their fundamentally racist opposition to Obama and their racist opposition to any and every government program that they perceive to be taking their hard-earned tax dollars and redistributing them to people of color. This racism is at the core of their opposition to health care reform that would subsidize premiums for people who cannot afford them or educational or tax credits to low-income persons and families or any of the myriad social programs meant to strengthen the general welfare of the nation. In their opinion, these monies are going to noncitizens who do not deserve the benefits and blessings of their dear USA, USA, USA.

I stumbled across my evidence through an e-mail alert I received for tea party “meet-ups” near where I live. When I noticed a tea party meet-up in south Orange County [Calif.] being held at a church, I couldn’t resist taking a closer look. Five clicks later I was enthralled by a document that I found both horrifying and revealing. The document was titled “The Non-Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment” and written by A.H. Ellett, a retired Utah Supreme Court justice. Ironically, the tea party movement generally “supports with worshipful intensity the constitution of the United States,” according to historian Mark Lilla, but when its followers say “Constitution” they don’t mean the same U.S. Constitution that you and I mean. The recent issue for the tea party has been the repeal of the 14th Amendment. But repeal is just one small step compared to the giant leap that Justice Ellett makes in claiming that the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments (the so-called Reconstruction Amendments) were never legally (i.e. constitutionally) ratified in the first place. When the tea party folk say that they want their country back, I’m starting to understand just how far back they want it—back before the Civil War!

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
The goal of this retrogression is revealed in Ellett’s opening paragraph of his arguments specifically against the fact of the ratification of the 14th Amendment. He writes:

The validity, or should we say invalidity, of the Civil War Amendments is very important to reinstating the inalienable rights of free white Citizens in the United States of America. At every juncture where the government of the United States of America and/or the governments of the several States attempt to usurp inalienable rights, the Civil War Amendments are ultimately claimed to be the authority for such deprivations of rights.

His 200-page treatise is filled with sophist (not sophisticated) argument that hinges on whether the authors of the 14th Amendment used uppercase or lowercase when conferring C/citizenship and P/personhood on the newly freed slaves. He also warns the contemporary reader that his citations may make some uncomfortable but they are necessary to the truth of his argument. He warns and then continues:

Please remember that the following Authorities reflects the understanding of the Founding Fathers at the time the Constitution for the United States was adopted, and although they may not be “politically” correct today, the Authorities represents the law at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was (purportedly) adopted.

This is further clarified in Amy v. Smith: /60

“Free negroes and mulattoes are, almost everywhere, considered and treated as a degraded race of people; insomuch so, that, under the constitution and laws of the United States, they can not become citizens of the United States.”

Amy v. Smith, 1 Litt. Ky. R. 334.

In light of this, no person would be considered as a United States Citizen or a citizen of the United States; as the Constitution was framed to incorporate the common law, in opposition to international law.

· common law—one race governs;

· international law—all races govern.

The capitalization of the words “Person” and “Citizen” could mean only one thing, the denoting of only those of one race in compliance with the common law.

“According to the common law principle (upon which our Constitution was founded), only the race (family) of people forming the sovereignty to adopt the Constitution (We the People) are considered “Citizens.” All others born inside the Country and owing allegiance to “We the People” are natural born “Subjects.” Under principles of International Law, that is, inter-racial law (See definition in Webster’s Dictionary, [1828]), these “Subjects” (who, by special privilege, are licensed to become something or do something normally illegal under the common-law), are said to be “citizens” and “persons.”

… [B]ut only those of the white race could be recognized as national citizens under the Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America and be treated as “Citizens” in any State they entered.

And finally he reaches the ultimate point of it all for the tea party. While party followers might like to disenfranchise all persons of color, they are really after one in particular, President Barack Obama. To wit, Justice Ellett continues:

Thus, only white State citizens held the privileges and immunities known to Article IV, Section 2, among the several States, and no State could confer that Constitutional protection on any other race. In consequence thereof, the “also” could not authorize a “non-white” to be an “Officer” of the United States government.

Thus, according to Justice Ellett, Obama cannot constitutionally be president of the United States.

 


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Orbis Unum's avatar

By Orbis Unum, December 4, 2010 at 9:49 pm Link to this comment

It is without a doubt that the U.S. Constitution is not applicable to those not a party to it. And most assuredly, when anyone not a party to it, try and exercise any presumed claim thereunder, those with Standing thereunder will treat anyone without Standing with extreme prejudice as totally incompetent. Unless, there is an underlying reason for those with Standing, choose to allow such claim to be proffered for political or financial gain for their own reasons by those without Standing. Such as to keep the incompetent in check until all is lost both financially or physically to do otherwise.

In support of the previous poster’s comment to support the premises raised therein, one only has to avail themselves of these facts by reading the “4” declarations posted by the SEA at the web link: http://www.scribd.com/rahyah.

We honorably await any actual and provable evidence to prove the premises presented in-particular to the established facts raised with the declaration dealing with the Four Freedoms on pages 13-15 to prove otherwise.

My best to all who post herein, for the purpose of proposing hopeful enlightenment or garnering enlightenment, while proffering Good Will in the interest of seeking Universal Peace with All Walks of Life!

Report this
LocalHero's avatar

By LocalHero, December 4, 2010 at 9:13 pm Link to this comment

The Constitution is a dead document and has been since (at least) 1933 when the US declared bankruptcy again. But it doesn’t really matter anyway. It wasn’t written to or for you and you’re not a party to it. How could you be? Did you sign it? Did someone you’re related to by blood sign it? Of course not. It was written to “...OUR selves and OUR posterity.” The sheeple tend to forget that words have specific meanings. go ahead & try to bring a constitutional argument into court. They’ll slap you down instantly and tell you (as I have heard with my own ears), “You can’t bring that argument into my courtroom.” Have you ever asked yourself why? They are being honest with you - that document is not valid and, even if it was, you’re not a party to it. It was written by the moneyed elite to assure that they (and their posterity) remain the moneyed elite.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, October 13, 2010 at 4:08 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller,
I just used NPR’s term, well at least the person they were interviewing anyway.
By the time NPR starts in with talk like that, you know something has been
cooking for quite some time and apparently they weren’t pulling any punches
today.

Things are far from the rosy Hope and Change crap we were spoon fed two
years ago and I think even if things were headed downhill people wouldn’t have
minded it so much if they’d been told the truth as to what the REAL causes
were. And here we are, today, still with the American public being kept virtually
in the dark.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 13, 2010 at 2:09 pm Link to this comment

Which is worse?  A Godless totalitarian state or a God-driven totalitarian state.  So…you can have Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il, or the Taliban and “Islamic Counsel of Iran”.

Both should be anathema.

Report this

By Psychobabbler, October 13, 2010 at 1:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Thank you for the anecdotal evidence alluding to a white vs. brown baby race that
I was not aware of. I’m feeling like a racist now, so I will have to take a cold
shower cry myself to sleep. I hope it makes you feel warm and fuzzy to put be in
that box.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 13, 2010 at 1:18 pm Link to this comment

BR549; Why a godless totalitarian state? Godless used as in not compassionate or non religious?

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, October 13, 2010 at 1:03 pm Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind, October 13 at 4:37 pm
“Be careful what you wish for: You may get it.  In every generation somebody
wants to mess with the Constitution to address a short-term real-time issue.”

And from that “Pandora’s Box” standpoint, I would assume that there is a whole
cast of characters out there who would relish the thought of dissecting the
Constitution for their own personal gain. And the first way to get everyone
motivated to open that box would be to pull a charade and making the issue
one of race.

All of those politicians, who have, for years, avoided doing anything
meaningful with regards to our border policy, are the ones behind this; so
that’s about 90% of the legislature. And now, Obama “finally” sends a smidgeon
of the National Guard in ........ after we’ve had US citizens murdered and tens of
thousands of illegals intentionally let into this country.

They’re playing us off against each other, getting us all consumed with arguing
over humanitarian concerns when the real issue is about a corporate takeover.

Five years ago, I had several elderly Germans clients express to me that what
they saw under Bush was what they had seen happen in Germany in the late
1930s. They’d say, don’t you people understand what is happening here? I
mean, I did, but too many people in this country are still on the Kool-Aid,
American Idol, and the ball games. They’re addicted to the “Blue Pill”.

Well, I guess there is some hope. Even NPR came down really hard on Obama
today, saying how he was leading the country into a godless totalitarian state.
Good for them. Better late than never.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 13, 2010 at 12:37 pm Link to this comment

opening up a referendum would be like opening Pandora’s
Box. Damned if we do, damned if we don’t.

We’re probably better off not even allowing that door to open at all because the amount of tinkering and massaging and catering to special interests could wind up subverting the Amendments to becoming oppressive to the citizens on top of the illegal abuses we are already seeing that are being totally ignored.
************

Well put.  Be careful what you wish for: You may get it.  In every generation somebody wants to mess with the Constitution to address a short-term real-time issue.

Report this
fearnotruth's avatar

By fearnotruth, October 13, 2010 at 11:58 am Link to this comment

Looks like the Construct of Racism in the US was addressed informatively below - with the insight that it has nothing to do with race, but rather power and wealth; which it seems the 14th Amendment is intended to correct - that it did little or nothing for Native Americans is another matter - if those with whom one enters into contracts will not honor them, there’s little one can do short of communicating with flaming arrows

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

By blogdog, October 10 at 6:33 pm Link to this comment RE: By Go Right Young Man, October 10 at 10:39 am

Can anyone, anyone at all, share with us a single learned study which indicates white people as more or less racist than any other grouping of people?

A: Historically speaking, the question answeres itself in this form: who has most benefited (at least in the US) from racist constructs?

from
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Sociology/Race_and_Ethnicity

Constructing Race in the U.S.
Since the early days of the United States, Native Americans, African-Americans and European-Americans were classified as belonging to different races. But the criteria for membership in these races were radically different. For Africans,  the government considered anyone with African appearance to be purely African. Native Americans, on the other hand, were classified based on a certain percentage of Indian blood. Finally, European-Americans had to have purely white ancestry. The differing criteria for assigning membership to particular races had relatively little to do with biology; it had far more to do with maintaining a group’s defined roles and position.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, October 13, 2010 at 11:43 am Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind, October 13 at 1:42 pm
“Changing the 14th Amendment is totally a racist strategy ................ As I said:
BULLSHIT!”

What everyone seems to be missing here is that, yes, it might not be a bad idea
to require at least one parent be already of US citizenship in order for the baby
to also have citizenship, .... BUT ...... that would require a Constitutional
referendum and in this political climate, where corporations are seizing more
and more control, and where politicians’ testicles seem to get smaller and
smaller every day, opening up a referendum would be like opening Pandora’s
Box. Damned if we do, damned if we don’t.

We’re probably better off not even allowing that door to open at all because the
amount of tinkering and massaging and catering to special interests could wind
up subverting the Amendments to becoming oppressive to the citizens on top
of the illegal abuses we are already seeing that are being totally ignored.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 13, 2010 at 9:42 am Link to this comment

BULLSHIT!

The reason the 14th Amend is being questioned comes down to a simple fact: If you are born on American soil, you are American.  That’s what they want to change.

But a whole lot of hoopla is being raised about pregnant illegal women having babies here and that THEREFORE those babies shouldn’t be automatic citizens.

Notice that MOST of 14th changers are the same people who are vehemently anti-abortion and call themselves “Pro-Life” who don’t want innocent life destroyed…just stripped of their citizenship!

Also, and this is the key: Who are the illegal immigrants who do this (or are accused of doing this)?  Almost completely Latin and South Americans—Brown people.  You don’t hear about illegal Eastern Europeans having babies here so they cannot be deported.

Changing the 14th Amendment is totally a racist strategy, and GRYM is calling me a “bigot” while he’s defending that blatant racism.

As I said: BULLSHIT!

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, October 13, 2010 at 7:23 am Link to this comment

“The only reason to change the 14th Amend is to find a reason to deny brown people citizenship, even if they are born here.”

-

That statement is not fair because race and citizenship are separate issues.

The “brown people” as you are calling them should not be automatically assumed as the victims because they are often very abusive to people who deserve representation as well regardless of race.

-

It is obvious to all that there are people whom place a terrific amount of weight on the colour of others skin.  ITW is such a person.

Report this

By Pshycobabbler, October 12, 2010 at 8:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“The only reason to change the 14th Amend is to find a reason to deny brown people citizenship, even if they are born here.”

That statement is not fair because race and citizenship are separate issues.

You cannot have a honest discussion about immigration without mentioning citizenship which brings up the 14th amendment.

The “brown people” as you are calling them should not be automatically assumed as the victims because they are often very abusive to people who deserve representation as well regardless of race.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 12, 2010 at 5:06 pm Link to this comment

The only reason to change the 14th Amend is to find a reason to deny brown people citizenship, even if they are born here.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 14th Amend.  Unless, of course, you think brown people should not have the same right to citizenship in the land of their birth as white people.  Or don’t believe in “due process”.

Every bit of reasoning to “review”/“revise” or flat-out repeal the 14th is a cover for the racist intent.  Every other explanation is chickenshit from people too cowardly and too politically savvy to say “We want to reduce the numbers of non-white people in the US so they don’t become a majority.”

Notice that whenever anybody talks about illegal immigration, they don’t talk about the Eastern Europeans, especially all the Russians that moving into the NE.  Why? They are WHITE PEOPLE!  Most are decent, and hard-working, like all immigrants, but the Russian Mafia is known as the toughest, the craziest and the most brutal in the region.  But they are white so nobody gets their panties bunched up and sweaty over them.

I work with immigrants every day and have for nearly 30 years, as friends ans colleagues, and these people are NERVOUS…and I don’t blame them.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, October 12, 2010 at 4:19 pm Link to this comment

Humans are human all over the globe.  Only bigots believe otherwise.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, October 12, 2010 at 2:26 pm Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind, October 12 at 3:44 pm
“The Teaparty is pretty much unanimously in favor of repealing the 14th
Amendment. That is the hard-core proof they are racist.”

How do you arrive at that conclusion? You might want to consider a few other
aspects of the 14th that have to do with altering the status of “citizens” across the
board. The 14th was a bait and switch.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 12, 2010 at 11:44 am Link to this comment

Leefeller:

They are in denial.

The Teaparty is pretty much unanimously in favor of repealing the 14th Amendment.

That is the hard-core proof they are racist.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, October 12, 2010 at 8:12 am Link to this comment

call me Roy, October 11 at 10:29 pm
“In a year when America’s tea party activists have been surging, cable news
networks that slam the grassroots movement have been dying in the ratings.”

==============

Yes, and meanwhile, Beck’s ratings have also been dropping. He’s had to begin copying
Alex Jones’ material to some extent, but it looks like the PTB have had their way with
him and he easily could be headed out to pasture.

And also, meanwhile, Alex Jones’ ratings have continued to soar. While I wish he wasn’t so prone to the exaggeration he occasionally gets into on SOME topics, his reporting on MOST topics has been been nothing short of SPOT ON. To those people who consider him to wear a tin-foil hat, that’s because they haven’t listened to him enough to understand where he departs from the norm. Seriously. I don’t know how Mike Savage and the Drudge Report are doing, but I would imagine they’re probably experiencing the same increases, ........... because they’re telling the truth that isn’t being told elsewhere.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 12, 2010 at 8:08 am Link to this comment

Geeze! This thread seems to have the half life of radiation! And like radiation nothing changes.

Lets see one moron makes Glen Beck sound like the third coming of Christ,... yeah,.... I like to get my factoids from someone who believes he is going to get his own planet after kicking his own douche bucket,... while seeming alive Beck shows some sort of demented glee boring the rest of us to death. Tea party people must be morons to believe they are on a mission,... well they seem to have absolutely no discernment and as for bigoted that seems a given. Tea Baggers mission is to be Hired hands of the Kotch Brothers one could say the flack brothers. Do Tea Baggers get paid are do they act stupid for free?

GRYM seems an icon of Teabagger mental dysfunctions in spades!  One could attend a teabag convention at the local loony bin and find GRYM the main guest speaker! Tea baggers seem very like the KKK without the sheets and burning crosses,  I suppose the sheets and crosses come later?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 12, 2010 at 7:14 am Link to this comment

Rave on, GRYM, Rave on.

I’ve never claimed Teapartiers weren’t human or were humanly different than anyone else. And you know it, making your implication yet another one of your lies.  What I have claimed and implied is that they have made choices and that those choices are fundamentally racist.

You have been shown in a thousand ways how this is true based on facts, on statements of the leaders, of the uses of “code words”, even of bringing loaded guns to a Presidential rally and spitting on members of Congress.

You have come up with a fantastic and unbelievable array of purely sophist arguments, and ship-loads of red herrings in an attempt to cloud the issue and “prove” that the Teaparty isn’t fundamentally racist.

You have failed ignominiously and have responded with loud, phony claims that no one has taken up the challenge.  That’s long been a tactic of yours on many topics and, frankly, it went stale a year ago.

Your phony “definitions” (see below yours vs Websters), your skewed facts, your re-assertion of disproven points all shows you are nothing but a troll, here, not to present valid alternate views (which I welcome and conservatives like Rico present) but to disrupt discussion.  You and that “Die Hard” wannabe, “Call Me Roy” forget a fundamental principle:

You are entitled to your own opinion and to shade it any way you like.
You are not entitled to your own facts, nor are you entitled to shade them any way you like.

Everyone else here seems to know that.  Funny, most of them ignore you.  Perhaps I should too.

Report this

By Matzpen, October 12, 2010 at 6:34 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The obsessive and totally exclusive focus that the right-wing and tea party is getting from the mainstream media over-blows their size and sway, while falsely portraying this country as goose-stepping away from progressive ideals. The truth is the left is growing just as fast and the Tea Party is a Fox News manufactured paper tiger.
http://sherrytalksback.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/why-are-liberals-building-the-right/

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, October 12, 2010 at 6:32 am Link to this comment

ITW,

You can continue to rant, rave, and protest all you wish.  But let everyone here see the bottom line. 

For over 19 months, after my repeated requests, you are still unable to show even one educated study indicating that moderates, conservatives, independents or libertarians (the tea protesters) are any more or less racists than liberal groups.  Never once have you been able to put up an educated argument on this subject.  You offer nothing but your ideological and politically bigoted perceptions.

Humans are human all over the globe.  Only bigots believe otherwise.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 12, 2010 at 3:47 am Link to this comment

Where does one start with all of the “Die Hard” Wannabe’s false assertions?  He layers one falsehood on top of another, one false inference on top of another. Here’s just a point of fact: Europe’s economic problems are a direct result of the collapse of the American economy, not the other way around.  His Republican heroes had ALREADY spent us into bankruptcy even before they engineered the bailout in September 2008.

George W. Bush spent us into debt even before 9/11/2001.  When he came into office the US Government was running a surplus. By the time he left office we were drowning in debt, that Obama and the Democrats are desperate to keep from drowning us.

If we follow Wannabe’s plan, we’ll cut all discretionary funding, but it still won’t keep us from bankruptcy.  There are now only four places to address the bankrupting federal deficit:
1) Social Security.  Think the Tea Party is a revolution? It’s a tea party next to what happens if you shut down SSI and take all that money for the debt.
2) Medicare. See the Tea Party.
3) Defense.
4) Increase taxes which are the lowest % of GDP in something like 50 years.  “Growing our way out of debt” hasn’t work in the 30 years it’s been tried.

That’s it. We are caught with nothing but draconian solutions left to us by the GOP over 8 years of Bush, six of 8 years of Clinton, and 12 years of Reagan/Bush…and the Wannabe thinks it will be fixed by more of the same.

Insanity is repeating an action that has failed every time and expecting a different result.

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, October 11, 2010 at 10:58 pm Link to this comment

Roy old boy, greatness!?!?  quick detour for an update on greatness -
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/glenn_greenwald_is_on_collapsing_empire_watch_20101011/

Report this

By restarea, October 11, 2010 at 8:10 pm Link to this comment

For those of you don’t have time to read all of “Call me Roy’s” five-post diatribe, here is a Dr. Suessian summation to help you understand his point of view:
    There was a boy named Roy who had a toy that brought himself great joy. It was the pink fleshy things called gums. He loved to thump his gums like a big tin drum. He loved to hear the sound of his drum drum gums flapping in the wind. Bah-dah-rum dum dum. BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH Tea Party BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH Constitution BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH Liberals hate the middle class and love Communists BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH Beck is a hero and Palin is a babe BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH Liberals lie and smear Conservatives BLAH BLAH BLAH.

Report this

By call me roy, October 11, 2010 at 6:32 pm Link to this comment

I think the Tea Parties have gained so much popularity because many people, or perhaps most people, are finally realizing that an unchecked far-left liberal president, coupled with an unchecked far-left liberal Congress, could actually destroy this country. The country is also finding new wisdom in the words of Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, and Washington.
I know the far-left trolls out there hate to hear this, but we owe a huge debt to Glenn Beck for this. When was the last time you heard average Americans actually arguing over the Constitution? When was the last time you heard a large majority of Americans start to embrace the ideas of limited government, smaller government, less government spending, and less government intrusion into everybody’s daily lives? Although Obama, Reid, and Pelosi may have pushed liberals off a cliff for at least the next generation, it was people like Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Michelle Malikin, Coulter, and a few others that lighted the spark that started this new revolution. People were finally given the ultimate choice: Be more like Europe and spend yourselves into poverty, or go back to basics and use the tools that are found in the Constitution that made this country great. The Tea Party, as well as most of America, has chosen the latter. We will be great again.

Report this

By call me roy, October 11, 2010 at 6:29 pm Link to this comment

In a year when America’s tea party activists have been surging, cable news networks that slam the grassroots movement have been dying in the ratings. Is it merely coincidence? As widely reported, 2010’s first quarter ratings for cable news networks were released earlier this month. Compared to the numbers in 2009, Fox News Channel, frequently reported as a favorite of the tea partiers, actually gained 3 percent over last year’s numbers, but MSNBC, whose left-leaning commentary has been far more critical of the movement, has dropped 15 percent of its audience. Even more startling, however, is the ratings freefall of the former news giant CNN, whose viewing audience has been sliced by 39 percent. The continual decline of ratings for two key players CNN and MSNBC have many Americans calling these twins Pravda America. Americans want to hear objective reporting of news, instead of the non-stop cheerleading for the Obama Administration. If Pravda America doesn’t want to become more fair in their reporting- so be it. Let them go down the toilet with all the liberal media.

Report this

By call me roy, October 11, 2010 at 6:25 pm Link to this comment

Most recent Progressive meeting
Where’s that gavel? OK, (knock, knock, knock)
Speaker of the House (Nanci) speaks: Ladies and Gentlemen, may I have your attention. We Democrats are having this closed door meeting today after hearing comments from White House Press Secretary Gibbs about Republicans taking control of the House in the fall. I am sure everyone here today realizes what “dire straits” we find ourselves in for the November elections . Who would like to start this meeting with a recommendation?
(Representative Maxine Waters speaks: I will Nanci, Play the race card
Nanci : Sounds good to me, that works every time. I will contact the NAACP this evening.

Report this

By call me roy, October 11, 2010 at 6:21 pm Link to this comment

Hating the Middle Class by Emmett Tyrrell
The tea party movement is another perfectly middle-class phenomenon that sets off fires of indignation with the liberals. I could understand if they simply disagreed with the tea partyers. The tea partyers favor freedom, limited government, low taxes and addressing the staggering debt that government is piling up. These are values that liberals do not champion. But the liberals have to go further, depicting the tea partyers as violent racists. Once again we see how fluently the liberals lie, starting by lying to themselves.
Last week during a seminar at The Heritage Foundation on my new book, “After the Hangover: The Conservatives’ Road to Recovery,” Michael Barone, surely one of the most learned political observers of our time, made a very instructive point. While writing his fine book “Our Country: The Shaping of America From Roosevelt to Reagan,” he discovered that there was in the late 1930s a growing resistance against the New Deal’s spreading governmental tentacles. Very much as they are in today’s tea party movement, Americans were becoming uneasy about the cost and coercion of FDR’s huge government projects. Moreover, as Amity Shlaes has demonstrated in her most recent book, “The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression,” the New Deal was not ending the Depression, but lengthening it.
Barone now believes that had World War II not arrived, this late-1930s tea party manifestation would have supported a stiff challenge to FDR’s precedent-breaking third term. He speculates that there is something about America that makes many of its citizens relish their freedoms and suspicious of government involvement in areas Americans envisage as off-limits to government power and inefficiency. That something is the Constitution, which might explain why liberal judges want to be free to ignore it or disfigure it.
Yes, the liberals hate the middle class, and I think I tripped across the reason for their hatred while finishing “Hangover.” Whereas conservatism is fundamentally a temperament to delight in reality and in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, liberalism is fundamentally an anxiety. The environment? The Constitution? The middle class? Liberalism is an anxiety about reality. The liberals prefer fantasy to reality—hence their fluency in lying about the tea party movement and the pulchritudinous Sarah Palin.
The Liberals of today are not the Liberals of our father’s generation. The Progressive’s are now in control and when the NAACP invites a self admitted Communist to an award ceremony, this is not the NAACP of our father’s generation. The great Martin Luther King would not have approved. The Obama & Clinton’s dream of a Saul Alinsky world has started and is in the throngs of power. We are all in for a tough road. Remember, God gave America’s it’s liberties, God is in control.

Report this

By call me roy, October 11, 2010 at 6:18 pm Link to this comment

Martin Luther King is rolling in his grave. Why? Benjamin Todd Jealous is president and CEO of the NAACP and says Anthony “Van” Jones is a “National Treasure.” While Van Jones may have left the White House under a cloud, the NAACP says that’s not his whole story. The group considers him a pioneering hero for the environment and civil rights — so much so that it awarded him one of its highest honors: an NAACP Image Award. It’s a move that stoked the fire from Jones critics. Jones resigned in September 2009 from his position on the Council on Environmental Quality, under a firestorm of criticism over a petition he had signed. The NAACP keeps saying he is the most misunderstood man. I’m trying to figure out exactly where he’s misunderstood. Is he misunderstood because he’s a 9/11 Truther? Is he misunderstood because he’s a self avowed communist? Is he misunderstood because he is a guy who defended Mumia Abu Jamal, the cop killer? Let’s see. Is he understood because he wants a revolution? I’m trying to figure out how he’s misunderstood. How is he misunderstood? We know where Van Jones stands on Marx. The question I have now is: Where does the NAACP stand on Marx?Where does the “NEW” NAACP stand on the Black Panther party? Does the NAACP’s timing seem strange considering the November election is just around the corner? The NAACP would never use “the race card” would they?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 11, 2010 at 5:32 pm Link to this comment

GRYM:
“stubborn and complete intolerance of any belief or opinion that differs from one’s own.”

Webster’s 11th Collegiate:
“A person OBSTINATELY or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and PREJUDICES, esp: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.”

I distrust opinions, strive to divest myself of prejudice.  I merely look at the phony “facts” you present, the unsupported conclusions you reach from them, and your penchant for reiterating already disproven facts.

To you, this is “bigotry”. Of course, notice the KEY differences between YOUR phony-bull-ony definition of “bigot”, and Webster’s.

GRYM.  You are full of it from the tip of you toes to the top of your head.  You are here solely to push your right-wing views and by ANY MEANS NECESSARY.  You are the ultimate troll.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, October 11, 2010 at 1:29 pm Link to this comment

Bigot:

1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any belief or opinion that differs from one’s own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

-

When one displays zero tolerance for others points of view, ITW.  Precisely as I have written here, yes, hundreds of times.  As you very well know I could not care any less whether or not you agree with me.

You have somehow been conditioned to believe that “I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK” is righteous and honest.  Having nothing, whatsoever, to do with racism between the years 2001 and 2008.  Only after 2008, after a black man steps into the Oval, that exact same emotion and sentiment became code for “I hate black people”.

There are always protests of every administration.  Suddenly, according to you and a very small handful of others, today’s protests are rooted in racism?  Why?  Because you are all too aware there is a black man in the Oval?

You can rant, rave, and protest what I have observed in you all you wish.  But let everyone here see the bottom line.  For over 19 months, after my repeated requests, you have been unable to show even one educated study indicating that moderate, conservative, independent or libertarian political party’s are any more or less racists than liberal groups.  Humans are human all over the globe.  Only bigots believe otherwise.

Report this

By ardee, October 11, 2010 at 11:01 am Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man, October 11 at 10:43 am

I will answer you by ignoring your typical attempt to shuffle the conversation down alleys you attempt to push it in order to deflect real, factual and honest criticisms of what you support.

Of course racism can be found in all neighborhoods, though one hopes it diminishes with each generation. The criticism of the radical Tea Party does, rightfully, include the public expression of racism on display there. That public display is an issue and the fact that racism exists in private is certainly an issue,but not in this topic, except with you.

Again I assert that Tea Party folks are being manipulated without their understanding by an appeal to some real issues and by some manufactured ones.

Report this

By restarea, October 11, 2010 at 10:16 am Link to this comment

The Tea Party: It’s Worse Than You Think

  *

    Comment #12345 by restarea on 10/11 at 10:04 am

    Obviously it is very debatable to posters whether or not the Tea Party is a Racist organization—probably even debatable whether or not it is an organization. But what is not debatable by even the biggest stretch of the imagination or distortion of evidence is the fact that the Tea Party attracts the Caucasian racist demographic in this country among the other demographics that it attracts. This is blatantly clear by the words, rants, signs, writings, teachings, and actions of some of its members.
    It is also fact that the public speakers who appeal to the Tea Party (Beck, Savage, Hannity, Limbaugh, Eidsmoe, Williams, Palin, etc.) all speak and publish things that the Caucasian racist demographic are drawn to and who in turn use those words to stoke the fires of their own anger and aggression. And these two facts, not debatable, are alarming and cause for concern, caution, and perhaps even for some form of action to diffuse the flames of hatred before they become a raging unnatural disaster.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 11, 2010 at 9:12 am Link to this comment

BTW, what am I supposed to be bigoted against?

Or is this some kind of generic bigotry I’m accused of, whatever that means?

C’mon GRYM.  You’ve been tossing this hunk of shit out for a while.  Now tell me what I’m supposed be bigoted against!  Your POV? That’s not bigotry. That’s simple common sense.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 11, 2010 at 9:02 am Link to this comment

“Bigot”:

According to the GRYM secret Dictionary, is anyone who does not agree with GRYM and does not quietly accept his obfuscations and mis-representations.

GRYM uses this epithet frequently trying to generate traction since his “You have no honor” one had the traction of a bald tire in a pit of axle grease.

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, October 11, 2010 at 7:26 am Link to this comment

GRYM: Can anyone, anyone at all, share with us a sociology study indicating that common moderates, conservatives and independents (the Tea protesters) are any more of less racist than common liberal groups?

No, not on that specific a level. But you probably knew that, which is why you posted the dare.

Nonetheless, try this bit of research on for size here.

It proves nothing about the Tea Party unless one subsumes that group under “rich”, which I do. Otherwise, they’d be called the Beer Party.

The research does say, however, a great deal about the rich and their attitude towards the the poor - which is constituted, for a large part, by Hispanics and blacks in America. (And if I have to substantiate that comment  with BLS data, I am going to start charging a service fee! ;^)

Report this

By gerald vest, October 11, 2010 at 7:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

People who are prejudiced don’t own it or even recognize that their beliefs are out of touch with reality. As one of my teachers reminded us, prejudice is deeper than hypnosis, we don’t realize or recognize these beliefs as they are part of our upbringing or evolution, passed on to us by our family and others we trust and depend upon for our basic human neeeds.

Unfortunately, these religious zealots and ignorant persons only listen to themselves and will not change these patterns of conditioning unless their lives depend on it. Another name for these ignorant beings is—sleep state.

Report this

By ardee, October 11, 2010 at 6:30 am Link to this comment

Ouroborus, October 11 at 7:52 am

Nice to read you again.

I think you waste your time asking that one for proofs or even logical reasoning. I just finished a “rather spirited” debate with him in which I posted a list of reasons why democrats betray us and he simply spouted formulaic and simple minded nothings, refusing to respond to a single one of my points. In fact he blamed all progressives for the downfall of his beloved party???

As I mentioned in another thread,I was in the heart of Tea Party land for a fishing trip and encountered the same blind and unreasoning loyalty for that group as ITW displays for his own particular brand of unthinking loyalty.

Anyway, nice to see you here again.

Report this
Ouroborus's avatar

By Ouroborus, October 11, 2010 at 3:52 am Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind, October 11 at 12:07 am

The answer is to get out and vote Democratic, so that
the GOP suffers a horrendous defeat and turns on these
fascists.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And the Democrats are different? Just how?

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, October 11, 2010 at 1:48 am Link to this comment

THE VOID BEYOND

I still believe that we need to dissolve ourselves of the relationships we may have had with either party.

Which is slightly “brainless”. Doing away with a political system leaves a void that, itself, can lead to anarchy. Which is how Hitler came to power.

Reforming the system is a far surer alternative. And which is why I posted earlier the reformations necessary in Lafayette’s Platform – Part 2. Namely, we must do away with the gerrymandering that has ossified the House of Reps and the warped influence of money. As for the Senate; it is up to the public to decide whether this body should be dominated by a class of millionaires.

Maybe two-thirds, or thereabouts, of the Senate are millionaires. (Don’t believe that fact? See here.)

Do you think millionaire Senators have your needs in mind when they vote? They do? So, go ahead, keep them in office. Poor things, with all that money, they haven’t the foggiest idea of what to do with themselves – politics suits their plump vanities just fine. Or, like McCain, the seat can get you married to one …

Rubbishing our system of representative democracy is very dangerous. We could, however, make it more functional by taking money out of the electoral equation – which is a sine qua non to better government. If one cannot agree with that assessment, then this debate is moot.

SWISS DEMOCRACY

We could also take a page out of the Swiss style of democratic governance that employs National Referendums. It has done so for over 150 years and has had a stable government during that period.

And, puhleeze, let’s forget about California and its puerile use of state referendums.

Referendums, however, do require these two attributes:
•  A fairly well educated electorate that keeps informed of the details of legislation that is presented on referendum ballots. 
•  An electorate willing to pound-the-pavement to obtain the number of elector signatures necessary to put on the ballot a question that would rescind any law made by either the state or federal legislature. (Which makes legislative representatives think twice about what they pass as law. It is the best example of direct democracy since town meetings.)

It is not the least bit sure that the American public is up to the above grade of electoral maturity. But direct democracy is certainly more effective than bitching-in-a-blog.

POST SCRIPTUM

I was pleased to read an article recently that contested the wisdom that money has any real influence in politics. It pointed out that Whitman in California has spent 120 megabucks to arrive in second-place to Brown (who has spent only 11 megabucks). The inference is that money is necessary to get one known, then beyond that, other attributes of a politician take prevalence.

That seems like goodness. Maybe American can indeed see beyond the Media Smokescreen?  Or is that too good to be true … ?

It is difficult to understand how anyone can keep a balanced mind when overwhelmed by the Advertising Blitz that is commonplace on American TV.

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, October 11, 2010 at 12:26 am Link to this comment

It is a psy opps created and funded for plutocractic political ends.

agreed

the Koch Bros. rent the hall and fly in Palin et al. to take the stage and stoke up
useful fools like the guy with the nonsensical sign accusing our Wall-Street-
Puppet POTUS of pushing Socialism - not only is it hyped out of proportion by
Faux News, but by Demagogy Now, as the war rolls on and the hegemonic agenda
of the global finance oligarchy advances as usual

I’ll weigh in with studied info. on any issue, but won’t fight with wedge-issue
provocateurs

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, October 10, 2010 at 8:38 pm Link to this comment

I agree with ITW on the issue of the Tea Party, however, I don’t agree that voting
Democrat will solve the problem. Just my opinion. I still believe that we need to
dissolve ourselves of the relationships we may have had with either party.

While I still think there may be some decent and honest citizens in that party, and
even within the Republican Party as well, the leadership of both needs an entire
overhaul and that, I don’t believe will happen until we take all those bastards up
before a firing squad, so to speak, for abusing their authority and violating the
public trust.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 10, 2010 at 8:07 pm Link to this comment

I disagree.  I think the GOP is scared out of its socks that the each and every elected GOPer will be the next target of the TP—and they have been brilliantly effective at ousting entrenched office holders.  So the GOPs in power are parroting the TP line in a desperate attempt to curry favor as if to say “Please, Please, Gov. Palin. I’ll be good. Don’t sic your lipsticked pitbulls on me”. 

The answer is to get out and vote Democratic, so that the GOP suffers a horrendous defeat and turns on these fascists.

Because NOTHING is more sacred to a politician of any stripe than getting re-elected.

Report this
G.Anderson's avatar

By G.Anderson, October 10, 2010 at 5:51 pm Link to this comment

Now that we have jerked off our anger about racism… maybe there is something we should consider.

The Tea Party, is well funded by the plutocracy in this country, for several reasons.

Number one of which is the fear that America could produce a truly independent third party. One that is not owned by the plutocracy. They absolutely do not want a functioning third party in this country.

In this sense the Tea Party functions as a faux political party to absorb and channel political anger into faux action, that will ultimately do nothing to threaten the plutocracy, and it’s hold on American politics.

Much as the Faux EPA does, in terms of enviornmental issues, protecting the plutocracy from enviornmentalists, rather than protect the enviornment from criminal coporations.

It does this by increasing anger and disatisfaction and exploiting it for divisive ends, such as cosmetic issues, rather then providing real political action and focus. Channeling it away from solution, and instead exploiting divisions that already exist to ultimately create a climate of hopelessnesss.

Much like Faux news, it disembles, creates doubt, challenges crtics with ad hominem attacks, smears, and exploits emotional response to create confusion, and disorganization, in what it views as it’s political enemies.

To maintain power on the part of the plutocracy, and prevent political awareness, and change.

It is a psy opps created and funded for plutocractic political ends.

Report this

By Don, October 10, 2010 at 4:59 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am opposed to both legal and illegal immigration.  This country is overpopulated, and 21 million Americans are out of work.

Report this

By Daniel, October 10, 2010 at 3:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It is impossible to follow these comments if you don’t allow us to sort from the earliest to the latest. Too bad, as many of the comments are very interesting, but I can’t follow the thread.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 10, 2010 at 2:49 pm Link to this comment


Can anyone, anyone at all, share with us a single learned study which indicates white people as more or less racist than any other grouping of people?

**********************

Forget it. It’s just another one of GRYM’s red herrings. I doubt anyone would contend that Whites are inherently more racist than any other race…the question itself implies racism.  But have the White race committed more racially motivated acts in the last 500 years than any other race? Well the answer is probably “yes”.

But that’s STILL irrelevant.  The question is: Is the Tea Party a fundamentally White racist movement.  And it’s hard to argue that it’s not.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 10, 2010 at 2:45 pm Link to this comment

Lafayette, October 10 at 5:32 pm Link to this comment

  ITW: Oui, S’il vous preferez. 

Plutot, “Oui, si vous le préférez.”

Les leçons de Français sont gratuites.

************

Merci….je pense….

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, October 10, 2010 at 2:33 pm Link to this comment

RE: By Go Right Young Man, October 10 at 10:39 am

Can anyone, anyone at all, share with us a single learned study which indicates white people as more or less racist than any other grouping of people? 

A: Historically speaking, the question answeres itself in this form: who has most benefited (at least in the US) from racist constructs?

from http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Sociology/Race_and_Ethnicity

Constructing Race in the U.S.
Since the early days of the United States, Native Americans, African-Americans and European-Americans were classified as belonging to different races. But the criteria for membership in these races were radically different. For Africans, the government considered anyone with African appearance to be purely African. Native Americans, on the other hand, were classified based on a certain percentage of Indian blood. Finally, European-Americans had to have purely white ancestry. The differing criteria for assigning membership to particular races had relatively little to do with biology; it had far more to do with maintaining a group’s defined roles and position.

Some researchers and historians have proposed that the intent of the differing criteria for racial designations was to concentrate power, wealth, privilege, and land in the hands of European-Americans.[7][8] As a result, the offspring of an African slave and European master or mistress would be considered an African. Significant in terms of the economics of slavery, the mixed-race child of a slave mother also would be a slave, adding to the wealth of the slaveowner.

Contrast the African criteria with that of Native Americans; a person of Native American and African parentage automatically was classified as African. But the offspring of only a few generations of Native Americans and Europeans were not considered Indian at all - at least not in a legal sense. Native Americans had treaty rights to land, but individuals with only one Indian great-grandparent were no longer classified as Native American, disenfranchising them from their claims to Native American lands. Of course, the same individuals who could be denied legal claim to Native American lands because they were too White, were still Native American enough to be considered half-breeds and were stigmatized as a result.

In an economy benefitting from slave labor, it was useful to have as many African slaves as possible. Conversely, in a nation bent on westward expansion, it was advantageous to diminish the numbers of those who could claim title to Indian lands by classifying them out of existence. Both schemes benefitted the third group, the racially pure whites. The point being, of course, that the classifications of race in the early U.S. were socially constructed in a fashion that benefitted one race over the others.

Re: GRYM’s input on this issue, generally speaking, it’s a distraction, as usual - distracting one and all in the trenches to focus their fear and loathing into a self-defeating Left-vs-Right quagmire; while the global finance oligarchy advances its agenda

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, October 10, 2010 at 1:52 pm Link to this comment

REAL UTILIITY

Felicity: Social justice and economic justice seldom get off the back burner

This is the first time I have seen anyone mention Social Justice in a forum, other than myself.

It is a key value of any supposedly developed society. America is light-years away from the same sense of Social Justice as Europe. But it has been further away, as well, from the political development of socialist thought.

Besides, socialism has been cast as the devil’s handmaiden in America, as the pic captioned in this article so well demonstrates. 

Perhaps this is for historical reasons, meaning that the onus on capitalism has been prevalent since the country’s inception. In fact, Manifest Destiny was quite likely simply a tool to consolidate as much territory as possible in order to exploit it for business purposes of making a profit. (Which is not bad as a national objective, but not nearly good enough either.)

The sharing of the wealth generated by the economy is of little concern to Americans, who would not likely know the difference between a Gini Coefficient and the gini in a bottle.

As well, income distribution analyses (that I’ve posted) has shown also that the warped distribution goes back to the beginning of the 20th century when the information was first recorded. Which likely means that it goes back even further to the founding fathers as well; who probably had very little notion of capitalism per se since they were mostly landed gentry, the source of all wealth in the Agricultural Age.

Now that wealth has become both exaggerated and abundant and much easier to create, perhaps some thought is going to questioning its Real Utility?

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, October 10, 2010 at 1:32 pm Link to this comment

ITW: Oui, S’il vous preferez. 

Plutot, “Oui, si vous le préférez.”

Les leçons de Français sont gratuites.

Report this

By The Prisoner, October 10, 2010 at 1:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In reading the comments of Go Right Young Man, I am struck by his sheer lack of objectivity when it comes to the topic of white racism in our country’s history.  When he asks about studies to prove the impossible, he ignores the fact that studies are funded by the ‘leaders’ of society and that they are the ones who decide what topics to study.  When he asks for negation of his illogical arguments, he shows his lack of willingness to acknowledge the stupidity of his beliefs by setting up rhetoric as fact.  When he asks for proof of the lack of documented racism on behalf of other races, he truly ignores the obvious.  It is a sad commentary on the behalf of our citizens that ignorant people like him still exist in a country where the opportunity to stem ignorance is so abundant.  Go back to watching NASCAR young man, it is the highest form of education you will ever earn.

Report this

By Pshycobabbler, October 10, 2010 at 11:33 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Restore Human Decency”

I would TOTALLY march for that movement

dude or dudette.

Report this

By ronh, October 10, 2010 at 9:37 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I would like to be a fly on the wall when ‘top-ranked’ tea party members meet and they all know each other as a staunch teabagger.

Report this

By felicity, October 10, 2010 at 9:33 am Link to this comment

Lafayette - POLITICAL PLATFORM. As written, I agree. 
We spend an inordinate amount of time talking and
writing and etc. on the subject of political justice. 
Social justice and economic justice seldom get off
the back burner - especially social justice which
seems to have left our democratic discourses
altogether. 

Inherit - When T. Jefferson said following the
adoption of the Constitution that it was probably
good for no more than 30 years and then it would need
to be severely amended or, better yet, chucked and a
new one written we should, by this time, have taken
him at his word. Your comment on Lafayette’s
‘political platform’ would have no legs if we didn’t
still have this damn Constitution screwing everything
up.  (The New Yorker writer, Hendrik Hertzberg, has
been on a veritable dump-the-bugger crusade for
years.)

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 10, 2010 at 9:32 am Link to this comment

Oui, S’il vous preferez.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, October 10, 2010 at 9:23 am Link to this comment

kerryrose,
“The Tea Party characterizes itself as ‘grassroots’ which is patently untrue.”

Try telling the average Tea Party person who was attracted to that group out of
frustration with the big two, that they’d been hoodwinked by corporate
interests ...........again. I think you’d have a huge argument with them.

While what you say may have an element of truth, I would still argue that the
majority of Tea Party people are there, not to revitalize the Republican Party,
but to get beyond both it AND the Democrat Party.

Again, it comes down to smaller internal groups attempting to subvert the larger cause
to suit their own purposes. Until you or anyone is able to do a poll to
distinguish the numbers between the valid and non-valid Teabaggers, we’re
just spinning our wheels even talking about it.

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, October 10, 2010 at 9:14 am Link to this comment

ITW: Pretty talk. Totally unrealistic.  It will take an event of catastrophic proportions to end the abomination we call the “Electoral College” and the 2 Senators/state, regardless of size.

Frankly, of all that is proposed, the Electoral College is a minor point and I did not suggest changing the two senators per state.

So everything is “totally unrealistic”? Wishful thinking on your part ???

Shall I try French next time. ;^)

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 10, 2010 at 9:07 am Link to this comment

(yawn)

If advocacy of the repeal of the 14th Amendment isn’t proof of racism, then there’s no such thing as racism.

Report this
kerryrose's avatar

By kerryrose, October 10, 2010 at 9:07 am Link to this comment

BR549

Recognizing the hatred and political intentions of the Tea Party in no way exonerates Republicans or Democrats.  I don’t qualify my comments with ‘but the Republicans or Democrats are just as bad.’  This blog happens to be about the Tea Party which is why my comments focus on the Tea Party. 

The Tea Party characterizes itself as ‘grassroots’ which is patently untrue.  They have aligned themselves with corporate interests who have an agenda.  Since they do not distance themselves from those controlling interests they are, by association, guilty of the same.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, October 10, 2010 at 8:50 am Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man, October 10 at 11:11 am

Well illustrated. Racism too often turns up as the reason people use to dismiss the
arguments of others when their own arguments border on specious.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, October 10, 2010 at 8:36 am Link to this comment

Kerryrose, October 10 at 9:45 am
“BR549, If I couldn’t impress you with the Tea Party Nazi, maybe this will help.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/10/english-defence-league-tea-party

Actually, that link even further proves my point. Thank you for that. This link throws the Muslim factor into the equation, which when thrown on top of all the other stressors from politics, finances, social fragmentation, etc., only adds to the larger picture; that being that more and more factions are going to pop out of the woodwork in different attempts to preserve even a smidgeon of their cultural identities.

The xenophobia stemming from white supremacy groups is no different than the raft of apologetic Democrats vehemently still supporting a president who had long ago sold them out, or the Pro-Life retards that are willing to bomb a clinic or assassinate people in the name of God, or the NeoCons who unflinchingly lie to the entire world as they swindle tax dollars to pay for wars that have killed millions. Please show me the difference here.

I am in no way apologizing for anyone here. My original point was to illustrate that not everyone who had affiliated themselves with the Tea Party is fully aware of or even supportive of the supremacy aspects of where only a portion of that group is headed. Again, it would be like foreigners thinking that all Americans were of the Bush mindset, which couldn’t be further from the truth.

All I was suggesting was that we give credit to that aspect and those people within the Tea Party who see themselves as legitimate patriots supporting the Constitution and that does not include the whackos who are trying to commandeer the movement. Speaking of commandeering, look what happened with both the Democrat and Republican parties. With all the lying and killing that has taken place within both of those, how could ANYONE criticize the Tea Party?

Personally, while I can identify with the patriotic aspects, I in no way choose to align myself with the racist segment of that group. But that is the same problem the average American has had with any of these parties. They put their support behind a party only to find that party had morphed into a Death Star overnight. We have to look at the larger picture, here, and not get stuck in the tangential aspects of the situation. If people are isolating themselves into these factions, it’s because the PTB know all to well that a divided house will fall. They are using this very aspect to further divide this country and too many people are still falling for that crap instead of seeing through it.

Report this

By ckerst, October 10, 2010 at 7:25 am Link to this comment

“Can anyone, anyone at all, share with us a single learned study which indicates white people as more or less racist than any other grouping of people?”
to Go Right Young Man:
It’s not a question of one group being more racist than another. It’s about the majority oppressing and taking advantage of a minority. It’s wrong, there is no question about that.

Report this
kerryrose's avatar

By kerryrose, October 10, 2010 at 7:19 am Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man

Recognizing hate within our midst is never dangerous.  It is essential to a democracy.  Not to see the big picture beyond MSM is dangerous.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, October 10, 2010 at 7:11 am Link to this comment

One of the most common depictions of (white) President Bush from the Left was Adolf Hitler.  This is not racism.

One of the most common depictions of (black) President Obama is Adolf Hitler.  This is racism.

President Bush was commonly depicted as Curious George.  This was not racism.  It was humor.

President Obama has been depicted as Curious George.  This is racism.  And it’s not funny.

Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush were all hung and burned in effigy at nearly every protest.  This is not racism.

President Obama is hung and burned in effigy during a small handful of protests.  This is racism.

The Left never accepted George Bush as president. Throughout his entire two terms the Left cried how they wanted their country back from an Neo-Con cabal in the White House.  This was not racism.

Today’s protesters make clear they want their country back from (new) socialists in the White House.  This, we are told, is code for what?  Racism.

Voices in the New Black Panther Party talk openly about killing white babies.  We’re told we shouldn’t dare equate such open hatred with the whole of the liberal mind.  It’s not fair.

A man holds a clearly racist sign during a Tea protest and we’re told the man clearly represents Tea protesters as a whole.

The majority of democrats voted against the white candidate in Nov. 2008.  This, we’re told, is simply policy minded politics.

The majority of Republicans voted against the black candidate in Nov. 2008.  This, we are told, is the clearest sign of racism in white America one can imagine.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, October 10, 2010 at 6:39 am Link to this comment

For well over a year I have asked this one question multiples of dozens of times here on TruthDig with never answer.  Can anyone, anyone at all, share with us a single learned study which indicates white people as more or less racist than any other grouping of people?  Can anyone, anyone at all, share with us a sociology study indicating that common moderates, conservatives and independents (the Tea protesters) are any more of less racist than common liberal groups?

All this talk of meanie Tea protesters is simply not very bright.  It’s the surest sign of individuals who ingest far too much media.

-

Put up or shut up

Share something of substance or shut the hell up.  Share with us something educated or shut the hell up.  Show us something, anything, aside from yet another bigoted media driven opinion or shut the hell up.

What you are doing is dangerous.  SHOW US SOMETHING OF SUBSTANCE or end these hateful diatribes which helps no one and proves extremely dangerous.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 10, 2010 at 5:48 am Link to this comment

Lafayette:

Pretty talk. Totally unrealistic.  It will take an event of catastrophic proportions to end the abomination we call the “Electoral College” and the 2 Senators/state, regardless of size.

Article V of the United States Constitution:
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall
deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

In other words, 3/4 of the states must agree to end the electoral college.  The 13 smallest states (by pop) are:
Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Idaho, and Nebraska. Together they have approximately 13.4 million people, about 4.4% of the national population.

But they have 26 senators, 26% of the Senate.  Not even a 20th of the population controls over 1/4 of the Senate.

They have 20 Congressional seats, approximately equal to their population, about 4.6% of the House.

They have 46 electoral votes, over 8.5% of the electoral votes, nearly double what their population justifies.

So we can safely expect that there is NO WAY these 13 states will vote to cut their influence in the Presidential elections in half.

We can safely expect that there is NO WAY these 13 states will vote to cut their influence in the Senate to less than 1/6 of what it is now.

Add the numbers up yourself.  Your plan will not happen anytime soon.

Report this
kerryrose's avatar

By kerryrose, October 10, 2010 at 5:45 am Link to this comment

BR549

If I couldn’t impress you with the Tea Party Nazi, maybe this will help.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/10/english-defence-league-tea-party

Report this
JohnMcD's avatar

By JohnMcD, October 10, 2010 at 12:14 am Link to this comment

The Tea Part Part shows to me how quickly a
subversive idea can become a part of the official PR
machine of the establishment.  Republican corporate
sponsors took dissatisfaction with Bush and the
general neo-con agenda, but they’ve managed to break
it down to the lowest common denominator, confuse the
issues, and then turn that in to something that goes
counter to the original idea.

Perhaps what scares me most though, is that the
American people have rightly recognized that they
have few friends in Washington D.C.  When looking for
change, any radical and revolutionary movement can
seem refreshing.  Democrats want to take credit for
saving a financial system that doesn’t do much for
the average worker or small business, and many people
might actually believe the Tea Party would destroy
said system despite being bankrolled by the very
businesses that benefit. 

Without a balanced alternative offering a different
kind of revolutionary change, we could be headed to
FoX-land - or at the very least we’re stuck in the
shadow of Bush’s PATRIOT Act legacy.

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, October 9, 2010 at 11:01 pm Link to this comment

POLITICAL PLATFORM – PART ONE

Where is the “Lafayette Platform”?


So pleased you asked. Here is Lafayette’s Platform (Part One, Economic):

First Economic Policy Objective (EPO): Restore Human Decency (Income Fairness)
•  Raise marginal tax rates on household income above $250K to ultimately 80% and Capital Gains tax to 50%

Second EPO: Keynesian Infrastructural Expenditure
•  Spend tax revenues (from above) on specific Infrastructural Projects, tightly related to Renewable Energy Supplies, including state-of-the-art Electricity Grid.

Third EPO: Restore Human Decency (Housing)
•  Force all illegal foreclosure procedures to negotiation of lower credit rates, such that households are maintained at affordable repayment schemes.
•  Commence Federal program to guaranty first two years of repayment schedule for newly purchased residential acquisition (with an initial down-payment of 10% of purchase value).

Fourth EPO: Restore Human Decency (Health Care)
•  Adopt a subscriber Public Option (PO) funded by payroll tax for all comers.
•  Assure that PO GP & Specialist service-pricing is mandated at affordable levels of return to the physician, reimbursements directly to the patient, by means of a National Health Service Card (and electronic storage of medical records). The patient would pay 15% of all Preventive Medicine service fees (GP, diagnostics, etc.)
•  All Remedial Medical Services justified (by a Designated GP of the patient’s choice), with 100% reimbursement to the patient of all Remedial Medical fees.
•  Risk of losing license to practice (of all physicians) for fees that are found either abusive or unjustifiably repetitive (to be decided by a jury of peers).
•  Cap malpractice fees to reimbursement of damages (for loss of capacity, physical or financial) and make illegal all punitive fees.

Fifth EPO: Workforce Skills Renewal and Enhancement, Investment in both Secondary and Tertiary Education
•  Performance-related pedagogical tests periodically for all secondary-school teachers.
•  Bonus payments for excelling base requirements
•  Establish and fund Federally (for each school district) a staff of pedagogical psychologists responsible for surveillance of student performance and selection of courses adapted to a child’s inherent abilities. (Early selection of vocational or college/university educational vectors).
•  Establish and fund a lifelong Skills Enhancement Program for all those who find themselves unemployed and unemployable, coupled with an apprenticeship program for employment reinsertion in commerce/industry.

Sixth EPO: Restore economic vitality by deconstruction of market concentration
•  All market sectors and segments to be investigated for excessive market concentration and where found non-competitive to be deconstructed (by resale to other parties of corporate market entities).
•  Establishment of a Public Services Directorate that oversees certain unavoidable oligopolies (of any service delivery the means of which demonstrate inherently insufficient plurality of suppliers or demand outstrips available supply, creating rent-seeking markets)
•  Give teeth to the Federal Consumer Bureau to police market practices for fairness in the provision of commercial services (such as banking, lending, rental, advertizing, etc.) Allow independent surveillance bodies to engage their “findings” towards preparation of legal proceedings.

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, October 9, 2010 at 10:57 pm Link to this comment

POLITICAL PLATFORM – PART TWO

BR549: Where is the “Lafayette Platform”?


So pleased you asked. Here is Lafayette’s Platform (Part Two, Political Reform):

First Political Reform Objective (PRO): Probity in politics
•  Outlaw all gerrymandering at the state level and reform the electoral map according to census population figures so as to assure egalitarian choice (“one person, one vote” universal suffrage).
•  Outlaw all corporate financing intended for any direct subvention of a candidate. Allow all Good Corporate Citizen payments to a Federal Fund “Getting out the vote”.
•  Financial support of candidates assured minimally by Federal funding of both incumbents and non-incumbents, with individual payments to any candidate restricted to $2500 per registered voter per election.
•  Impeachment in case of abuse of electoral law (as specified above) by a fully bi-partisan jury of peers (not the entire legislative house).

Second PRO: Restore political democracy
•  Free media time allotted to all candidates equally (whether a local, state or national election) for expression of views/opinions or concurrent debates, the cost of which is declared as a deduction from corporate taxes. Non-profit media channels will be obliged to offer all incumbent and opposition candidates strictly equal media time. Whether prior or post any electoral period.
•  Make illegal the Senate super-majority rule, all Congressional votes to be decided strictly by majority rule.
•  Demise of the Electoral College and suffrage by total recorded election votes.
•  Federal funding of all candidates in registered party primaries.

Report this

By SteveL, October 9, 2010 at 8:34 pm Link to this comment

Ever since Reagan the right has gone a can you top this exercise in punishing the
bottom half of the economic spectrum.  When the bottom half of the economy was
not enough for them they increase their focus on punishing the lower 7/8s.  The
right will never be satisfied until much of the populous is living under overpasses
and eating dog food.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, October 9, 2010 at 7:43 pm Link to this comment

kerryrose, October 9 at 7:34 pm
“Here is an interesting Tea Party candidate.  He likes to dress up and play Nazi.  It is a costume that would get him arrested in Germany today.  ......... http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/
why-is-this-gop-house-candidate-dressed-as-a-nazi/64319/ “

——————————————

Interesting, I had quite by accident befriended a former Kriegsmarine armament designer back in the ‘80s. He was a bit apprehensive, at first meeting, because he wasn’t quite sure where I was coming from, but we soon became good friends. Despite the near 30 year difference in our ages, plus the language barrier, we were finally able to get most of our points across.

We got into a discussion one day about how many German people had gone along with their government’s direction, back then. He said, and I’ll never forget this, “We kept hearing the same things on the radio everyday, about how all these countries and people were trying to sabotage our system and our way of life. After a while, we just believed it all. I mean, who wants to admit that their own government would be lying to them?”

He was 17 when the war first broke out over there, and still very impressionable. He said, “We just believed what they were telling us, although we later found out that they weren’t telling us everything.”

He said that most Germans seemed to think like him. It wasn’t until too late that they discovered how bad the war had drained their economy and how many soldiers they were actually losing. Our conversations took place over the course of a year, after which time he had ended his visit with his sister-in-law here in the US and went back to Berlin where he passed away soon afterward. His wife had sent me a nice note stating how much his and my conversations had given him much peace in reconciling that part of his earlier life.

My point is that not everyone in Germany was a Nazi or in the SS, just like not everyone in the US was a sick and crazed sociopathic Neocon like Karl Rove or Paul Wolfowitz, who were really “our” modern day versions of that Nazi mentality. Many of the German people had just wanted to go about their day, little realizing that their government was performing gross atrocities.

Some things just never seem to change.

Now, the reason this gentleman and I became befriended in the first place was through my researching files that were still being suppressed by our government relative to that war. Our meeting was actually quite by accident. My interest was solely out of the desire to try to reconstruct what I could of the events of that time period and just because I happened to have had Third Reich paperwork and artifacts around my house during that time in no way makes me a Nazi sympathizer. If anything, these items had been visual reminders to keep me focused on learning whatever I could about what had happened during that time in human history.

As for the re-enactment scenarios listed in that Atlantic article in that link provided, it would be hard to recreate the mindset of the suffering Pols, since for all practical purposes, it would look not unlike like Central Park or one of the Hoovervilles during the Great Depression here in the US; not making much of an impression or giving much reason to have any re-enactment at all.

Unless this guy in Ohio (in your link) professes some affinity for the Third Reich, I think people here should focus more on getting some sleep at night instead of dreaming up boogey-men behind every tree. We have re-enactment scenarios conducted every year in this country about the Civil War even though atrocities were committed on both sides. That doesn’t make the participants necessarily guilty of those atrocities; only willing to carry out local traditions that now consider those re-enactments as “patriotic”.

Do yourself a favor, get some sleep. Worry about the things that need worrying about.

Report this
Orbis Unum's avatar

By Orbis Unum, October 9, 2010 at 6:33 pm Link to this comment

Re: BR549, October 9 at 4:31 pm.

This posting is my last specifically addressing the issues related herein. I have posted within the so-called “Truthdig” forum on very rare occasions.

This being one of them.

But what I have to say to those who choose to share their ideological conditions via their own chosen logos to express their specific generalities upon the content presented herein, I have at all times come in Good Will seeking Universal Peace.

Having said this, I wish to take this time to express my belief and deep seated honor via Variation by Agreement, that each of you who have chosen to give of your time and effort to respond to various subject matter from your various respective conditions, I hold out in return therefore, and forthwith, the light of the Science of Right Reason.

Solely, in hopes that on and individual basis you might entertain the idea of alliance to Stand against those who have enslaved you. I have asked each of you via the Science of Right Reason to establish Variation by Agreement to exercise your birthright to self-determination. Free, from arbitrary powers and unregulated monopolies.

As to answer BR549, concerning the whereabouts of “Lafayette’s [present or otherwise] Platform”, I would venture to address in similar fashion as General Lafayette answered such queries before the Assembly of Notables in 1788 in Paris, France.

General Lafayette was quoted as saying, “It is a great ship but without sail” when questioned about the nature and character of the newly formed Republic, formerly referred to as the United States of North America at the time.

General Lafayette, saw in the style and form of the newly formed Republic, a divided House, led by a Mast of Power, unable to move its great State of Affairs, without so much as the assistance upon which unlimited liability would rest, for decisions of State. But what General Lafayette would not live to see, is the death nail to State’s Right obliterated on the Altar of Freedom, during and after the Great Civil War, which would rest from former State’s Rights, that great sail necessary to put to rest the former Republic, the unlimited liability for decisions of State, within the hands of the Presidency of the United States via the Commander-In-Chief within the newly formed Republic arising thereafter.

Having said all this, what I believe BR549 is reasonably stating, when he states, “It would be far more constructive to figure out a way to help coalesce our forces than to continue to deride the Tea Party’s stumbling through this process”, is that it behooves us to reasonably garner what resources we may Claim and begin anew. If I’m not far afield, BR549 has recognized the efforts of others, not necessarily agreeing with their reasoning but giving whomever the respect due for trying within whatever condition they may be found in, a willingness to at least become doers, instead of going along to get along, when faced with evinces which most assuredly are designed to enslave them utterly. And just like his feeling on the matter, I neither condemn but instead have asked of all to seek counsel before stepping out onto the field of honor and know who you are beyond a reasonable doubt. And the only way to successfully do this, is via Variation by Agreement to State a Claim for which Relief can be Granted before a Candid world. 

At least the Record shall Stand to prove before a candid World, the truth of any matter. And with hope in divine providence, shall prevail with those United in Trust and Bound in Honor, so pledged thereby, to dare maintain and preserve their just consent and liberties for generations to come.

What is most prudent at these junctures in time, is to seek foreign alliances, just as the United States of America did in 1776. Otherwise, it will be viewed simply as an internal affair, lacking international character to ask for assistance concerning arbitrary public authorities or unregulated monopolies.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 9, 2010 at 5:44 pm Link to this comment

Lafayette:

Not a riddle at all.  Too many psychologists forget Freud’s profound come-back-earth comment that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.  Much of what we do and who we are is inculcated at an early age.  But we are creatures capable of logic and can elect to change what we do.  Over the years when friends told me the crap that family members would pull, I would say: They are pushing your buttons.  The way to get them to stop is to recognize when they are doing that, and react in totally unexpected ways. Confuses and upsets the hell out of them! Soon they stop.

You are nit-picking on my use of ethnic types.  I could just as easily said White, Black, Yellow, and Brown.  You don’t get to choose that no matter how you nit-pick.  My point, which you tried to obfuscate, is that you pick your politics, not your ethnicity.  Therefore, broad generalizations about political groups do not necessarily indicate bigotry, especially if the facts upon which these generalizations are based are either accurate, or you believe them to be accurate.

This implies that when you learn they are inaccurate, you alter the generalization.

However, the amount of crap that GRYM throws out to try to convince us that what we see about the Teaparty with our own eyes isn’t really happen, does not constitute a valid challenge to facts.

He loves to toss out two:

1) that 90% of Blacks voted for Obama.  Aren’t they therefore racist?  Why? When 85% generally vote Democratic anyway, even when the candidate is John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter…etc?

2)The New Black Panther Party and its inappropriate actions, which is NOT connected in any way, shape or form to the REAL Black Panther Party, and consists of something like 30-50 members—less than David Koresh had, and acknowledged loony.  Less even than that group that committed suicide to ride the ET spaceship hiding behind Comet Hale-Bopp.

Deliberate obfuscations to defend the racist policies of the Teaparty and the GOP that has generally, whole-heartedly endorsed them.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 9, 2010 at 5:28 pm Link to this comment

{i]Peetawonkus, October 9 at 10:41 am Link to this comment

Tea Baggers racist? Preposterous! Why? Because…they say so. Or, to quote that Groucho Marxist, “Who are you going to believe, me or the evidence of your own eyes?
******************

Actually, it was Chico Marx, in “Duck Soup”, dressed up to look like Groucho, in a nightshirt. He said it to Margaret Dumont: “Who you gonna believe-a? Me, or your own eyes?” (Harpo dressed up the same way in the movie)

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, October 9, 2010 at 3:45 pm Link to this comment

felicity, - “Perhaps we’re more on the same page than we think?”

-

It seems so, yes.  I sincerely apologize if I assumed too much.

Report this
kerryrose's avatar

By kerryrose, October 9, 2010 at 3:34 pm Link to this comment

Here is an interesting Tea Party candidate.  He likes to dress up and play Nazi.  It is a costume that would get him arrested in Germany today.

No, not racist, just worried about the good old tax and spend government.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/why-is-this-gop-house-candidate-dressed-as-a-nazi/64319/

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, October 9, 2010 at 12:31 pm Link to this comment

Re: Lafayette, October 9 at 1:15 pm

I guess we all see different things in the material given. It sounds to me like, as
justifiably frustrated as all those Tea Party people may be, you’d send them to
the firing squad because they haven’t been able to better organize their
campaign.

Where is the “Lafayette Platform”? I haven’t seen that one yet on the political
horizon. I see a lot of tomato throwing from the back rows, here, but not much
more than that. I think we should at least be thankful that these people are as
disgusted as we are with the current state of affairs.

It would be far more constructive to figure out a way to help coalesce our
forces than to continue to deride the Tea Party’s stumbling through this
process. Who gives a rat’s ass if they are organized? We should at least be
thankful that most of them have decided to stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

Report this

By CEE, October 9, 2010 at 10:52 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I guess I am racist. I was against Obama during his days in Chicago. Darn.

Report this
Orbis Unum's avatar

By Orbis Unum, October 9, 2010 at 9:26 am Link to this comment

This is addressed to blogdog.

Patrick Henry said it best appertaining to whether those at the helm of AIM or the Lakotah People, to wit:

“We are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the Creator of Nature has placed in our power… the battle, sir, is not to the strong alone it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.”

Hopefully, those upon the front-line of the Lakotah People, will be honorable enough to seek out knowledge and counsel to address a long train of abuses. Otherwise, what will come about, they will continue suffer and Rue the Day approaching quickly!

In addition, this is to address the most recent posting by BR549: Once again, I couldn’t agree more with your line of thought respective to the use of logos for the sole purpose of misdirection! As most assuredly Rev. Shockley’s attempts to dissuade individuals from expressing the angst over the lack of any just ability to State a Claim for which relief can be Granted.

As for Lafayette and others. We have truly enjoy your cerebral foray into the line of discussion appertaining to the petulant ramblings of Rev. Shockley’s irreverent discourse, concerning others striving for some semblance of Standing. Even though, like so many others locked within the program of misrepresentations and misguided beyond any reasonable Standard, within the scope of any proper use of the Science of Right Reason, the so-called Tea Party, would do better confronting the underlying cause and effect thereof, rather than expect a different outcome from exercising the purported ‘Right to Vote’ against the backdrop of unfounded Political Power to adjust their condition for more palatable decency, in the exercise of the self-evident principles to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s Creator have entitled them!!!

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, October 9, 2010 at 9:15 am Link to this comment

CLUELESSNESS

BR: These frustrated citizens have no other place to turn to other than outfits like the Tea Party, and as soon as that party gains any momentum, it is summarily vilified by the media and labeled as a terrorist group by the very politicians who see this as any type of threat..


This is a gross oversimplification of what has transpired.

Any reasonable mind cannot vilify the TP for its racist intent in general. But the TP can be demonstrated to being economically clueless, which is what Krugman did artfully well just recently. Like most Republicans, they have not one well-formulated economic policy that can be substantiated by good sense. Not a one – they are mouthing inanities about Stimulus Spending, Budget Deficits, Monetary Easing, etc., etc., etc. ... ad nauseam.

Where racism is hinted are some unfortunate remarks issuing from them that appear odd. For instance, that Obama is a “secret Muslim”, or that there is a town in the Midwest that is being taken over by Muslims.

These sorts of brainless comments do nothing whatsoever to strengthen their image as responsible and balanced minds – quite to the contrary, in fact.

Report this

By felicity, October 9, 2010 at 9:03 am Link to this comment

Go Right - Please note that in my original comment I
didn’t label the vitriol as coming from the Right (or
the Left for that matter.)  It was simply a matter of
my personal observation from having ‘lived’ through a
bunch of presidents.

Later, in quoting a conservative and challenging you
to come up with an actual statement from a liberal
(not one of your making, I might add) I was remiss in
implying that only conservatives are filled with
vitriol etc.  Not true.  (It’s a good guess that when
the majority of the South was politically democratic,
that same majority belonged to the KKK.) 

Perhaps we’re more on the same page than we think?

Report this

By elgordo, October 9, 2010 at 9:02 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

this is obviously a setup by the left. the naacp has nothing on this organization. they should concentrate on the 70% illigitimacy rate. the 50% drop-out rate and the other problems in their community caused by liberal policies. no one of any race should drop out of school. concentrate on fixing problems. repubs started the civil rights movement. democrats today want to keep people on the program. i read a quote the other day democrats like poor people and they like keeping them that way. when people get on social programs for decades they are ruined. i see it in my own family. this will never get printed. this website should never be called truthdig. if voting really made changes it would be illegal. now thats truth

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, October 9, 2010 at 8:31 am Link to this comment

NATURE OR NURTURE?

ITW:

I can CHOOSE to be a racist, a bigot, a progressive or a liberal.  I can even choose to be a Catholic, a Sh’ia, a Jain or Hindu.  But I cannot choose to be descended from Ukrainians, or Kenyans, or Australians, or Vietnamese.


And thus we have the psycho-sociological riddle of “Nurture or Nature?”, which is more prevalent in forming human mentality? Not an easy question to answer, according to psychologists.

I submit that most of us have the religion of our parents … and some decide perhaps to adhere to it less than their parents and some also abandon it completely perhaps converting to another. Observation tells me that these latter two alternatives are exceptions to the rule.

And you can chose to be Ukrainian or Kenyan or Australian or Vietnamese in later age, but you will probably miss any infusion of those countries’ cultural heritage since that gift comes from childhood upbringing (nurture).

Parents nurture/inculcate their children within their own beliefs, whether religious or racial. It is later that “nature” (our curiosity) may seek to learn about other beliefs and we either change ours or we retain the beliefs of our parents.

But whether religious or racial or creationist or even artistic we tend ultimately to settle into a fixed set of beliefs that we rarely change significantly over time.

The purpose, therefore, of education is to set out the various alternatives, to explain them objectively and let the individual decide for him/herself what flavor they may want. But there will be some instances where the individual must accept a collective notion of what is acceptable and what is not. One can dislike a race for any number or reasons, but one may not discriminate against that race, which is a forbidden by law (where such laws are enacted/enforced by the group).

If we decide to discriminate, then there is infraction of a fundamental human right (anti-discrimination), which typically is upheld by law in a modern society. Thus we either learn to tolerate or we don’t and in the latter case the individual risks the legitimate punishment of the group or collective (the city, the state, the nation).

The central point is that we decide whether to behave rightly or wrongly. The decision is ours and ours alone to make - and the consequences ours alone to assume.

Which makes rubbish of the excuse “well everybody was doing it” (heard on Wall Street) since it has no legitimacy whatsoever.

Report this

By Lalameda, October 9, 2010 at 8:11 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If it looks, walks and talks like a . . .
If there had been a “Tea Party” when GWB and the Republican Congress ran up the deficit, I’d buy their claims that they are not appealing to racists at their very core. Even though Lee Atwater asked for forgiveness for his evil doings on his death bed, his prior legacy lives on in the fear and hate emanating from the Tea Partiers.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, October 9, 2010 at 7:47 am Link to this comment

To say that all Tea Baggers are racist is like saying that all Republicans
promote a fascist agenda or that all Obama supporters are on welfare.

I am not a “Bagger” myself, but know other people who are, and they are no
more racist that Ghandi or MLK. What they are, at least some of them anyway,
is frustrated over their near total lack of choice and how every time any group
threatens the political status quo, their efforts get sabotaged by people who
have infiltrated it from within “the system”.

These frustrated citizens have no other place to turn to other than outfits like
the Tea Party, and as soon as that party gains any momentum, it is summarily
vilified by the media and labeled as a terrorist group by the very politicians
who see this as any type of threat. Seems to me that Hitler initially responded
the same way to any formal dissent. He’d provocateur situations to catalyze the very response he wanted to further justify clamping down on the population. And here we are again, only this time around, our “dictator” has disguised itself as alternating political administrations that BOTH keep taking this country down the same toilet.

I’m not defending the Tea Party and certainly not racism, but there are some much larger issues here that I think people are too easily dismissing as racism.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, October 9, 2010 at 7:40 am Link to this comment

The context, ITW, is your and others insistence that political party’s can be labeled as more or less racist than another.  The Klan is a small following of people made up of many political parties - whose mandate is racial by nature. 

If we were to sum up an entire political party as “racist” we would see the rampant racism in the democratic party as epitomized in Robert Byrd, George Bernard Shaw, Margaret Sanger, Woodrow Wilson, John Maynard Keynes, Kanye West, Howard Dean and Keith Olbermann.  All heroes of the Left.

You put a TERRIFIC AMOUNT of importance on the current president’s skin colour.  I happen not to believe one can label an entire American political party in such an uneducated manner.  It would be wrong of me to label the entire democratic movement based on your incessant focus on colour.

Report this
Peetawonkus's avatar

By Peetawonkus, October 9, 2010 at 6:41 am Link to this comment

Tea Baggers racist? Preposterous! Why? Because…they say so. Or, to quote that Groucho Marxist, “Who are you going to believe, me or the evidence of your own eyes?”

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 9, 2010 at 6:20 am Link to this comment

Groups of people CAN be categorized as racist or bigoted. To deny that without exception is disingenuous. For example, at a Ku Klux Klan rally it’s not unreasonable to presume that every pointy-head wearing a sheet is a racist.  Same for a nazi rally.

But these people ARE racist and group together as racists by choice.  Their racism defines them.  But to pick any ethnic, racial or even religious category (without getting too granular), and define them as inherently racist is not correct.

What’s the difference?  Choice versus non-choice.  I can CHOOSE to be a racist, a bigot, a progressive or a liberal.  I can even choose to be a Catholic, a Sh’ia, a Jain or Hindu.  But I cannot choose to be descended from Ukrainians, or Kenyans, or Australians, or Vietnamese.

I have no problem generalizing about people who choose the same things.  I have a serious problem with generalizing about people according to factors they cannot control.

The Teaparty has closely tied itself to racists and racist “code words”.  The latest are “Kenyon” for the President and “Repeal the 14th Amendment” to attack and dis-enfranchise non-white immigrants.  Shockley’s point about severance is critical.  You can sever one or two, but not the constant redundant wave after wave of baggers like the guy in the picture.

Report this

By tedmurphy41, October 9, 2010 at 5:26 am Link to this comment

Don’t tell me; the’re drinking coffee.
The more you promote this group through this class of media coverage, the worse it’s going to get for everyone.
You all know the saying: any sort of publicity is good publicity.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, October 9, 2010 at 5:18 am Link to this comment

And another thing, ......... while I may be willing to exercise caution in describing
the President using the “N” word (I just don’t use that word myself), it does in fact
bother me when people such as he use the race card for political advantage and
then either he or his apologists scream bloody murder when others resort
out of frustration to “shoe shine” and “porch monkey” commentary or comments
about cravings for watermelon.

It’s one thing for people to “hate”; that’s someone’s internal way of seeing
themselves outside the world of God. It’s quite another for otherwise gentle people to
have to resort to often insulting descriptions to reflect their frustration over
someone who has obviously so abused the system for their own agenda.

I think it’s important to discern the difference.

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, October 9, 2010 at 3:27 am Link to this comment

HUMAN NATURE

GRYM: Believing that one group of people are any more or less racist is not an educated, well-rounded, belief.  It’s not based on human nature and sociology.  It’s commonly referred to as bigotry.

Hmmmnn, yes and no. Bigotry is personal but, yes, it can be expressed in groups. In fact, people of similar bigotry tend to group together (out of a human social tendency called “birds of a feather flock together”).

Your premise is nonetheless interesting – but in a more generalized context. (Yes, yes, one should not generalize.) But I will …

As an example I suggest the stark difference in the treatment of the Jews in Christian Europe and the Muslim Ottoman Empire. Sephardic Jews emigrated from Spain in the 15th century to Istanbul and establish themselves as publishers (sic!) having imported a Gutenberg printing press. Jews in Turkey today will not tell you that no discrimination has existed nor does it exist today. (They’ve told me, rest assured.)

One cannot say that much for the manner in which the Jews were treated in Europe for centuries and culminating in one of the worst atrocities of modern times in Nazi Germany, called the Shoah (or Holocaust).

I insist on the length of time the Jews were persecuted in Europe, to argue that the anti-Semitism was indeed ingrained within the Christian mentality. (Yes, it originated in Biblical History – but cultural attributes can be inculcated; they become, sadly, a cultural heritage passed on through generations.

I suggest that hatred, like fear, is a fairly common attribute of the human psyche. No race has a patent on that emotion. That is to say, it IS based upon human nature.

And changing human nature is what, particularly, political evolution is all about.

As regards the US, it is work-in-progress.

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, October 9, 2010 at 2:56 am Link to this comment

SOBs

Well, after Rev. Shockley’s last article about the Southern preacher who refused to marry an inter-racial couple I am shocked that Truthdig gives this man a forum.

You shouldn’t be – the freedom-of-speech rule does not constrain the expression of one’s opinion, even when made by idiots.

If commentary doesn’t please you, simply treat it as SOB-material(Scroll On By). At least the commenter is being honest in displaying clearly their intellectual deficiency.

POST SCRIPTUM

Mathew 12:37:

For by thy words thou shalt be justified and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

(Understood in a social and not judicial context.)

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, October 9, 2010 at 2:41 am Link to this comment

HUMAN DECENCY

Once read, it is difficult to forget this prescient rule (Number 7) from George Orwell’s book Animal Farm (published August 1945): “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”

Which demonstrates how worthwhile it is to question some Conventional Wisdoms that seem to prevail all over the world—because of abhorrent human indecency.

Equality of what? Egalitarianism is conditional:
* Of opportunity, that is, the right to apply one’s skills towards being remunerated, presuming one observes an applied sense of morality or ethical behaviour.
* Of the right to vote, presuming that one is well-informed and not manipulated by spurious media sound-bites. (Spurious = (of a line of reasoning) apparently but not actually valid.)
* Of the right to Market Fairness, where regulatory policy assures:
** Government regulation of oligopolistic market pricing (where dysfunctional Market Demand perpetually outstrips Supply for goods/services).
** Government deconstruction of market concentrations thus limiting true pricing competition and permitting market rents.
* Of the right to unimpeded access to the necessities crucial to survival such as decent housing, health care, nourishment, etc.

Etc., etc., etc. ... the wish list of Human Decency is long, long, long.

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, October 9, 2010 at 1:40 am Link to this comment

RE: Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations. 

In December of 2007, the Republic of Lakotah was formed by the formal withdrawal from its Treaties of 1851 and 1868. This was the latest step in the longest running legal battle in the history of the World.

This was not a “cessation” from the United States, but a completely lawful “unilateral withdrawal” from the Treaties as permitted under the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, of which, the United States is a signatory.

http://www.republicoflakotah.com/tag/1969-vienna-convention-on-the-law-of-treaties/

Final result of this action is yet to be seen. Given the US Government’s history in such matters, they may end up with something as bad as the Indian Removal Act of 1830. After the Supreme Court ruled that Georgia could not extend its laws into Cherokee lands, it maintained that the Cherokee were ultimately dependent on the federal government and were not a true nation state, nor fully sovereign, and ultimately President Andrew Jackson got his way, albeit with a lot of blood on his hands.

Nothing new for Old Sharp Knife, who, contrary to popular legend, built his political career more on hunting down and massacring Indians across the entire Gulf Coast than on chasing a hapless British regiment through the swamps of Louisiana.

It’s still a widely practiced tradition among Indians, Chreokee in particular, to never lay hands on a double saw buck, on the face of which is imprinted the visage of one of the most genocidal maniacs of all time.

Yes, it was different times, but some things are timeless, some values timeless. Jackson was a monster who embodies American Racism and who should be remembered for nothing other than his heinous Trail Of Tears - a forced death march to rival any in history.

Report this
Orbis Unum's avatar

By Orbis Unum, October 8, 2010 at 10:11 pm Link to this comment

I apologize if this posting appears twice for reasons related to why my earlier posting in further response to this article on further reflection to comments applicable thereto, didn’t appear when I went to review responses to this article or its further commentary.

So, for the sake of brevity, here was my attempt to dispell certain ideas so to speak, to wit:

Apparently some people need an education not only particularly related to Standing, but appear to be lacking knowledge related to the seven deadly Nyms.

Here are those particularly related to writing, to wit:
  * Acronyms
  * Antonyms
  * Antagonyms
  * Capitonyms
  * Heteronyms
  * Homonyms
  * Oronyms
  * Polyonyms
  * Synonyms

The Nym that seems to be most in question appertaining to Rev. Shockley’s present article and his uneducated perceptions concerning good grammar related thereto, appertain specifically to the use of Capitonyms. For example, Capitonyms are words that change ‘pronunciation’ and ‘meaning’ when they are capitalized.

Capitonyms are commonly used words that become proper ‘nouns’ when capitalized: amber is a yellow, orange, or brownish-yellow fossil resin; Amber is the eighth-grade softball team captain. You polish silver with ammonia and silicon, though you’d never dream of applying the same to a Polish sausage. Or Chow, a dog breed, and the chow a Chow eats.  But basically, what occurs when a word uses Capitonyms, any particular word effected characteristic thereafter, presents itself under a different light as to its true meaning to the learned eye or reader so to speak.

Further, first-hand example of the not so obvious to the untrained eye, was when I was in graduate school studying Statecraft in International Affairs, the professor was always telling us about the benefits of joining the CIA.  For the first week of class we were very confused. Finally, he gave us a flyer and a membership form for the CIA, the China Institute of America.  I hope you get my point.

Meaning, whether you agree or disagree with the usages of muti-compound words, using Capitonyms alters their meaning utterly and completely. Not only in daily usages but more significantly in Legalize. Both in writ and contract formality.

Report this
Orbis Unum's avatar

By Orbis Unum, October 8, 2010 at 9:56 pm Link to this comment

Apparently some people need an education not only particularly related to Standing, but appear to be lacking knowledge related to the Seven deadly Nyms.

Here are those particularly related to writing, to wit:
  * Acronyms
  * Antonyms
  * Antagonyms
  * Capitonyms
  * Heteronyms
  * Homonyms
  * Oronyms
  * Polyonyms
  * Synonyms

The nym that seems to be most in question appertaining to Rev. Shockley’s present article and his uneducated perceptions concerning good grammar related thereto, appertain specifically to the use of Capitonyms. For example, Capitonyms are words that change ‘pronunciation’ and ‘meaning’ when they are capitalized.

Capitonyms are commonly used words that become proper ‘nouns’ when capitalized: amber is a yellow, orange, or brownish-yellow fossil resin; Amber is the eighth-grade softball team captain. You polish silver with ammonia and silicon, though you’d never dream of applying the same to a Polish sausage. Or Chow, a dog breed, and the chow a Chow eats. But basically, what occurs when a word uses Capitonyms, any particular word effected characteristic thereafter, presents itself under a different light as to its true meaning to the learned eye or reader so to speak.

Further, first-hand example of the not so obvious to the untrained eye, was when I was in graduate school studying Statecraft in International Affairs, the professor was always telling us about the benefits of joining the CIA.  For the first week of class we were very confused. Finally, he gave us a flyer and a membership form for the CIA, the China Institute of America.  I hope you get my point. Meaning, whether you agree or disagree with the usages of muti-compound words, using Capitonyms alters their meaning utterly and completely. Not only in daily usages but more significantly in Legalize. Both in writ and contract formality.

Report this

By Arouete, October 8, 2010 at 8:54 pm Link to this comment

Well, after Rev. Shockley’s last article about the Southern preacher who refused to marry an inter-racial couple I am shocked that Truthdig gives this man a forum. When it comes to matters of law there are some people who are best off remaining silent and be thought ignorant rather than open their mouths and remove all doubt. Shockley puts nothing to rest and he so lacks credibility that his name on any by-line is all I need to move on.

Is the Tea Party racist? I have no doubt; but not fore any reasons Shockley states.  He does absolutely nothing to put the issue to rest.  Digging out a long-since deservedly forgotten (if ever remembered) treatise on ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment or nit-picking over upper or lower case words to prove a point can hardly be called putting a question to rest.  This is so poorly written as to be not readable. Come on TruthDig. You can do better than this. What an embarrassment.

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook