Elena and I have jumped all over the tea party movement. However, 2 of our contributors are avowed tea party people. Today’s guest feature is from Cargosquid, one of our regulars. He discusses what conservatives blogs are doing to monitor their own, so to speak. Many people, both conservative, liberal and moderate were naturally upset by the Browning signs. Without further ado, here’s Cargosquid: (The guest post does not necessarily represent the views of moonhowlings.net administration.)
In earlier threads, concern was raised over two different incidents, one alleged and one obvious, at the recent rally in DC. I do not call this a Tea Party Protest or Rally because it was not organized by the various Tea Parties but by a Congressman that called for Americans concerned with the legislation to rally at the Capitol.
I thought that I would present some follow up to both.
The first was the alleged chant of a racial epithet shouted at the Black Caucus as they walked through the crowd. Evidence shows that the walk was recorded by them, looking for evidence that they could use. Apparently, the Black Caucus feels that they appearance would cause racists to come out of the woodwork. Various videos that recorded the walk have been uploaded to You Tube, show that the alleged incident never happened, and that the claimers were lying. In fact, as I stated, those videos show that the Black Caucus, themselves, recorded the march. And nothing has come from their recordings.
In addition to the claims of racial epithets, Rep. Cleaver’s office and other representatives claimed that he was spit upon by a protester. I specifically point out that it was Cleaver’s office that made the claim, though Rep. Cleaver never denied it. I point this out because Rep. Cleaver is NOW denying that he ever claimed that he was spat upon.
Full story with video here: http://www.fox4kc.com/news/politics/wdaf-story-cleaver-spitting-033010,0,2660745.story
The actual incident was that Rep. Cleaver was apparently hit by the saliva of a man shouting through cupped hands as he walked very near the protester. Rep. Cleaver is seen to confront the man and wipe his face.
Further investigation has revealed that two sources of the claim of racist shouting seem to have colluded to smear the protesters: http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/04/busted-smoking-gun-proof-that-democrats.html
The second incident involved two signs reading: Warning! If a Brown can’t stop it, a Browning can.
First, many state that this shows that that the TEA Parties are violent or approve of violence. As I said, this was not a Tea Party event. These people may have been there independently. This is a threatening sign. On this, I have seen no disagreement. Many disagree on its appropriateness, possibility of it being a plant, actual validity of the threat.
Second, these signs show that the SIGN HOLDERS are approving of violence, not the group. To be blunt, I’m not bothered by this use of the 1st Amendment. I worry about the ones that don’t think that rallies and their use of the 1st Amendment are worth their time or will have any influence. The sign carriers are canaries in a coal mine.
This is the reaction to the sign holders after the fact.
Bloggers are seeking information on them. The Tea Parties and other activists DO NOT approve of their tactics or ideas as shown. (Personally, I think that if violence is ever necessary, one should not TELEGRAPH YOUR INTENTIONS.) Uncle Jimbo of Black Five and Greyhawk of Mudville Gazette are looking for information as to these persons identities.
Mudville Gazette: http://www.mudvillegazette.com/033508.html
BlackFive: http://www.blackfive.net/main/2010/03/advocating-violence-is-bad-mmmkay.html
Both of these sites have wonderful people running them and writing for them. Uncle Jimbo is one of the best.
Before accepting what the mainstream media puts out about the Tea Party or your fellow Americans, remember a) the press has an agenda that does not agree with the Tea Parties b) First reports are usually wrong c) to bring a camera so that one does not need to rely on the press or first reports.
A big thanks to Cargosquid for his input. He and I often disagree but we have always done so in a civilized manner. I appreciate him taking the time to give us input from the Tea Party point of view. I am particularly glad to hear that ‘his side’ does not approve of those Browning signs.
Cargosquid, I would like to go to a Tea Party meeting. The group actually professes values that I support; however (I’ll admit), I am “put off” by the signs, demonstrations, etc. as those just aren’t my style. I am not criticizing them because they are all engaging in First Amendment free speech (which I defended on national television in that interview with Mark and Jennie Beth, the Tea Party Patriot Founders). In fact, I respect anyone who cares enough to protest. I am also put off by the very things which you discuss (spitting on a Civil Rights Icon, the potential for violence, the “broken glass” incidents, potential relationships with militias, divisive social issues, etc., etc., etc.). Your thoughtful post indicates that perhaps the group has been misjudged and that perhaps I should check it out.
So, when’s the next Coffee Party meeting? While I am a member of the Coffee Party, I see no reason that I can’t belong to both (double negative used for effect).
For the record, most people tell me this is a bad idea. I hope to prove them wrong.
I’ll send you an email.
Correction to the above (Freudian slip): So, when is the next TEA PARTY meeting?
cargo, I do not know how you can say that it was not a Tea Party event. As the Tea Party is really made up of a number of organizations and people, I find it difficult for one to say that it was not a Tea Party event – even Fox News covered the assembly as a Tea Party event.
There have been many more events that have had similar signs. When Palin puts cross hairs on her web site, and then says we need to take them down – some idiot will read into it that she means violence – and then what?
“The actual incident was that Rep. Cleaver was apparently hit by the saliva of a man shouting through cupped hands…”
So basically the guy was frothing at the mouth?
That’s worrisome : )
Don ‘t most of us apologize if we spray someone?
Pat, I think you ask an important question.
Hey guys! Thanks for the comments.
I do not call it a Tea Party event because they did not sponsor it or call it. However, I will admit that most of those there were probably members because, being organized, they were able to answer the call more quickly. Also, the media has to call it something…….Tea Party rally fits better than anything else.
As to the targeting analogy Palin’s website, that has been a tradition in both parties because its appropriate to target opponents. The DNC has one too.
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/03/figures-dnc-has-its-own-target-map-like-sarah-palins/
No one can help it if “some idiot” wants to commit violence. Idiots can read anything they want into the most innocuous things. If we want to start holding websites that use analogies accountable for the actions of idiots, then we will shut down free speech.
Al, the best way to find a tea party meeting is just google Tea Party. That’s what I do since I don’t go to many meetings.
There will definitely be one April 15th down here in Richmond and one in DC.
On an unrelated note, be aware that there will also be a 2nd Amendment March in DC by the Washington monument on the 19th. I plan on being there. I bet there won’t be much media coverage….
Moon, yes, in a polite situation, we apologize. That was not a “polite” situation. Accidents happen.
No, it wasn’t a polite situation. I am not sure that situation needed to be so up close and personal. In the interest of personal safety, I feel the crowd should have been better contained. It wasn’t a moment to make Americans proud in my opinion–all counts.
It probably felt good though. I have been to thing like that where it felt good to be out yelling and hollering for my cause.
Moon
You’ve mentioned that before. Contained how? Behind fencing? Somewhere else? Would that be ok if the GOP had that done to other anti-GOP protesters? The politicians were perfectly safe. There was a police presence and there were barricades. The rally stayed where their permits allowed. For all its anger, the Tea Party members at any of their rallies and at all rallies of like minded people, including ones that had 100,000 or more (we won’t go into the numbers game here.) there has NEVER been any violence or damage. In fact, at the big rally last year, the Mall was cleaner AFTER the rally.
cargo…yes…re GOP protesters. Absolutely. Police presence can sometimes exacerbate a situation.
I think protesters of any stripe need barriers and parameters. I don’t care what the cause is or who the protesters are.
Cargosquid,
I took your advice and looked for a Tea Party (specifically Tea Party Patriots) meeting somewhere in Virginia (within 100 miles). I’m afraid I was a bit disappointed by the results.
The Richmond meeting you talked about is actually a protest. I didn’t see any information on a meeting tp discuss things, just instructions on what folks might put on signs. From a cursory look around, that appears typical. It would appear (and I concede I may be wrong – anyone with information about an actual meeting where folks talk, please share the info) that the Tea Party focuses on demonstrations vice discussions. I’m interested in actually talking about things.
I did find the Prince William County Tea Party website. The focus appears to be on demonstrations and rallies. They do talk about one meeting; however, there is no location or registration on the website. There were also no names. I would have signed up for information; however, (particularly since this is Prince William County) I wanted to know who I would be signing up with. Anyone with info on the Prince William County Tea Party specifically about meetings (where folks actually talk) and who is in charge – please share. Like I said, Mark and Jenny Beth (its national founders ) assured me this is an inclusive group and that I would be welcome. I would like to take them at their word and attend a meeting.
I’m just not a rally kind of person. I respect folks who chose that form of First Amendment expression; however, I’m not sure how you find compromise that way (and I believe compromise is the lubricant of Government). The failure to compromise leads to (IMHO) polarization. Polarization is the path to violence and ultimately violent revolution. I really look for ways to meet somewhere in the middle. If I actually find a Tea Party meeting where folks talk, I’ll ask that (and other) questions.
I believe that there is no one issue worth putting our Republic at risk for.
@cargosquid
I did find the Loudoun County Chapter on Facebook and “friended” it. I also found the Loudoun County Coffee Party fan page and became a fan. I think I’ll attend both for a “compare and contrast”. I’m just looking for the best vehicle to discuss how to keep our Republic in business for a couple hundred years (or more) longer (since there are forces at work in the world that think otherwise).
It would be a shame to have History record the failure of the United States of America to occur from within because people just couldn’t compromise.
Good luck Al. Yes, the 15 is the Tax Day Protest, but the website Richmond Tea Party should have some more info.
Yep. Perhaps the Democrats need to learn to compromise……
Remember, it was they that locked out the GOP.
Then again, should one compromise on basic principles? And how far should that compromise go? Enough compromising, and you end up working for your opponent. Bipartisanship always seems to end with the GOP voting for a Democrat bill, not vice versa.
Al,
There are many issues worth putting our Republic at risk for. We have it in our history. Slavery. There was no way to compromise on that any longer.
Each citizen must decide for themselves what would be their “line in the sand.” Tyrannical government (not saying that this is one, yet.) must always be opposed. There is no compromising with tyranny, only submission or opposition.
Very well stated, very well supported arguments, Cargosquid. Thanks for taking the time do this post. I too am a fan of Blackfive and Uncle Jimbo.
I agree that there are certain issues which do not allow for compromise. There is no room for compromise regarding a mandate to purchase healthcare insurance. Either Congress rams it down our throats or it doesn’t. I will not rest until this unconstitutional power grab is repealed.
@cargosquid
Cargosquid, your points are well taken. For the record, I’m an independent (although I have been a registered member of the Prince William County Republican Party in my past).
We always talk about the things upon which we can’t compromise. While I appreciate that, I would like to focus on the things upon which we can compromise. That’s a different conversation. It has been my experience that as we come closer on the areas where we agree (or at least agree to compromise), the areas where we disagree perhaps become redefined a bit as we come to understand one another’s perspective.
I also fail to see how we put ourselves at odds with the Democratic process that is fundamental to perpetuating the Republic. