Black Helicopters Over Nashville (Tea Party Critique)

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Black Helicopters Over Nashville (Tea Party Critique)

Postby American Dream » Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:48 pm

Black Helicopters Over Nashville

Never mind Sarah Palin and the tricornered hats. The tea-party movement is dominated by conspiracist kooks.

By Jonathan Kay | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Feb 9, 2010


The tea-party movement has no leader. But it does have a face: William Temple of Brunswick, Ga. For months, the amiable middle-aged activist has been criss-crossing America, appearing at tea-party events dressed in his trademark three-cornered hat and Revolutionary garb. When journalists interview him (which is often—his outfit draws them in like a magnet), he presents himself as a human bridge between the founders' era and our own. "We fought the British over a 3 percent tea tax. We might as well bring the British back," he told NPR during a recent protest outside the Capitol.

It's a charming act, which makes the tea-party movement seem no more unnerving than the people who spend their weekends reenacting the Civil War. But the 18th-century getups mask something disturbing. After I spent the weekend at the Tea Party National Convention in Nashville, Tenn., it has become clear to me that the movement is dominated by people whose vision of the government is conspiratorial and dangerously detached from reality. It's more John Birch than John Adams.

Like all populists, tea partiers are suspicious of power and influence, and anyone who wields them. Their villain list includes the big banks; bailed-out corporations; James Cameron, whose Avatar is seen as a veiled denunciation of the U.S. military; Republican Party institutional figures they feel ignored by, such as chairman Michael Steele; colleges and universities (the more prestigious, the more evil); TheWashington Post; Anderson Cooper; and even FOX News pundits, such as Bill O'Reilly, who have heaped scorn on the tea-party movement's more militant oddballs.

One of the most bizarre moments of the recent tea-party convention came when blogger Andrew Breitbart delivered a particularly vicious fulmination against the mainstream media, prompting everyone to get up, turn toward the media section at the back of the conference room, and scream, "USA! USA! USA!" But the tea partiers' well-documented obsession with President Obama has hardly been diffused by their knack for finding new enemies.

Steve Malloy, author of Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Ruin Your Life, kicked off the first full day of conference proceedings by warning that Obama and his minions are conspiring to control every aspect of Americans' lives—the colors of their cars, the kind of toilet paper they use, how much time they spend in the shower, the temperature of their homes—all under the guise of U.N. greenhouse-gas-reduction schemes. "Obama isn't a U.S. socialist," Malloy thundered. "He's an international socialist. He envisions a one-world government."

I consider myself a conservative and arrived at this conference as a paid-up, rank-and-file attendee, not one of the bemused New York Times types with a media pass. But I also happen to be writing a book for HarperCollins that focuses on 9/11 conspiracy theories, so I have a pretty good idea where the various screws and nuts can be found in the great toolbox of American political life.

Within a few hours in Nashville, I could tell that what I was hearing wasn't just random rhetorical mortar fire being launched at Obama and his political allies: the salvos followed the established script of New World Order conspiracy theories, which have suffused the dubious right-wing fringes of American politics since the days of the John Birch Society.

This world view's modern-day prophets include Texas radio host Alex Jones, whose documentary, The Obama Deception, claims Obama's candidacy was a plot by the leaders of the New World Order to "con the Amercican people into accepting global slavery"; Christian evangelist Pat Robertson; and the rightward strain of the aforementioned "9/11 Truth" movement. According to this dark vision, America's 21st-century traumas signal the coming of a great political cataclysm, in which a false prophet such as Barack Obama will upend American sovereignty and render the country into a godless, one-world socialist dictatorship run by the United Nations from its offices in Manhattan.

Sure enough, in Nashville, Judge Roy Moore warned, among other things, of "a U.N. guard stationed in every house." On the conference floor, it was taken for granted that Obama was seeking to destroy America's place in the world and sell Israel out to the Arabs for some undefined nefarious purpose. The names Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers popped up all the time, the idea being that they were the real brains behind this presidency, and Obama himself was simply some sort of manchurian candidate.

A software engineer from Clearwater, Fla., told me that Washington, D.C., liberals had engineered the financial crash so they could destroy the value of the U.S. dollar, pay off America's debts with worthless paper, and then create a new currency called the Amero that would be used in a newly created "North American Currency Union" with Canada and Mexico. I rolled my eyes at this one-off kook. But then, hours later, the conference organizers showed a movie to the meeting hall, Generation Zero, whose thesis was only slightly less bizarre: that the financial meltdown was the handiwork of superannuated flower children seeking to destroy capitalism.

And then, of course, there is the double-whopper of all anti-Obama conspiracy theories, the "birther" claim that America's president might actually be an illegal alien who's constitutionally ineligible to occupy the White House. This point was made by birther extraordinaire and Christian warrior Joseph Farah, who told the crowd the circumstances of Obama's birth were more mysterious than those of Jesus Christ. (Apparently comparing Obama to a messiah is only blasphemous if you're doing so in a complimentary vein.) To applause, he declared, "My dream is that if Barack Obama seeks reelection in 2012 that he won't be able to go to any city, any city, any town in America without seeing signs that ask, 'Where's the birth certificate?'"

Many of the tea-party organizers I spoke with at this conference described the event as a critical step in their ascendancy to the status of mainstream political movement. Yet with rare exceptions, such as blogger Breitbart, who was reportedly overheard protesting Farah's birther propaganda, none of them seems to realize how off-putting the toxic fantasies being spewed from the podium were.

Perhaps the most distressing part of all is that few media observers bothered to catalog these bizarre, conspiracist outbursts, and instead fixated on Sarah Palin's Saturday night keynote address. It is as if, in the current overheated political atmosphere, we all simply have come to expect that radicalized conservatives will behave like unhinged paranoiacs when they collect in the same room.

That doesn't say much for the state of the right in America. The tea partiers' tricornered hat is supposed to be a symbol of patriotism and constitutional first principles. But when you take a closer look, all you find is a helmet made of tin foil.

Jonathan Kay is the managing editor for comment at Canada's National Post newspaper. His book, Among the Truthers: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and the People Who Believe Them, will be published by HarperCollins in 2011. Contact him at jkay@nationalpost.com.


Find this article at
http://www.newsweek.com/id/233331
"If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything."
-Malcolm X
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Black Helicopters Over Nashville (Tea Party Critique)

Postby American Dream » Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:40 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/us/po ... nted=print

Host of far-right causes invited to the Tea Party

By DAVID BARSTOW
The New York Times


Image
People wait in line to sign in at a tea-party rally in Spokane on Oct. 31.
The tea-party movement has become a platform for conservative populist discontent,
a force that extends beyond Republican Party politics. Many participants are newly attuned
to politics and open to extreme views, with some even stocking up on ammunition, gold and survival food.



SANDPOINT, Idaho — Pam Stout has not always lived in fear of her government. She remembers her years working in federal housing programs, watching government lift struggling families with job training and education. She beams at the memory of helping a Vietnamese woman get into junior college.

But all that was before the Great Recession and the bank bailouts, before Barack Obama took the White House by promising sweeping change on multiple fronts, before her son lost his job and his house. Mrs. Stout said she awoke to see Washington as a threat, a place where crisis is manipulated — even manufactured — by both parties to grab power.

She was happily retired, and had never been active politically. But last April, she went to her first Tea Party rally, then to a meeting of the Sandpoint Tea Party Patriots. She did not know a soul, yet when they began electing board members, she stood up, swallowed hard, and nominated herself for president. “I was like, ‘Did I really just do that?’ ” she recalled.

Then she went even further.

Worried about hyperinflation, social unrest or even martial law, she and her Tea Party members joined a coalition, Friends for Liberty, that includes representatives from Glenn Beck’s 9/12 Project, the John Birch Society, and Oath Keepers, a new player in a resurgent militia movement.

When Friends for Liberty held its first public event, Mrs. Stout listened as Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff, brought 1,400 people to their feet with a speech about confronting a despotic federal government. Mrs. Stout said she felt as if she had been handed a road map to rebellion. Members of her family, she said, think she has disappeared down a rabbit hole of conspiracy theories. But Mrs. Stout said she has never felt so engaged.

“I can’t go on being the shy, quiet me,” she said. “I need to stand up.”

The Tea Party movement has become a platform for conservative populist discontent, a force in Republican politics for revival, as it was in the Massachusetts Senate election, or for division. But it is also about the profound private transformation of people like Mrs. Stout, people who not long ago were not especially interested in politics, yet now say they are bracing for tyranny.

These people are part of a significant undercurrent within the Tea Party movement that has less in common with the Republican Party than with the Patriot movement, a brand of politics historically associated with libertarians, militia groups, anti-immigration advocates and those who argue for the abolition of the Federal Reserve.

Urged on by conservative commentators, waves of newly minted activists are turning to once-obscure books and Web sites and discovering a set of ideas long dismissed as the preserve of conspiracy theorists, interviews conducted across the country over several months show. In this view, Mr. Obama and many of his predecessors (including George W. Bush) have deliberately undermined the Constitution and free enterprise for the benefit of a shadowy international network of wealthy elites.

Loose alliances like Friends for Liberty are popping up in many cities, forming hybrid entities of Tea Parties and groups rooted in the Patriot ethos. These coalitions are not content with simply making the Republican Party more conservative. They have a larger goal — a political reordering that would drastically shrink the federal government and sweep away not just Mr. Obama, but much of the Republican establishment, starting with Senator John McCain.

In many regions, including here in the inland Northwest, tense struggles have erupted over whether the Republican apparatus will co-opt these new coalitions or vice versa. Tea Party supporters are already singling out Republican candidates who they claim have “aided and abetted” what they call the slide to tyranny: Mark Steven Kirk, a candidate for the Senate from Illinois, for supporting global warming legislation; Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida, who is seeking a Senate seat, for supporting stimulus spending; and Meg Whitman, a candidate for governor in California, for saying she was a “big fan” of Van Jones, once Mr. Obama’s “green jobs czar.”

During a recent meeting with Congressional Republicans, Mr. Obama acknowledged the potency of these attacks when he complained that depicting him as a would-be despot was complicating efforts to find bipartisan solutions.

“The fact of the matter is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own party,” Mr. Obama said. “You’ve given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you’ve been telling your constituents is, ‘This guy’s doing all kinds of crazy stuff that is going to destroy America.’ ”

The ebbs and flows of the Tea Party ferment are hardly uniform. It is an amorphous, factionalized uprising with no clear leadership and no centralized structure. Not everyone flocking to the Tea Party movement is worried about dictatorship. Some have a basic aversion to big government, or Mr. Obama, or progressives in general. What’s more, some Tea Party groups are essentially appendages of the local Republican Party.

But most are not. They are frequently led by political neophytes who prize independence and tell strikingly similar stories of having been awakened by the recession. Their families upended by lost jobs, foreclosed homes and depleted retirement funds, they said they wanted to know why it happened and whom to blame.

That is often the point when Tea Party supporters say they began listening to Glenn Beck. With his guidance, they explored the Federalist Papers, exposés on the Federal Reserve, the work of Ayn Rand and George Orwell. Some went to constitutional seminars. Online, they discovered radical critiques of Washington on Web sites like ResistNet.com (“Home of the Patriotic Resistance”) and Infowars.com (“Because there is a war on for your mind.”).

Many describe emerging from their research as if reborn to a new reality. Some have gone so far as to stock up on ammunition, gold and survival food in anticipation of the worst. For others, though, transformation seems to amount to trying on a new ideological outfit — embracing the rhetoric and buying the books.

Tea Party leaders say they know their complaints about shredded constitutional principles and excessive spending ring hollow to some, given their relative passivity through the Bush years. In some ways, though, their main answer — strict adherence to the Constitution — would comfort every card-carrying A.C.L.U. member.

But their vision of the federal government is frequently at odds with the one that both parties have constructed. Tea Party gatherings are full of people who say they would do away with the Federal Reserve, the federal income tax and countless agencies, not to mention bailouts and stimulus packages. Nor is it unusual to hear calls to eliminate Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. A remarkable number say this despite having recently lost jobs or health coverage. Some of the prescriptions they are debating — secession, tax boycotts, states “nullifying” federal laws, forming citizen militias — are outside the mainstream, too.

At a recent meeting of the Sandpoint Tea Party, Mrs. Stout presided with brisk efficiency until a member interrupted with urgent news. Because of the stimulus bill, he insisted, private medical records were being shipped to federal bureaucrats. A woman said her doctor had told her the same thing. There were gasps of rage. Everyone already viewed health reform as a ruse to control their medical choices and drive them into the grip of insurance conglomerates. Debate erupted. Could state medical authorities intervene? Should they call Congress?

As the meeting ended, Carolyn L. Whaley, 76, held up her copy of the Constitution. She carries it everywhere, she explained, and she was prepared to lay down her life to protect it from the likes of Mr. Obama.

“I would not hesitate,” she said, perfectly calm.

A Sprawling Rebellion

The Tea Party movement defies easy definition, largely because there is no single Tea Party.

At the grass-roots level, it consists of hundreds of autonomous Tea Party groups, widely varying in size and priorities, each influenced by the peculiarities of local history.

In the inland Northwest, the Tea Party movement has been shaped by the growing popularity in eastern Washington of Ron Paul, the libertarian congressman from Texas, and by a legacy of anti-government activism in northern Idaho. Outside Sandpoint, federal agents laid siege to Randy Weaver’s compound on Ruby Ridge in 1992, resulting in the deaths of a marshal and Mr. Weaver’s wife and son. To the south, Richard Butler, leader of the Aryan Nations, preached white separatism from a compound near Coeur d’Alene until he was shut down.

Local Tea Party groups are often loosely affiliated with one of several competing national Tea Party organizations. In the background, offering advice and organizational muscle, are an array of conservative lobbying groups, most notably FreedomWorks. Further complicating matters, Tea Party events have become a magnet for other groups and causes — including gun rights activists, anti-tax crusaders, libertarians, militia organizers, the “birthers” who doubt President Obama’s citizenship, Lyndon LaRouche supporters and proponents of the sovereign states movement.

It is a sprawling rebellion, but running through it is a narrative of impending tyranny. This narrative permeates Tea Party Web sites, Facebook pages, Twitter feeds and YouTube videos. It is a prominent theme of their favored media outlets and commentators, and it connects the disparate issues that preoccupy many Tea Party supporters — from the concern that the community organization Acorn is stealing elections to the belief that Mr. Obama is trying to control the Internet and restrict gun ownership.

WorldNetDaily.com trumpets “exclusives” reporting that the Army is seeking “Internment/Resettlement” specialists. On ResistNet.com, bloggers warn that Mr. Obama is trying to convert Interpol, the international police organization, into his personal police force. They call on “fellow Patriots” to “grab their guns.”

Mr. Beck frequently echoes Patriot rhetoric, discussing the possible arrival of a “New World Order” and arguing that Mr. Obama is using a strategy of manufactured crisis to destroy the economy and pave the way for dictatorship.

At recent Tea Party events around the country, these concerns surfaced repeatedly.

In New Mexico, Mary Johnson, recording secretary of the Las Cruces Tea Party steering committee, described why she fears the government. She pointed out how much easier it is since Sept. 11 for the government to tap telephones and scour e-mail, bank accounts and library records. “Twenty years ago that would have been a paranoid statement,” Ms. Johnson said. “It’s not anymore.”

In Texas, Toby Marie Walker, president of the Waco Tea Party, stood on a stage before several thousand people, ticking off the institutions she no longer trusts — the federal government, both the major political parties, Wall Street. “Many of us don’t believe they have our best interests at heart,” Ms. Walker said. She choked back tears, but the crowd urged her on with shouts of “Go, Toby!”

As it happened in the inland Northwest with Friends for Liberty, the fear of Washington and the disgust for both parties is producing new coalitions of Tea Party supporters and groups affiliated with the Patriot movement. In Indiana, for example, a group called the Defenders of Liberty is helping organize “meet-ups” with Tea Party groups and more than 50 Patriot organizations. The Ohio Freedom Alliance, meanwhile, is bringing together Tea Party supporters, Ohio sovereignty advocates and members of the Constitution and Libertarian Parties. The alliance is also helping to organize five “liberty conferences” in March, each featuring Richard Mack, the same speaker invited to address Friends for Liberty.

Politicians courting the Tea Party movement are also alluding to Patriot dogma. At a Tea Party protest in Las Vegas, Joe Heck, a Republican running for Congress, blamed both the Democratic and Republican Parties for moving the country toward “socialistic tyranny.” In Texas, Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican seeking re-election, threw his support behind the state sovereignty movement. And in Indiana, Richard Behney, a Republican Senate candidate, told Tea Party supporters what he would do if the 2010 elections did not produce results to his liking: “I’m cleaning my guns and getting ready for the big show. And I’m serious about that, and I bet you are, too.”

Turning Points

Fear of co-option — a perpetual topic in the Tea Party movement — lay behind the formation of Friends for Liberty.

The new grass-roots leaders of the inland Northwest had grown weary of fending off what they jokingly called “hijack attempts” by the state and county Republican Parties. Whether the issue was picking speakers or scheduling events, they suspected party leaders of trying to choke off their revolution with Chamber of Commerce incrementalism.

“We had to stand our ground, I’ll be blunt,” said Dann Selle, president of the Official Tea Party of Spokane.

In October, Mr. Selle, Mrs. Stout and about 20 others from across the region met in Liberty Lake, Wash., a small town on the Idaho border, to discuss how to achieve broad political change without sacrificing independence. The local Republican Party was excluded.

Most of the people there had paid only passing attention to national politics in years past. “I voted twice and I failed political science twice,” said Darin Stevens, leader of the Spokane 9/12 Project.

Until the recession, Mr. Stevens, 33, had poured his energies into his family and his business installing wireless networks. He had to lay off employees, and he struggled to pay credit cards, a home equity loan, even his taxes. “It hits you physically when you start getting the calls,” he said.

He discovered Glenn Beck, and began to think of Washington as a conspiracy to fleece the little guy. “I had no clue that my country was being taken from me,” Mr. Stevens explained. He could not understand why his progressive friends did not see what he saw.

He felt compelled to do something, so he decided to start a chapter of Mr. Beck’s 9/12 Project. He reserved a room at a pizza parlor for a Glenn Beck viewing party and posted the event on Craigslist. “We had 110 people there,” Mr. Stevens said. He recalled looking around the room and thinking, “All these people — they agree with me.”

Leah Southwell’s turning point came when she stumbled on Mr. Paul’s speeches on YouTube. (“He blew me away.”) Until recently, Mrs. Southwell was in the top 1 percent of all Mary Kay sales representatives, with a company car and a frenetic corporate life. “I knew zero about the Constitution,” Mrs. Southwell confessed. Today, when asked about her commitment to the uprising, she recites a line from the Declaration of Independence, a Tea Party favorite: “We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”

Mr. Paul led Mrs. Southwell to Patriot ideology, which holds that governments and economies are controlled by networks of elites who wield power through exclusive entities like the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations.

This idea has a long history, with variations found at both ends of the political spectrum. But to Mrs. Southwell, the government’s culpability for the recession — the serial failures of regulation, the Federal Reserve’s epic blunders, the cozy bailouts for big banks — made it resonate all the more, especially as she witnessed the impact on family and friends.

“The more you know, the madder you are,” she said. “I mean when you finally learn what the Federal Reserve is!”

Last spring, Mrs. Southwell quit her job and became a national development officer for the John Birch Society, recruiting and raising money across the West, often at Tea Party events. She has been stunned by the number of Tea Party supporters gravitating toward Patriot ideology. “Most of these people are just waking up,” she said.

Converging Paths

At Liberty Lake, the participants settled on a “big tent” strategy, with each group supporting the others in the coalition they called Friends for Liberty.

One local group represented at Liberty Lake was Arm in Arm, which aims to organize neighborhoods for possible civil strife by stockpiling food and survival gear, and forming armed neighborhood groups.

Also represented was Oath Keepers, whose members call themselves “guardians of the Republic.” Oath Keepers recruits military and law enforcement officials who are asked to disobey orders the group deems unconstitutional. These include orders to conduct warrantless searches, arrest Americans as unlawful enemy combatants or force civilians into “any form of detention camps.”

Oath Keepers, which has been recruiting at Tea Party events around the country and forging informal ties with militia groups, has an enthusiastic following in Friends for Liberty. “A lot of my people are Oath Keepers,” Mr. Stevens said. “I’m an honorary Oath Keeper myself.”

Mrs. Stout became an honorary Oath Keeper, too, and sent an e-mail message urging her members to sign up. “They may be very important for our future,” she wrote.

By inviting Richard Mack to speak at their first event, leaders of Friends for Liberty were trying to attract militia support. They knew Mr. Mack had many militia fans, and not simply because he had helped Randy Weaver write a book about Ruby Ridge. As a sheriff in Arizona, Mr. Mack had sued the Clinton administration over the Brady gun control law, which resulted in a Supreme Court ruling that the law violated state sovereignty by requiring local officials to conduct background checks on gun buyers.

Mr. Mack was selling Cadillacs in Arizona, his political career seemingly over, when Mr. Obama was elected. Disheartened by the results, he wrote a 50-page booklet branding the federal government “the greatest threat we face.” The booklet argued that only local sheriffs supported by citizen militias could save the nation from “utter despotism.” He titled his booklet “The County Sheriff: America’s Last Hope,” offered it for sale on his Web site and returned to selling cars.

But last February he was invited to appear on “Infowars,” the Internet radio program hosted by Alex Jones, a well-known figure in the Patriot movement. Then Mr. Mack went on “The Power Hour,” another Internet radio program popular in the Patriot movement.

After those appearances, Mr. Mack said, he was inundated with invitations to speak to Tea Parties and Patriot groups. Demand was so great, he said, that he quit selling cars. Then Andrew P. Napolitano, a Fox News legal analyst, invited him to New York to appear on his podcast.

“It’s taken over my life,” Mr. Mack said in an interview.

He said he has found audiences everywhere struggling to make sense of why they were wiped out last year. These audiences, he said, are far more receptive to critiques once dismissed as paranoia. It is no longer considered all that radical, he said, to portray the Federal Reserve as a plaything of the big banks — a point the Birch Society, among others, has argued for decades.

People are more willing, he said, to imagine a government that would lock up political opponents, or ration health care with “death panels,” or fake global warming. And if global warming is a fraud, is it so crazy to wonder about a president’s birth certificate?

“People just do not trust any of this,” Mr. Mack said. “It’s not just the fringe people anymore. These are just ordinary people — teachers, bankers, housewives.”

The dog track opened at 5:45 p.m. for Mr. Mack’s speech, and the parking lot quickly filled. Inside, each Friends for Liberty sponsor had its own recruiting table. Several sheriffs and state legislators worked the crowd. “I came out to talk with folks and listen to Sheriff Mack,” Ozzie Knezovich, the sheriff of Spokane County, Wash., explained.

Gazing out at his overwhelmingly white audience, Mr. Mack felt the need to say, “This meeting is not racist.” Nor, he said, was it a call to insurrection. What is needed, he said, is “a whole army of sheriffs” marching on Washington to deliver an unambiguous warning: “Any violation of the Constitution we will consider a criminal offense.”

The crowd roared.

Mr. Mack shared his vision of the ideal sheriff. The setting was Montgomery, Ala., on the day Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat for a white passenger. Imagine the local sheriff, he said, rather than arresting Ms. Parks, escorting her home, stopping to buy her a meal at an all-white diner.

“Edmund Burke said the essence of tyranny is the enforcement of stupid laws,” he said. Likewise, Mr. Mack argued, sheriffs should have ignored “stupid laws” and protected the Branch Davidians at Waco, Tex., and the Weaver family at Ruby Ridge.

Legacy

A popular T-shirt at Tea Party rallies reads, “Proud Right-Wing Extremist.”

It is a defiant and mocking rejoinder to last April’s intelligence assessment from the Department of Homeland Security warning that recession and the election of the nation’s first black president “present unique drivers for right wing radicalization.”

“Historically,” the assessment said, “domestic right wing extremists have feared, predicted and anticipated a cataclysmic economic collapse in the United States.” Those predictions, it noted, are typically rooted in “antigovernment conspiracy theories” featuring impending martial law. The assessment said extremist groups were already preparing for this scenario by stockpiling weapons and food and by resuming paramilitary exercises.

The report does not mention the Tea Party movement, but among Tea Party activists it is viewed with open scorn, evidence of a larger campaign by liberals to marginalize them as “racist wingnuts.”

But Tony Stewart, a leading civil rights activist in the inland Northwest, took careful note of the report. Almost 30 years ago, Mr. Stewart cofounded the Kootenai County Task Force on Human Relations in Coeur d’Alene. The task force has campaigned relentlessly to rid north Idaho of its reputation as a haven for anti-government extremists. The task force tactics brought many successes, including a $6.3 million civil judgment that effectively bankrupted Richard Butler’s Aryan Nations.

When the Tea Party uprising gathered force last spring, Mr. Stewart saw painfully familiar cultural and rhetorical overtones. Mr. Stewart viewed the questions about Mr. Obama’s birthplace as a proxy for racism, and he was bothered by the “common message of intolerance for the opposition.”

“It’s either you’re with us or you’re the enemy,” he said.

Mr. Stewart heard similar concerns from other civil rights activists around the country. They could not help but wonder why the explosion of conservative anger coincided with a series of violent acts by right wing extremists. In the Inland Northwest there had been a puzzling return of racist rhetoric and violence.

Mr. Stewart said it would be unfair to attribute any of these incidents to the Tea Party movement. “We don’t have any evidence they are connected,” he said.

Still, he sees troubling parallels. Branding Mr. Obama a tyrant, Mr. Stewart said, constructs a logic that could be used to rationalize violence. “When people start wearing guns to rallies, what’s the next thing that happens?” Mr. Stewart asked.

Rachel Dolezal, curator of the Human Rights Education Institute in Coeur d’Alene, has also watched the Tea Party movement with trepidation. Though raised in a conservative family, Ms. Dolezal, who is multiracial, said she could not imagine showing her face at a Tea Party event. To her, what stands out are the all-white crowds, the crude depictions of Mr. Obama as an African witch doctor and the signs labeling him a terrorist. “It would make me nervous to be there unless I went with a big group,” she said.

The Future

Pam Stout wakes each morning, turns on Fox News, grabs coffee and an Atkins bar, and hits the computer. She is the hub of a rapidly expanding and highly viral political network, keeping a running correspondence with her 400 members in Sandpoint, state and national Tea Party leaders and other conservative activists.

Mrs. Stout forwards along petitions to impeach Mr. Obama; petitions to audit the Federal Reserve; petitions to support Sarah Palin; appeals urging defiance of any federal law requiring health insurance; and on and on.

Meanwhile, she and her husband are studying the Constitution line by line. She has the Congressional switchboard programmed into her cellphone. “I just signed up for a Twitter class,” said Mrs. Stout, 66, laughing at the improbability of it all.

Yet for all her efforts, Mrs. Stout is gripped by a sense that it may be too little too late. Yes, there have been victories — including polls showing support for the Tea Party movement — but in her view none of it has diminished the fundamental threat of tyranny, a point underscored by Mr. Obama’s drive to pass a health care overhaul.

She and her members are becoming convinced that rallies alone will not save the Republic. They are searching for some larger answer, she said. They are also waiting for a leader, someone capable of uniting their rebellion, someone like Ms. Palin, who made Sandpoint one of the final stops on her book tour and who has announced plans to attend a series of high-profile Tea Party events in the next few months.

“We need to really decide where we’re going to go,” Mrs. Stout said.

These questions of strategy, direction and leadership were clearly on the minds of Mrs. Stout’s members at a recent monthly meeting.

Their task seemed endless, almost overwhelming, especially with only $517 in their Tea Party bank account. There were rallies against illegal immigration to attend. There was a coming lecture about the hoax of global warming. There were shooting classes to schedule, and tips to share about the right survival food.

The group struggled fitfully for direction. Maybe they should start vetting candidates. Someone mentioned boycotting ABC, CBS, NBC and MSNBC. Maybe they should do more recruiting.

“How do you keep on fighting?” Mrs. Stout asked in exasperation.

Lenore Generaux, a local wildlife artist, had an idea: They should raise money for Freedom Force, a group that says it wants to “reclaim America via the Patriot movement.” The group is trying to unite the Tea Parties and other groups to form a powerful “Patriot lobby.” One goal is to build a “Patriot war chest” big enough to take control of the Republican Party.

Not long ago, Mrs. Stout sent an e-mail message to her members under the subject line: “Revolution.” It linked to an article by Greg Evensen, a leader in the militia movement, titled “The Anatomy of an American Revolution,” that listed “grievances” he said “would justify a declaration of war against any criminal enterprise including that which is killing our nation from Washington, D.C.”

Mrs. Stout said she has begun to contemplate the possibility of “another civil war.” It is her deepest fear, she said. Yet she believes the stakes are that high. Basic freedoms are threatened, she said. Economic collapse, food shortages and civil unrest all seem imminent.

“I don’t see us being the ones to start it, but I would give up my life for my country,” Mrs. Stout said.

She paused, considering her next words.

“Peaceful means,” she continued, “are the best way of going about it. But sometimes you are not given a choice.”




Slide show here.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Black Helicopters Over Nashville (Tea Party Critique)

Postby elfismiles » Tue Feb 16, 2010 1:06 pm


Know Your Conspiracies
NEWSWEEK's guide to today's trendiest, hippest, and least likely fringe beliefs.

PHOTOS - Town Hall Face: An unsightly condition caused by unsanitary health-care politics

Taxpayers: What About Us?
By David A. Graham | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Feb 12, 2010

Like recurring nightmares, conspiracy theories aren't necessarily gone for good just because they disappear for a while. They often come back, sometimes in slightly different forms. Their last golden age came during the middle of the Bush administration, which saw rumors from the political left about connections between the Bushes and the bin Ladens, insinuations about the military-industrial complex and the Patriot Act—actually, pretty much every plotline in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. Nothing breeds paranoid theories like political exile, which means that with Democrats back in the White House, it's the right's turn to take up the standard, a task it isn't shirking. And of course, several leftist theories remain in circulation. If you're having a hard time keeping all these paranoid points of view straight, here's a handy primer.

1. Barack Obama was not born in the United States.
It's not clear where he must have been born instead: some say Indonesia; some say Kenya (initial suggestions that Hawaiian natives weren't citizens when he was born in Honolulu in 1961 were quickly dismissed). The point, so-called birthers say, is that he wasn't born in the good old US of A, hence isn't a natural-born citizen and therefore cannot legally be president.
Proponents: Chief birther and Beverly Hills dentist and attorney Orly Taitz, WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah, Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.), former presidential and Senate candidate Alan Keyes, assorted tea partiers.
Kernel of Truth? It's fully debunked. Forged Kenyan birth certificates have been exposed, and—despite protestations to the contrary—Obama's birth certificate has been certified by the state of Hawaii, and images have been shown on national television. And that's leaving aside plenty of circumstantial proof, like birth announcements in both major Hawaiian papers from August 1961.

2. Anthropogenic global warming is a hoax. Proponents of the theory that the earth's temperature is rising—especially Al Gore and the United Nations—are trying to pull the wool over the world's eyes. Some believers say that warming is negligible in the scope of geological history, and many argue that even if warming is happening, it's not because of human activity. The goals of Gore and his ilk, they say, are to kill market competition, encourage socialist control, keep scientists' research coffers filled, and/or work to bring about a one-world government by giving the U.N. power to regulate the climate and by eroding national sovereignty.
Proponents: Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), rogue Canadian climate scientist Tim Ball, journalist and British aristocrat Lord Christopher Monckton, Sarah Palin, National Review.
Kernel of Truth? Deniers have long taken advantage of scientists' cautious statements, and "Climategate" breathed new life into the movement, but the science stands: warming is real, and it's caused by human actions.

3. Goldman Sachs intentionally created the economic crisis.
Swooping in from the left, Rolling Stone screed-master Matt Taibbi argued in July that investment bank Goldman Sachs, "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity," has for years created bubbles (dotcom, real estate) while betting against them. As a result, it reaps gains from the run-up but also wins big in the collapse because of its hedges. Ergo, Goldman Sachs created the financial crisis for its own gain. A less virulent strain of this theory notes the many former Goldman execs (Hank Paulson, Robert Rubin, Joshua Bolten, Neel Kashkari, etc.) in government and posits that they have designed the government's economic policy to help the firm.
Proponents: Matt Taibbi, journalist Robert Scheer, Glenn Beck, the Pragmatic Capitalist, the blogosphere.
Kernel of Truth? Goldman undoubtedly did better than any competitor from the financial crisis, and CEO Lloyd Blankfein even admitted—albeit cryptically—that the company had "participated in things that were clearly wrong." This theory is tougher than others to debunk fully, because there's no empirical data available either way. Nonetheless, while Goldman may have profited, that alone doesn't prove malice or conspiracy.

4. Democrats' health plan will create death panels. Part of Barack Obama's devious plan to reform health insurance will be the creation of panels of experts who will decide whether or not patients are "worth" treating, making them arbiters of life and death.
Proponents: Sarah Palin,Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), a lot of angry town-hall-meeting attendees.
Kernel of Truth? Palin was apparently referring to a provision of draft legislation that would have funded consultation about end-of-life care. There was and is, however, no plan for rationing care as a cost-cutting measure, and fact-checking outlet PolitiFact named the theory the "Lie of the Year" in 2009.

5. Barack Obama is a secret Muslim. Drawing many of the same backers as the birther movement, this theory claims that Obama was indoctrinated into Islam while living in Indonesia during his childhood. They worry Obama is trying to undermine America's Judeo-Christian heritage, institute Islamic religious law, betray Israel to the Arabs, and perhaps even allow Al Qaeda to win the war on terror.
Proponents: Anonymous chain e-mail, Libyan dictator Muammar Kaddafi, Swift Boater and propaganda wizard Jerome Corsi.
Kernel of Truth? Nope. Obama belonged to a Christian church in Chicago (for which he ironically also caught flack) and has a record of unambiguous support for Israel and hawkish policies on eradicating Al Qaeda's strongholds in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

6. Sarah Palin is not the mother of her 1-year-old son, Trig.
Someone else—perhaps even her daughter Bristol—is.
Proponents: Journalist and blogger Andrew Sullivan and … well, that's about it. Perhaps also Joy Behar.
Kernel of Truth? No. Sullivan has couched the whole thing as just pointing out minor discrepancies and asking for reasons—not directly making accusations. Palin has understandably refused to dignify these questions with responses. No one else has picked up the theory publicly, although privately some liberals regard it as plausible.

7. ACORN is part of a liberal conspiracy to steal elections.
The coalition of community organizations first came under fire after allegations that members were filing fraudulent voter-registration forms in order to beef up the Democratic vote in the 2008 elections. Pressure heated up after a videotaped sting humiliated the group.
Proponents: Glenn Beck, conservative commentators Michelle Malkin and Andrew Breitbart, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), unsuccessful N.Y. Conservative Party congressional candidate Doug Hoffman.
Kernel of Truth? The James O'Keefe videos showed questionable conduct at the very least, but neither they nor anything else proves a vast left-wing conspiracy between Democrats and ACORN to steal elections.

8. FEMA is establishing detention camps.
The government has quietly made the Federal Emergency Management Agency a shadow government. Even now, FEMA has concentration camps ready across the country to intern American citizens. The idea attracted leftists during the Bush administration and—updated for the Obama administration—now has right-wing adherents.
Proponents:++Glenn Beck (briefly), the Internet.
Kernel of Truth? Too silly to discuss.

9. The Council on American-Islamic Relations is trying to infiltrate Capitol Hill and spread jihad.
Author Dave Gaubatz alleges that the mainstream group is both connected to Islamist terrorists and international jihad and is working to infiltrate the American government by placing interns on Capitol Hill.
Proponents: Dave Gaubatz, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Rep. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.), Joseph Farah.
Kernel of Truth? CAIR has tried to place interns on Capitol Hill, but as it points out, that's standard practice for advocacy groups of all types and allegiances. There's no proof of sinister motives or an effort to encourage international jihad.

10. Obama wants to conscript Americans into a civilian defense corps.
The group would be a brownshirtlike organization that would enforce order in the United States.
Proponents:Glenn Beck, Watergate burglar and media personality G. Gordon Liddy, Ann Coulter.
Kernel of Truth? Liberal press watchdog Media Matters says the theory stems from a speech Obama made in which he argued for the importance of the Foreign Service, AmeriCorps, and the Peace Corps. That's a far cry from an American Gestapo—a claim for which there's no support.

11. Time magazine wants to restrict the Internet to licensed users.
Time, in concert with pro-censorship groups, is backing a plan that would require a license—i.e., government sanction—for people to get on the Internet.
Proponents: Radio host and conspiracy junkie Alex Jones' twoWeb sites.
Kernel of Truth?Time published a story reporting on a Microsoft executive who'd like to see licensing to combat anonymity. Broadcasting such a controversial proposal—regardless of its merits—is quite the opposite of censorship, as Time's Michael Scherer rightly explained.

12. 9/11 was an inside job.
The truthers, holdovers from the Bush days, just won't go away. They argue that the physics of the World Trade Center collapse doesn't add up, and that the attacks were an excuse for the U.S. to launch wars abroad and enrich defense contractors. Either the government planned and executed them or it knew they were coming and turned a blind eye.
Proponents:Alex Jones, retired religion professor David Ray Griffin, Reagan administration policy analyst Barbara Honegger, British journalist Robert Fisk.
Kernel of Truth? Not even the staunchest mainstream George W. Bush bashers believe this one. Enough said.

13. The Omnibus One-World Government, Unified Currency, Dollar-Abolishing, Free Trade–Advocating Theory of Everything:
To make, first reheat old theories about elite organizations that supposedly control various world governments and would like to create a single, unitary, global regime—the Bilderberg Group, the Council of Foreign Relations, and the Trilateral Commission. Add a healthy portion of slightly newer but equally discredited theories about the Amero, a pan-North American currency, and the NAFTA superhighway, a planned thruway from Canada to Mexico said to be six football fields wide. Freshen with the economic-crisis-born idea that Ben Bernanke is trying to destroy the value of the dollar. Add a pinch of tea-party spice from former Alabama State Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, who believes there's a plan underfoot to have a United Nations guard at every American's door. The finished product should taste a little like this.
Proponents: Alex Jones, finance blog Zero Hedge, WorldNetDaily, conservative news site NewsMax, Roy Moore.
Kernel of Truth? Eh, sounds plausible to us.



http://www.newsweek.com/id/233518

User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Re: Black Helicopters Over Nashville (Tea Party Critique)

Postby American Dream » Wed Feb 17, 2010 9:24 am

Right-Wing Stunts and Tea Party Froth on the Eve of Conservatives' Big Yearly Conference

By Adele M. Stan, AlterNet
Posted on February 17, 2010


http://www.alternet.org/story/145697/

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- As the day of the annual Conservative Political Action Conference approaches, Washington is abuzz about the new kid in town -- the Tea Party movement.

