We are at war, it seems, already.

Discussion in 'The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr' started by ampaterry, Feb 16, 2010.

  1. ampaterry

    ampaterry *TFF Admin Staff Chaplain* Staff Member Supporting Member

    Dec 20, 2008
    West Tennessee
    This aticle in the New York Times portrays us as armed radicals just spoiling to start shooting.

    To my way of thinking, the left just declared war on us.

    The article is HERE -

    And is re-printed below:

    February 16, 2010
    Tea Party Movement Lights Fuse for Rebellion on Right
    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.


    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.”
  2. dogngun

    dogngun Member

    Nov 5, 2006
    Berks County, PA
    Many people on the real left, such as myselt consider the NY Times a conservative newspaper, just as most of us consider Obama a consevrative Democrat, even a moderate republican.

    I have to laugh when I see some goper talking about the terrible marxist president - if you really think Obama is a leftist, you have no idea what a leftist really is. Most of us think he is simply continuing the publican policies of the last 8 years, except for the economic fixes he put in place to repair the damage to our nation caused by the pinhea alcoholic Bush and his gang.

    FWIW, I have to tell you that many of teh people who bought guns and ammo during the great panic buy following Obama's election - he really DID win, you know - were Democrats. Many of us have military experience and many of us regularly rcarry firearms. (I have beenlicensed for over 15 years.)
    Don't believe everything you read on Freerepublic...we won't just lay down and let you walk in. We won, and we will win again in '10 and in '12, thanks in large part to the real idiots your party has elected to congress.


  3. JohnBrainard

    JohnBrainard New Member

    Sep 11, 2009
    Gilbert, AZ

    I'm glad you're in the minority as your ideals have never and will never work. They only end up destroying the economies they are implemented in. If you really believe in it, perhaps a simple move is in order. There are plenty of other socialist and communist countries in the world. I'm sure they would welcome you there.
  4. dogngun

    dogngun Member

    Nov 5, 2006
    Berks County, PA
    I was born here, served my country in time of war, and I nhave no plans to move. I am not the ones cazlling for armed insurrection against teh LAWFUL ELECTED GOVERNMENT of my country, sir - your gang of thugs is doing that. The response I get from other progressive Democrats when discussing the extreme anti-American Right Wing threats of armed war is "Bring it!"

    The ones who do not belong in our country are your kind.
    Put up or shut up.

  5. JohnBrainard

    JohnBrainard New Member

    Sep 11, 2009
    Gilbert, AZ
    The Constitution doesn't support a Marxist style of government. You will need to forcefully overthrow the government in order to implement it.

    Like I said, thankfully people like you are still in the minority in this country. And I don't care about your service to this country if you wish to destroy it with communism or socialism.
  6. JohnBrainard

    JohnBrainard New Member

    Sep 11, 2009
    Gilbert, AZ
    What exactly is "my kind" anyway? And why do you get to decided I don't belong here?
  7. USMCSpeedy

    USMCSpeedy Member

    Jan 22, 2009
    From what I know of history and the current tea party people, It looks to me like the people who attend and support the tea parties are doing the same type of things that our forefathers did when they broke from England and first created this country. They also had a wide variety of opinions on how to do things. What brought them togather was eventually a single common cause. To form a new government that actually represented the people. I see the same thing happening now. I don't support armed insurection as a means of getting it done unless all other means have failed as it did in the time of our Revolution against England. I hope that the time never comes when we need to resort to that again. But if it does, I will surely be there to help secure my rights a free individual just as the patriots of the past did. "GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH"
  8. hogger129

    hogger129 Well-Known Member

    Nov 29, 2009
    Nobody here is calling for "armed insurrection against teh LAWFUL ELECTED GOVERNMENT." Nobody is trying to pick a fight - at least I'm not. I'll just go and vote this November for the people that I think SHOULD be running this country.

    I love it how all the leftists hated George Bush, then act like Obama's $h!+ don't stink.

    Mark, you're entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine, but don't label us as nuts or psychos or being part of "a gang of thugs" because we exercise our rights of self defense. Rights that many people on this forum risked their lives defending. Rights that you served your country defending. Rights members of MY family have risked their lives defending.

    May I ask what gives you the right to tell me how to live my life? If I want to own guns, is it not my right to? You, of all people, should know that armed people are free people. How did Hitler kill 6 million Jews? Well he started first by disarming them. If you think gun control is such a great idea, see how well it worked out for people in China, the Soviet Union, Cambodia, Rwanda - just to state a few examples. Thanks. Hope you change your opinion on this.
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2010
  9. bcj1755

    bcj1755 New Member

    Jul 20, 2008
    A wretched hive of scum and villiany
    I know lots of other conservatives, and none of them are calling for violent insurrection. The ones I see calling for violence are the ones on the left. And you call the right "anti-American." How do you figure that someone who supports and believes in the Constitution is "anti-American"? If you were in the military, then you took an oath to support, uphold, and defend the Constitution (I know I had to take that oath when I enlisted in the Air Force).

    I guess you forgot about the MIAC report? And also forgot about the DHS "Right-wing extremist" report? You say you're a combat vet. Well, according to DHS, you are a THREAT to the government. Don't believe it? Read here...
    and here...
    The man you supported has appointed officials who claim that YOU are a threat.

    You claim to be a gun owner who supports Obama. You do realize that Obama is rabidly anti-gun, right? Don't believe me? Read here...

    You say you're a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, yet you support a man who believes it's ok for the government to deny you that very same 2nd Amendment. As you said, put up or shut up.

    And for "our kind" not belonging here, one of my ancestors fought the British so you would have the right to state your opinion and voice your support for Obama. My ancestor fought the British so you could have the right to own firearms. I have a grandfather and a great uncle who fought in WW2. I have another uncle that served a tour in Korea and two tours in Vietnam while in the USAF. I have two more uncles that served in the military, plus my father and a couple cousins. I was also in the USAF for a short time until discharged for medical reasons. I took that oath that you took. The same oath my relatives took; an oath to defend the Constitution. Obama also took an oath to support and defend the Constitution; an oath that he has broken time and time again.

    "My kind" has just as much right to be here as you do. But "my kind" believes in the Constitution and the system created by the Founding Fathers. The difference between "my kind" you you people on the left is that "my kind" believe that you have the freedom to think, feel, believe, and say whatever you wish to as long as you don't infringe on my rights or the rights of anyone else. "Your kind" believes that your beliefs are the only correct ones, and that they must be forced upon everyone else, regardless of whether we believe the same thing or not. THAT is NOT the system that the Founders created. That is the M.O. of socialists, marxists, and other assorted totalitarian, left-wing governments. If that is the system you want, there are plenty of other countries with a government more to your liking. but as you said, you don;t have to leave the US. But then, neither does "my kind."
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2010
  10. artabr

    artabr New Member

    Mar 3, 2008
    New Iberia, Louisiana

    Well said, bcj1755.

  11. Marlin T

    Marlin T Well-Known Member

    Jul 8, 2005
    New Mexico
    I’m sorry but I couldn’t make it through that trash piece of ?journalism?. I couldn’t even make it through ¼ of that piece of feces.

    Then Mark says “””NY Times a conservative newspaper, just as most of us consider Obama a consevrative Democrat, even a moderate republican.””” Is this guy serious? What a joke!

    Doug you obviously are part of that party that I refer to as the Anti-Constitutional party. If you need to know how I have come to that conclusion, do a search of this site to see how squarely you fall into that category.

    BCJ1755 pretty much sums up what I am feeling. Another great post, thank you.

    I don’t see Mark hanging out at this place very long, he won’t be able to produce any facts to back his claims.
  12. The_Rifleman

    The_Rifleman Well-Known Member

    Feb 10, 2010
    This is the liberal narrative now. "That ain't socialism; Stalin is socialism!" Therefore, anything short of Stalin's gulags is not socialism.

    They really can't see that they are the extremists. "Put up or shut up." It is amazing to behold.
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2010
  13. ampaterry

    ampaterry *TFF Admin Staff Chaplain* Staff Member Supporting Member

    Dec 20, 2008
    West Tennessee
    The NYT paints the tea party as militia spoiling to start shooting.

    Then Mark, claiming they are NOT a leftist paper, claims we are an armed militia spoiling to start shooting and claiming the left is armed and ready to stop us.

    I for one, and MOST on this forum that I know, are NOT spoiling to start shooting, Mark.

    We are QUITE content to use the soap box and the ballot box.

    And thus far, considering EVERY election since BO's racist victory has gone against the Liberals, it looks to me like the soap box and ballot box are working quite well.

    Hey, you have already lost your 'filibuster proof' majority -
    Good luck with your hopes for 2010 and 2012 - with the things BO is doing, you are going to need LOTS of luck to survive -
  14. bamajoey

    bamajoey Well-Known Member

    Aug 17, 2009
    Mark, maybe you need to go over to the Daily Kos or Huffington Post web sites where the reading would be more to your liking
  15. Popeye

    Popeye Member

    Jul 3, 2005
    Sacramento area, CA
    Here is a much saner take on what is happening in the USA today than that spewed forth by author and publisher of the original article.

    The Re-Establishment of America


    February 18, 2010
    By Herbert E. Meyer

    America is on the verge of something unprecedented in history: the peaceful, Constitutional replacement of our country's entire political establishment. This is what lies behind the decisions of so many elected officials, at every level, to step aside rather than fight for re-election. And it explains how the Tea Party movement can exert so much political leverage without nominating its own candidates or even without formally choosing its own leaders.

    Most of the time, we Americans don't pay much attention to politics. We focus all of our energy on our jobs, our families, and our faith. We work hard, play by the rules, and wish only to be left alone. We love our country, consider ourselves blessed to be living here, and ask little from the men and women we elect except to keep from screwing things up.

    But in just the last decade Americans were shocked by two catastrophes we hadn't imagined our political establishment would allow to happen. The first was 9-11, when 19 terrorists successfully attacked our homeland, and by doing so revealed that for years al Qaeda and its allies had been waging holy war against us. The second was the 2008 financial crash, which revealed that our economy is a house of cards built on a pile of debt so high we cannot possibly repay it.

    Republicans blame Democrats, and Democrats blame Republicans. To ordinary, non-political Americans -- who grasp intuitively, and correctly, that both parties share responsibility for these two catastrophes -- these politicians seem like children who've turned a party into a food fight. And what do parents do when a children's party gets out of control? They turn off the music, turn out the lights and send everyone home, including those few who weren't behaving badly and just got caught up in the melee.

    Americans don't like getting tangled in the details of politics. We prefer to stand back and see the big picture. (Which, by the way, helps explain the extraordinary appeal of Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin. That's what they do, too.) What the big picture is showing now is that our entire political establishment has failed. These were the men and women, both Republicans and Democrats, we relied upon to focus on the details and by doing so to keep us safe from terrorists and to keep the world's most powerful economy from imploding. And they blew it. So we'll replace them with a wholly new establishment -- some of whom will be Republicans, others who will be Democrats, and a few Independents here and there -- and hope our next political establishment will get it right.

    In the looming political battles, persona will matter more than policy. As we move toward the 2010 elections, of course we'll ask candidates to outline their plans for how to improve our healthcare system, what to do about illegal immigration, how to bring down the unemployment rate, how to fight the war, and all the rest. But what will determine who gets elected this year won't be a set of specific policies but something simpler, and in a way much deeper: A recognition among grass-roots voters across the political spectrum that character is more important than personality, that education isn't the same thing as judgment, and that expertise without common sense is dangerous.

    Stand back from politics and you'll see the same re-establishment trend unfolding in other public arenas. Americans have decided that the Mainstream Media has failed, and so we are replacing The New York Times, the television network news departments, and all the rest with an entirely new media including Fox News and websites like American Thinker and Lucianne.com. Americans have decided that our country's education establishment has failed -- our kids are barely learning to read and write, let alone taught our country's history -- so we're seeing the rise of private schools, charter schools, and home-schooling. Would anyone like to bet that within just a few years, we'll have a wholly new financial establishment on Wall Street to replace the greedy idiots who run it now?

    The re-establishment of America won't be easy, and we'll make mistakes along the way. Some of the new people will prove to be just as worthless as they ones they replaced. And some very good people who now hold key positions in politics, the media, education and finance will be swept away by the avalanche. That's too bad, but collateral damage is unavoidable.

    No other country in history has ever attempted to replace its establishments so smoothly, so peacefully -- and so cheerfully -- as we are doing right now. And it isn't likely that any other country ever will attempt something like this. How exhilarating to realize that 234 years after our revolution, the United States is still the most dynamic, forward-looking, optimistic place on Earth. Boy, what an exciting time to be an American.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Greece In Crisis; Seems They Have Run Out Of Other Peoples Money Jun 17, 2015
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Obama Biographer: 'The World Seems To Disappoint Him' May 6, 2014
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Why congress seems out-of-touch with the rest of us. Jul 22, 2013
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr you know what seems really stupid now Nov 14, 2012
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr well the osama story seems to change a bit May 3, 2011