Like any conference, this one, which kicks off tomorrow, will have its yearly star, likely to be drawn from the ranks of that rancorous mob of discontents. The whole shebang will conclude with a closing address by Fox News personality Glenn Beck, Rupert Murdoch's community organizer and online convener of the 9/12 March on Washington. (You may recall the 2007 queen of CPAC, Ann Coulter, made big news for calling John Edwards, then a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, "a faggot" -- an accusation he has since disproved in a rather spectacular fashion.)

In a bid, perhaps, not to be shunted to the wings of conservatism's center stage, a group of old-school conservative leaders will gather today to put their signatures on something they're calling the Mount Vernon Statement, named for the tangential location of its ceremonial signing, which will take place at a venue that sits on land once part of George Washington's original estate. The Collingwood Library and Museum on Americanism, where the signing will take place, is run by the National Sojourners, an Masonic organization of past and present military officers.

The statement will sound an ominous chord, likely to win the favor of Tea Party activists, about the message of change for America so identified with the Obama presidential campaign, even asking if "this idea of change" is "a dangerous deception."

The idea for the statement, say organizers, is the Sharon Statement on which the New Right was formed in the early 1960s. The Sharon Statement was a declaration of principles, not specific to any one issue, but rather to the philosophy of the conservative movement during its salad days under the leadership of the late William F. Buckley.

In recent weeks, the often chaotic character of Tea Party movement has received attention from the mainstream media, which have shone a light on disputes between various factions. Yesterday, the New York Times ran a feature about the movement's ties to the Patriot and militia movements. Yet most reporters, including me, have had a hard time discerning a consistent ideology within the movement, other than an overriding sense of paranoia, and opposition to all things Obama. The Mt. Vernon Statement, should it win the support of Tea Partiers, could give the movement something of a credo.

Leading today's ceremony will be former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, who served under President Ronald Reagan, and was implicated in the Iran-Contra scandal. Signers read like a who's who of the right's stalwarts, including David Keene, president of the American Conservative Union (which hosts the CPAC convention), Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and Richard Viguerie, a direct-mail entrepreneur and founder of the religious right. AlterNet tried to reach Viguerie for comment, since he truly sits at the nexus of the old "New Right" and the Tea Party movement, which he has been helping to organize. Mr. Viguerie's assistant, alas, told us he would not be available to talk with AlterNet for the rest of the week.

The whole statement will not be released, organizers say, until tomorrow's signing ceremony. Individuals will then be able to add their names to the document via The Mount Vernon Statement Web site. This excerpt has been circulated to media:

In recent decades, America's principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics. The self-evident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist. The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.

Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new. But where would this lead -- forward or backward, up or down? Isn't this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception?

The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles. At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The conservatism of the Declaration [of Independence] asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature's God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man's self-interest but also his capacity for virtue.



Adele M. Stan is AlterNet's Washington bureau chief.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Black Helicopters Over Nashville (Tea Party Critique)

Postby elfismiles » Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:15 pm

Lotsa links and video at the OP...
http://www.infowars.com/sarah-palin-911 ... lenn-beck/


BREAKING: Sarah Palin 9/11 truther controversy makes hypocrite of Glenn Beck

Sarah Palin 9/11 truther controversy explodes days after Texas Gubernatorial hopeful Debra Medina outcast as ‘pariah candidate’ for 9/11 comments

Aaron Dykes & Alex Jones
Infowars.com
February 17, 2010


Days after Debra Medina’s rising bid for Texas Governor was stung by controversy over comments about 9/11 on the Glenn Beck Show, it has emerged that former Vice Presidential candidate and “Tea Party’ darling Sarah Palin has done her one better– stating her support for a new 9/11 investigation just before the 2008 election, and going far beyond Medina’s mild statement.

Yet, it isn’t the audacity to admit there are remaining questions about 9/11 when scientific polls have found that 84% of Americans do not believe the official story and at least six of the 9/11 commissioners think their own report is flawed, or worse. Instead, it is the hypocrisy of Glenn Beck and the media cretins who followed his lead in dismissing and defaming Medina outright for not immediately belittling 9/11 truthers while ignoring similar statements by GOP darling Sarah Palin.

9/11 Qs: MEDINA JOINED BY SARAH PALIN, DEM. GOV. CANDIDATE FAROUK SHAMI

The Statesman reported that Glenn Beck even grilled Medina on whether or not she would ‘disavow’ any advisers known to hold certain beliefs about 9/11. Medina responded. “I’m certainly not into mind control or thought-policing people.”

Furthermore, Medina’s GOP challengers– incumbent Rick Perry and Sen. Hutchison blasted her in the media within mere minutes of her 9/11 comments. Surely, they were fearful of Debra Medina’s sharp rise in the polls, and seized on the opportunity to harm her politically.

Sitting Governor Perry, who was endorsed by Sarah Palin during a recent stump appearance at the Texas capitol, stated that Medina’s comments were an “insult”:

“Today’s comments were an insult to the thousands of Americans who lost loved ones on Sept. 11 and the military men and women who are overseas protecting our country. President Bush worked tirelessly to protect our nation from additional terrorist attacks and anyone who would suggest Sept. 11 is a conspiracy involving the Bush administration should be ashamed.”

Will Gov. Rick Perry also rebuke Sarah Palin, his top endorsement, for her potentially “insulting” statement? It is doubtful, and until he does, arguably hypocritical.

Further, Medina is not the only gubernatorial candidate to question the events of 9/11. Democrat Farouk Shami went quite a bit further than anything Medina had said when he stated:

“People have talked about it. Professors have written books about it. People overseas talk about it. Whenever I go overseas, people ask me these questions about it. Why are we questioned about it? Do they know something we don’t know, the public? But you know, look, we still don’t know who killed JFK– whose behind it, let’s put it that way. Would we ever find the truth about 9/11? That’s a very dangerous subject to get into, you know? So it’s hard to make judgement. I’m not saying yes or no. Because I don’t know the truth.”

Yet no fuss is made about these individuals. Debra Medina is attacked, however, because she truly is a threat to the political establishment. Perry, Hutchison, Beck and others pretend to want limited government, pretend to defend the 2nd Amendment and property rights, but really support new taxes, look the other way at corporate looting and otherwise refuse to stand for true Texas sovereignty and the rights of individuals. When Medina proves that she really will change things and challenge undue Federal powers, she is attacked and cast aside as a pariah.

GLENN BECK DICTATES WHAT IS ‘TRUTH’

Glenn Beck, who has stated that he “hates the 9/11 victims’ families” for asking questions, who has called 9/11 truthers “dangerous anarchists”, who has called Ron Paul and his supporters ‘domestic terrorists’, has gone out of his way to politically assassinate anyone even loosely affiliated with questioning the official government account of September 11. Now that Beck has underhandedly tried to sabotage Debra Medina, will he also call out fellow FOX News personality Sarah Palin for daring to broach the subject that makes him come unglued?

And, if Debra Medina is guilty of association with 9/11 truth, Sarah Palin is by definition more guilty. She has stated support for an all-out new investigation of 9/11 (the valhalla of the 9/11 truth movement) All the more threatening because Beck and Gov. Perry have already branded themselves with Palin- agast, a truther in disguise?.

After all, Glenn Beck went so far as to say that Medina’s comments about 9/11 not only urged him to ‘cross her off the list’ but constitute to make her a “Flat Earther.” Yes, Glenn Beck made an astounding appeal on his Feb. 16th program about the 9/11 truth “takeover” of the Tea Party movement. He referred to Debra Medina as a “flat earther” and implied that she, like once White House Czar Van Jones, is somehow a cryptic-9/11 truther who holds her beliefs in secret while attempting to infiltrate the halls of government.

This, Glenn Beck deduces, in an air reminiscent of McCarthy and HUAC, is why he felt the need to flush out Medina’s true attitudes via a surprise question on Sept. 11 orthodoxy. Since when did TV pundits decide what people are allowed to think, anyway? Beck “The Inquisitor” made an example out of Debra Medina and– in true Orwellian fashion– put his boot down firmly, demanding that those ‘dangerous truthers’ be purged or damned.

He then lectures on why the NY Times is linking the Tea Party with “violence.” Why? Because of 9/11 Truthers who have ‘infilitrated’ the Tea Party he pretends to speak for.

Despite what Beck has alleged, the 9/11 Truth movement is committed to non-violence. The only danger posed is in the questions it has raised.

Actually, the Tea Parties of the last decade were first those of 9/11 Truth, then Ron Paul, and only after the election of Barack Obama, hijacked by the Republican Party and FOX News as a vehicle for a party resurgence.

By contrast, Glenn Beck gave Sarah Palin a worshipful welcome to the FOX Network only weeks ago, embarrassingly comparing her to George Washington, reading aloud his diary entry anticipating their interview together, putting her on the “most admired list” and otherwise urging her to be a ‘reluctant’ candidate in 2012. (See below or Jon Stewart’s lambast of the awkward interview)

But do not despair. Debra Medina has not lost her potency in the race for Governor. It is precisely because of her unforeseen quickening in the polls that the establishment media and candidates raced to shut down a viable candidate that stood for true issues. Her campaign dies only if you let it. They are afraid of a true Constitutional office holder; don’t let attack dogs like Beck practice duplicity– writing off Medina for 9/11 and praising Palin in spite of it. Let Glenn Beck know that the thought police will not tell us what to think or how to vote.

RELATED: NeoCon Palin’s tea party takeover will facilitate Obama reelection
http://www.infowars.com/sarah-palin-911 ... lenn-beck/
User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Re: Black Helicopters Over Nashville (Tea Party Critique)

Postby 82_28 » Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:55 pm

Tea party speaker: I want to hang Patty Murray


ASOTIN, Wash. -- They say it's all about traditional values and pushing back against the government.

But at the Take Back America Rally hosted by Lewis and Clark Tea Party Patriots on Saturday, one speaker's words were not so family-friendly.

"How many of you have watched the movie 'Lonesome Dove?'" asked an unidentified speaker from the podium. "What happened to Jake when he ran with the wrong crowd? He got hung. And that's what I want to do with Patty Murray."

Approximately 500 people gathered for the rally at the Asotin County Fairgrounds.

"We are getting people together to try to tell the government that we don't like what's going on," said Doug Schurman, the group's co-chairman. "We don't like their spending. We don't like their unaccountability, and we want it to change."

Schurman said the group is trying to get more people involved in the movement to "save our nation."

Speaker Phil Teasley echoed the sentiment, stating more Americans need to step up and be heard.

"We have sat around for so long and the mess we are in is because we are so complacent," he said. "So the better educated we are, the better educated the people can make a decision on the politicians."

In addressing the crowd about state sovereignty and education, Teasley said federal agendas are pushing out state curriculum.ASOTIN, Wash. -- They say it's all about traditional values and pushing back against the government.

But at the Take Back America Rally hosted by Lewis and Clark Tea Party Patriots on Saturday, one speaker's words were not so family-friendly.

"How many of you have watched the movie 'Lonesome Dove?'" asked an unidentified speaker from the podium. "What happened to Jake when he ran with the wrong crowd? He got hung. And that's what I want to do with Patty Murray."

Approximately 500 people gathered for the rally at the Asotin County Fairgrounds.

"We are getting people together to try to tell the government that we don't like what's going on," said Doug Schurman, the group's co-chairman. "We don't like their spending. We don't like their unaccountability, and we want it to change."

Schurman said the group is trying to get more people involved in the movement to "save our nation."

Speaker Phil Teasley echoed the sentiment, stating more Americans need to step up and be heard.

"We have sat around for so long and the mess we are in is because we are so complacent," he said. "So the better educated we are, the better educated the people can make a decision on the politicians."

In addressing the crowd about state sovereignty and education, Teasley said federal agendas are pushing out state curriculum.

"I want to get the parents involved with their kids," he said. "I want them to meet their teachers. I want them to get involved with the PTA, if they want to. I want them to run for school board because if you know what your kids are being taught, then it's so much easier to find things ... coming in that we don't want."

The group's next event is scheduled to be held on April 11 at the Lewiston Community Center.

"I want to get the parents involved with their kids," he said. "I want them to meet their teachers. I want them to get involved with the PTA, if they want to. I want them to run for school board because if you know what your kids are being taught, then it's so much easier to find things ... coming in that we don't want."

The group's next event is scheduled to be held on April 11 at the Lewiston Community Center.



http://www.komonews.com/news/local/84657127.html

Good times. . .
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Black Helicopters Over Nashville (Tea Party Critique)

Postby 82_28 » Thu Feb 18, 2010 7:38 am

Resurgent conservatives unveil their manifesto

Here we go! The one party state. Check the last line.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — With polls and recent elections suggesting a possible comeback for Republicans, a group of prominent conservatives unveiled a statement of principles Wednesday called Constitutional Conservatism that they hope will guide a new era of governing.

"A year ago, some pundits claimed that conservatism was effectively dead. But today, as revelations about Washington's futility in addressing America's problems continue to mount, the movement is alive and poised for a resurgence of constitutional conservative leadership," former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese said.

Meese, who served under President Ronald Reagan, was one of several dozen conservatives who drafted and signed the statement, dubbed the Mount Vernon Statement because they introduced it at a museum that once was part of George Washington's Virginia estate of the same name.

Others noted that they were following in the footsteps of the late conservative icon William F. Buckley Jr. and others who signed a similar statement in 1960.

"Fifty years ago, the federal government threatened to grow exponentially," said Edwin Feulner Jr., the president of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research center. "Visionaries then gathered in Sharon, Conn., to articulate essential principles of American governance. Today, that threat is even greater, and so we must articulate anew the nature of Constitutional Conservatism in the 21st century."

The statement reaffirms the goal of a limited government coupled with a strong national defense.

"Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law," said the statement from a group that included such figures as American Conservative Union president David Keene; Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council; and Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform.

"Each one of these founding ideas is presently under sustained attack. In recent decades, America's principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics. . . .

"The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant," said the statement.

The signers of the statement, which by design excluded elected officials, warned the three types of modern conservatives — economic, social and national security — that each should mind the other, and that none should pursue greater federal government power in the name of its own cause.


http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14422482
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Black Helicopters Over Nashville (Tea Party Critique)

Postby American Dream » Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:13 pm

Via the Konformist:


The March of the Know Nothings

by Joel Peskoff



It started with a summer health care town hall meeting when a senior citizen angrily stood up and shouted, "keep your government hands off my Medicare," not appreciating the irony that Medicare is a run by the government. What's fascinating is that factless ranting has morphed into a full blown movement.

Members can be seen on the news raving that President Obama is both a Socialist and a fascist, not knowing that the two are opposing ideologies. I'm sure none of the Tea Partiers heard of, let alone read, Keynes' "General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money." Blissfully ignorant of established economics, they call for repeating the policies of Hoover's Depression enabling Administration – namely, balancing the budget during a deep recession. While running big deficits in the face of the worst economic dive in 80 years is actually the right thing to do, don't tell them that, they don't want to know.

The support columns of the Tea Party movement are unfocused anger. They're angry that bankers got a better deal than they did (me too); they're angry that there is high unemployment; they're angry that the government spends a lot of money; and, who knows why they're angry that someone actually wants to tackle health care costs which are bankrupting the nation. Of course, their solution is misguided. The Tea Partiers gravitate to the right-wing who, given the chance, would privatize their Social Security, eliminate their Medicare, eviscerate social programs that benefit them, eliminate bank regulation that protect their savings and export their jobs to foreign countries.

The movement's discourse is appealing name-calling delivered by demagogues. Steven Millroy, who runs JunkScience.com, said at the Tea Party convention, "President Obama is not a U.S. socialist. He's an international socialist. He envisions one world government. That's what his whole plan is." Oh really, Steve? How did you arrive at that, because Obama likes Star Trek?

Former Republican Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo suggests that the country would be better off if we required "civics literacy tests" before people can vote. I wonder how that would have sat with Tancredo's Italian-immigrant grandparents? As a boy, I lived in a mixed neighborhood inhabited by many Italian immigrant citizens who could barely speak English. My grandmother's native language was Yiddish and could not read English. Yet, nobody thought they weren't good enough to let vote.

Fortunately, we've been there and we've learned how to deal with the irrational and ignorant that advocate disastrous public policy. During the 1930s, many on the right denounced Franklin Roosevelt as a "Socialist" even though his family was wealthy blue-bloods. The same right-wing argued that America should not aid the British as they combated Nazi Germany. The right-wing was on the wrong side of history then, as it is now. Could we imagine for a second what the world would be like today if America had let Britain fall to the Nazis and allowed the Great Depression to continue unrestrained by the New Deal?

Revisionists claim that the New Deal didn't work but that's why they're revisionists. The fact is that from 1929 to 1933, when Roosevelt took office, GDP had halved and private unemployment soared to 25%. Upon enacting the New Deal, unemployment dropped by half but since workers employed by the WPA, CCC and other government programs were not considered employed, using 1930s measures, the official figures are understated.

FDR recognized that there would always be 20-25% of the people who would never stop criticizing him. He dealt with them by ignoring and ridiculing their views, not allowing their viral views to infect his policies. In 1937, FDR did heed to critics and cut back the New Deal stimulus and it drove the country into recession.

President Obama is attacked by Republicans for everything, from hiring "czars" and trying terrorists in civilian courts, just as the previous president did. His wife is also attacked. This is not new. Roosevelt and his family were the brunt of relentless and continuous attacks by Republican leaders and their puppets in the media, who were just as much the soulless pricks as they are today.

One attack claimed that Roosevelt ordered a Navy destroyer to transport his dog, Fala. Roosevelt counterattacked with biting humor:

"These Republican leaders have not been content with attacks on me, or my wife, or on my sons. No, not content with that, they now include my little dog, Fala. Well, of course, I don't resent attacks, and my family doesn't resent attacks, but Fala does resent them. You know, Fala is Scotch, and being a Scottie, as soon as he learned that the Republican fiction writers in Congress and out had concocted a story that I had left him behind on the Aleutian Islands and had sent a destroyer back to find him--at a cost to the taxpayers of two or three, or eight or twenty million dollars--his Scotch soul was furious. He has not been the same dog since. I am accustomed to hearing malicious falsehoods about myself--such as that old, worm-eaten chestnut that I have represented myself as indispensable. But I think I have a right to resent, to object to libelous statements about my dog."--Sept. 23, 1944

My advice to clear-headed policymakers: ignore and ridicule the Tea Party crowd. You can't argue with the irrational or the uninformed. You can't reason with people who seriously think that the President of the United States wants to destroy America. Just because they are serious doesn't mean you need to take them seriously. Their views should be mocked so that everyone else can see how out of the mainstream they are, and how rational you are.

Likewise, you can't negotiate with a political party that wants you to accomplish nothing. Any concession will be greedily taken without reciprocation on their part. The only way to deal with that crowd is the steamroller approach.


***
http://wsws.org/articles/2010/feb2010/teap-f09.shtml

The "Tea Party" movement in the US: A right-wing media creation
By David Walsh
9 February 2010


The "Tea Party" movement, which held a convention last weekend in Nashville, Tennessee, is largely a media concoction, aimed at shifting official American political life even further to the right.

The convention gathered "nearly 600 conservative activists," according to ABC News, a weak showing considering the US media has been playing up this "grassroots movement" for the past 12 months.

The press coverage of the Tea Party movement begins from a thoroughly false premise, that wide layers of the American population oppose the Obama administration from the right, outraged over "socialism" and "big government" and the sinister possibility of "universal health care."

The Tea Party business took shape in a typically sordid and fraudulent manner. One year ago, CNBC correspondent Rick Santelli let loose with a rant from the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade—cheered on by traders—against the Obama administration's meager mortgage reform, denouncing attempts "to subsidize the losers' mortgages … How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills?"

Far from a spontaneous outburst, Santelli's appeal for a "tea party" protest was a stage-managed event, prepared well in advance and backed by wealthy, extreme right-wing forces. In any case, how could such a reactionary and selfish attack on the millions in danger of losing their homes provide the basis for a "populist" revolt in any meaningful sense of the word? The various rallies organized by the Tea Party network have been attended by a combination of ultra-right activists and highly confused, primarily middle class layers. Again, the gatherings have attracted forces largely through absurdly out-of-proportion media coverage.

This continues. Last weekend's convention, addressed by former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, received front-page treatment in the leading US newspapers. The New York Times referred to the movement's efforts to harness "the grass-roots anger that burst onto the streets a year ago." The Washington Post noted the number of convention delegates, but assured its readers that "there are millions of Americans just like them." This is a movement, declared the Post, "that is unmistakably people-powered."

There are people and there are people. The "people" who organized and spoke at the Tea Party convention happen to be well-heeled scoundrels and demagogues. The speakers included Tom Tancredo, the former Colorado Republican congressman, a fundamentalist Christian and anti-immigrant fanatic; Steve Milloy, the "junk science" commentator for FoxNews.com, i.e., an opponent of any effort to reverse the damage inflicted on the environment by "free enterprise"; Judge Roy Moore, the Alabama Supreme Court justice who refused to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments despite a federal judge's orders in 2003 and currently a Republican candidate for Alabama governor; Fox News commentator Angela McGlowan, author of BAMBOOZLED: How Americans Are Being Exploited by the Lies of the Liberal Agenda; etc., etc.

A leader of the Memphis Tea Party, Mark Skoda, who presided over a final press conference, is a former UPS and FedEx executive and host of a radio program, "For God and Country," on a Memphis radio station.

The audience, "overwhelmingly white and middle-aged," according to the Post, was regaled with attacks on the Obama administration, including one effort to correlate the current administration and "Marxist Dictators of Latin America," the defense of "Judeo-Christian values," and appeals for fiscal responsibility, less government, lower taxes, states' rights and "strong national security."

In her remarks to the meeting, Palin—reportedly paid $100,000 for her appearance—offered a simple-minded defense of American militarism and attacks on democratic rights. She denounced law enforcement officials for supposedly granting "our constitutional rights" to terrorism suspects and the Obama administration for "reaching out to hostile regimes, writing personal letters to dangerous dictators, and apologizing for America!" In her appearances at the convention, she made clear her desire to be a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.

As a political figure, Palin is also largely a media and right-wing concoction. Among her earliest sponsors and advisors were longtime Democratic Party fundraiser and Washington DC lawyer, John Coale, and his wife, Greta Van Susteren, the Fox News commentator. Coale, a Scientologist like his spouse, raised large amounts of money for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 and for Hillary Clinton in 2008. When the latter lost the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama, Coale switched his allegiance to Sen. John McCain and became especially involved in efforts to make Palin into a national figure. This is the incestuous character of American politics.

The Tea Party movement has been organized by a section of the Republican Party, including Dick Armey, the former Texas congressman, House Majority leader and "flat tax" advocate, along with right-wing media types such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has endorsed the movement, and Texas Governor Rick Perry attended a rally in Austin, Texas. Rupert Murdoch's Fox News has strenuously advertised and promoted the Tea Party events.

The reactionary policies advocated by this movement are not popular with the American people, and if the Tea Party forces were presented before the public in an accurate light, they would not garner significant support. This is not, however, a reason for complacency. The growth of extreme right-wing elements is a real danger.

But contrary to the claims of the Nation and the left-liberal milieu, the risk does not emerge from some mass base for fascistic politics in America. It comes primarily from the continued subordination of the working class to the Democratic Party, and by that means, to the ruling elite. This blocks the development of a progressive alternative and provides the Republican right with opportunities to make gains by demagogically exploiting the political impasse. It is political roadblock that must be addressed.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Black Helicopters Over Nashville (Tea Party Critique)

Postby American Dream » Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:25 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/2 ... 75821.html

Tea Party Leader Calls Obama "Half-White Racist"

HuffPost Citizen Reporting | Alex Brant-Zawadzki First Posted: 02-24-10 07:28 PM | Updated: 02-25-10 09:58 AM



Last September Mark Williams, a tour partner with the Tea Party Express, referred to President Obama as "our half white, racist president."

In a September email obtained by Talking Points Memo, Williams angrily responded to what he calls a "false allegation" by CNN that he called President Obama a Nazi. In an apparent attempt to demonstrate he is not racist, Williams claimed to have a strong record on civil rights. He spoke of "marching for civil rights while asshole southern sheriffs were swinging nail-studded bats at blacks's heads..."

On September 14, 2009, Mark Williams admitted to CNN's Anderson Cooper that he referred to "Mubarak Hussein Obama" as a Nazi:


COOPER: But wait Mark, you're actually the one who called President Obama Nazi.

WILLIAMS: I didn't call Barack Obama a Nazi.

COOPER: Yes, he's on your list, on your Web site of like 21st century Nazis. You have his name.

WILLIAMS: We've got the philosophy of fascism and national socialism at work here. Of course we do.

COOPER: No, no but you have the president's name, although it's a derivation that's not his actually name, it's a name it's kind of a negative.

WILLIAMS: Mubarak Hussein Obama.

COOPER: Right, that's what's you call him on your Website. You're the one who's using the term Nazi.



Tea Party Express, a series of nationwide anti-Obama bus tours, is frequently decried as "astroturf", or fake grassroots, by other aspects of the Tea Party movement, notably the Tea Party Patriots, due to its associations with Our Country Deserves Better PAC, which is run out of the Republican strategy firm Russo Marsh.

Williams acts as a spokesman for Tea Party Express.

Robin Stublen, a leader of the Tea Party Patriots, told HuffPost in an email, "Mark Williams is not someone I would want being my spokesman. He comes off as an arrogant, self promoting, egotistical jerk. In politics, people like Mark Williams are a dime a dozen, even when you factor in inflation."

Williams concluded his September email by inexplicably refusing to defend himself:

I will defend my record on race to no one (sic), under any circumstances and, I will call out any racist, any time without regard to who they are ... and that includes our half white, racist president.
"If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything."
-Malcolm X
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Black Helicopters Over Nashville (Tea Party Critique)

Postby American Dream » Sat Mar 19, 2011 11:43 am

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... print=true

Glenn Beck's Shtick? Alex Jones Got There First

'He rips me off and spins the information, often injecting lies into the truth,' says Jones


Image
Alex Jones and Glenn Beck

Long before he inadvertently brought an end to a popular sitcom by hosting last week’s mega-viral interview with Charlie Sheen, talk-radio host Alex Jones established himself as a giant in America’s conspiracy subculture. The godfather of the 9/11 Truth Movement, Jones is the most popular chronicler of what he believes is a New World Order plot to enslave the global population.

Until recently, he was a lonely and little-known voice in the short wave and Internet radio wilderness. But as his audience has grown, other talk show hosts have taken notice — and cues. Among his most ardent imitators is Glenn Beck, whom Jones has accused of stealing his ideas, guests, and research. Last week, Jones posted a video clip on his site, InfoWars, offering evidence of this theft.

“He rips me off and spins the information, often injecting lies into the truth,” says Jones.

So, is Alex Jones really the invisible senior writer of Beck’s TV and radio shows? If the below is any indication, the answer is “Yes.”

1. “Inside-Job” Terror
Alex Jones was the first 9/11 Truther. Two months before the attacks took place, in July of 2001, Jones warned that the U.S. government was planning to blow up the World Trade Center and blame Osama bin Laden. More recently, Jones and his websites have been sounding the alarm, based on mainstream press clippings, that the Obama Administration might find political gain in the tragedy of a “new Oklahoma City Bombing” or a 9/11-style attack. Jones had been making this argument for several months when Beck began to hit a very similar note shortly after the midterms last year. “They are setting up an Oklahoma City. They are claiming that one is coming and they’re already marked the one who caused it,” Beck said in November, referring to himself. Unlike Jones, however, Beck continues to harshly criticize those who entertain or believe similar actions could have occurred during the Bush Administration or past governments.

Scorecard: Rip-off and redirection. Beck takes a page from Jones in discussing state-sponsored terror, but twists it for use against Democrats — ignoring Jones’ more radical theory that both parties are historically capable of heinous acts against their own people.

2. Martial Law, Food Riots & Pentagon Planning for Domestic Unrest
For the past several years, Glenn Beck echoed Alex Jones on the Doomsday themes of looming economic disaster and subsequent societal collapse. What’s more, Beck often relies heavily on guests who first appeared on the Alex Jones Show to discuss the same topics. For example, on October 13, 2008, Beck discussed the “threat of martial law” with frequent Alex Jones guest and former Senate candidate Peter Schiff. During the same program, Beck went on to discuss what he considered “coercive” and “manufactured fear” — classic Jones themes. Similar echoes can be found on Beck’s website, The Blaze, which often cover subjects shortly after Jones, such as the Pentagon’s plans for civil unrest and a possible food crisis triggering martial law.

Scorecard: Beck is caught red-handed here — stealing ideas, language and guests. Incidentally, the more Beck has incorporated themes of social collapse into his show, the more his online advertising roster resembles that found on Jones’ site, which has featured survivalist gear and products for more than a decade.

3. New World Order & Global Currency
If any one term defines the career of Alex Jones, it is the New World Order. Beck, who used to make fun of N.W.O conspiracy, now covers it frequently and has incorporated the term into his show. This began while Beck was still on CNN. On Oct 9, 2008 he declared, “New world Order is the endgame.” That February, he hosted longtime Alex Jones guest Ron Paul on his Fox News show to discuss world government. He has also borrowed language from Jones when expressing his fears about the creation of a global currency and sterilants in the water.

Beck’s Scorecard: The mother of all rip-offs by Beck. He again leans heavily on Jones’ trademark New World Order language, but deemphasizes or ignores the role played by corporations, which are prominent in Jones’ more sweeping critique.

4. Fabian Socialists, Eugenics and George Bernard Shaw
Alex Jones and his guests have long covered the history of eugenics, including the role of George Bernard Shaw, the playwright and unabashed eugenicist. Alex’s 2007 documentary film Endgame takes an in-depth look at Shaw, who has been discussed on-air many times, including here. In January, 2010, Glenn Beck’s documentary The Revolutionary Holocaust included the exact same clips of Shaw as those discussed or shown on The Alex Jones Show. Later, Beck would revisit the subject to link eugenics and Fabian Socialists to the London School of Economics and his favorite new target, George Soros.

Scorecard: Classic example of Beck stealing material from Jones and stripping it of context so as to better attack Beck’s progressive straw-men — in this case George Soros and other usual suspects found on Beck’s chalk board.

5. Egypt Revolution Staged Destabilization of Mideast Region
From the beginning of the recent unrest in Egypt, frequent Alex Jones guest Dr. Webster Tarpley was often on-air discussing the destabilization of Egypt and other nations in the region. In these interviews, Tarpley and Jones discussed the role of U.S., British and Israeli intelligence agencies in the creation and backing of the Muslim Brotherhood. Glenn Beck was soon on TV and the radio giving a similar explanation for the Egyptian protest, with one key and all-too typical twist: In Beck’s telling, it was a leftist-oriented and -inspired revolution led by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Scorecard: A textbook example of Beck echoing information recently aired on Jones’ show, but with the information narrowly deployed to provide ballast for Beck’s nakedly partisan politics.

6. Google Boycott & Google’s Ties to U.S. Government
Alex Jones has been calling out Google as a front and ally to the NSA and other U.S.- backed intelligence since at least 2006, when he had expert Robert Steele on to discuss Google’s founding and funding. Lately, in an offshoot of his theory regarding tumult in the Mideast, Beck has begun to blast Google’s ties to the government, as well as alleged leftist ties to the revolution. But he has not condemned systematic, universal spying and cataloguing of data by Google. This quickly drew Jones’ ire.

Scorecard: Once again, Beck seems to be taking a critique from Jones and reverse engineering it as a weapon to attack the left, ignoring its more sweeping condemnation of Google or its activities under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

7. The Google Bomb
On Feb. 3, 2011 Beck told viewers to search “caliphate.” They did, and the term went to No. 3 on Google Trends. Where did Beck get the idea? Likely its innovator, Alex Jones, who has initiated more than 50-60 Google Trends that have become #1 search terms.

Scorecard: Innovation begets imitation. Beck saw Jones’ successful Google Bombing initiatives and decided to borrow the idea to drive traffic to his own websites — where Beck’s fans can digest bastardized versions of theories and facts originally found on the Alex Jones Show.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Black Helicopters Over Nashville (Tea Party Critique)

Postby American Dream » Wed Mar 30, 2011 12:38 pm

Rift in the Right: Many Conservatives Reject the Tea Party's Paranoid Views

By Adele M. Stan, AlterNet
Posted on March 29, 2011


http://www.alternet.org/story/150431/

When you think of the word "conservative," what comes to mind? Did you say the Tea Party? Well, if you did, you'd only be half-right. That's because 51 percent of self-identified conservatives do not strongly identify with the Tea Party, and strong majorities within that non-Tea Party contingent reject some of the Tea Party movement's signature sentiments, according to a new study by the University of Washington's Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race and Sexuality -- such as the notion that President Barack Obama is "destroying" America. Yet despite their rejection by the conservative mainstream, Tea Party leaders appear to control the Republican Party agenda.

Among Tea Party-aligned conservatives, 71 percent said that Obama was "destroying the country." Only six percent of those conservatives not strongly supportive to the Tea Party movement agreed with the statement, suggesting, according to a statement issued by institute, that the tea party is taking its philosophy in directions far more extreme than those of average conservatives." In other areas, the contrast was similarly stark. A whopping 76 percent of Tea Party conservatives said they wanted Obama's policies to fail, compared with (a still troubling) 32 percent of more mainstream conservatives.

And why do all those Tea Partiers want those policies to fail? Because they're perceived, somehow, as "socialist," despite the corporation-friendly nature of so-called financial reform, or a health-care reform plan rooted in the private sector. Three-quarters of Tea Party conservatives -- 76 percent -- told survey-takers that Obama's policies were pushing the country toward socialism. While mainstream conservatives more reticent to cry "socialism," 40 percent of them agreed with the Tea Partiers on that claim.

When it came to the conspiracy theories that fuel the Tea Party -- tropes about Obama's religion and place of birth -- the gap narrowed, but remained significant.

Despite the president's well-documented Christian faith, 27 percent of Tea Party-identified conservatives said the president was a practicing Muslim, compared to 16 percent of mainstream conservatives. Among mainstream conservatives, 46 percent agreed that the president is a practicing Christian, while only 27 percent of Tea Party conservatives agreed.

And despite Obama's release, during the presidential campaign, of documentation of his birth in Hawaii, only 40 percent of Tea Party conservatives believe the information on his certificate of live birth, compared with a slim majority -- 55 percent -- of mainstream conservatives.

Since the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency, the Republican Party has become a nearly monolithically conservative party, a reflection of the party's takeover by the religious right in 1979. Gone are the "Rockefeller Republicans" -- politicians and their followers who were fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

So when we speak today of the conservative movement, we're essentially talking about the GOP -- which means that a rupture in the conservative movement, as revealed in the University of Washington data, could signal a rift in the Republican Party not unlike the one that launched the presidential candidacy of Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz., in 1964. While the result of that single race was disastrous for the G.O.P., it set the stage for Reagan's ascent 16 years later. And given the speed with which the Tea Party movement sprang in response to the election of the nation's first African-American president, if that acceleration maintains its momentum, could the G.O.P. become the Grand New Tea Party in four or eight years' time?

Already, establishment figures in the mainstream conservative movement -- columnists and pundits such as George Will of the Washington Post, David Brooks of the New York Times and David Frum, the former Bush speechwriter who blogs at FrumForum -- have begun pushing back against the Tea Party movement's more preposterous themes. When former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, now testing a potential presidential run, insinuated that the president was raised in Kenya, George Will accused him of "spotlight-chasing" in a way that rendered him unworthy of overseeing "a lemonade stand, much less nuclear weapons."

"Right around 50 years ago, you had this split in the Republican Party between the Goldwater people and the Rockefeller sort of Republicans," said Christopher Parker, the University of Washington associate professor of political science, who led the survey. "We see the same split happening right now." Although Parker sees some differences between the Tea Party followers and the John Birch Society fans who helped fuel the Goldwater candidacy, the Birchers "still had these really extreme ideas, you know these ideas embedded and rooted in conspiracy theories," Parker told AlterNet. "Well, we see the same thing now," he continued. "If you get the way that that treatment is worded -- 'Barack Obama will destroy the country' -- I mean, how much more extreme can one get? And you see that these conservatives who do not ally themselves strongly with the Tea Party, they don't follow that line."

Is it possible, then, I asked Parker, that the Republican Party itself will become more divided? "Yes," he replied. "We've been seeing this ever since the mid-term elections... And I, for one, think it's driven by this split among conservatives..."

Although the establishment conservatives -- people like Will and Brooks and Frum -- have the power positions in mainstream media, the Tea Party movement, nonetheless, appears to drive the Republican agenda. "They're more politically active and engaged," Parker explained. "And our data show that across a range of activities or measures for political engagement, that people who strongly support the Tea Party are more engaged and more active than people who don't. And that's ranging from voting in the mid-term elections to attending a meeting to donating to a campaign, volunteering for a campaign -- I mean, you name it."

In other words, House Speaker John Boehner may not be a Tea Partier at heart, but it's the Tea Partiers to whom he must answer. So even though the Tea Party movement has yet to assume the majority within the G.O.P., it drives the agenda because of the destruction its followers could wreak on those who refuse its demands.

The split in the conservative movement could be good news for liberals and progressives, but only if they are willing to exploit the divisions among their opponents, something they've never shown much taste for doing. Wedge-driving has long been the tactic of conservatives and Republicans -- rarely of liberals and Democrats. If those divisions are allowed to take their natural course, the probable outcome will be an even more reactionary and paranoid G.O.P., and that's not good for anybody.

Parker, however, sees another possible scenario, heralded by the uprising in Wisconsin against the draconian, anti-worker, anti-poor-people policies of Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican, who won his spot as his state's chief executive with a hefty assist from billionaire David Koch, patron of the Tea Party movement. Parker foresees the possibility a nationwide, grass-roots push-back against the Tea Party-driven agenda.

"When you think about what's going on, for example, in Wisconsin," Parker said, "there's a possibility that what's happening with these candidates or with these elected officials who are really paying attention to the Tea Party and all the noise these Tea Partiers are making -- it's possible it could lead to a counter-mobilization. [Wisconsin] could be a case in point, where you see this massive counter-mobilization against these groups."

Parker's latest survey is based on 1,504 telephone interviews of respondents from 13 states.

Under Parker's direction, the Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race and Sexuality began collecting data on Tea Party supporters last year, producing a landmark survey on Tea Partiers' racial attitudes, finding 73 percent of Tea Party "true believers" agreed with the statement that "if blacks would only try harder they could be just as well off as whites."



Adele M. Stan is AlterNet's Washington bureau chief.
"If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything."
-Malcolm X
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests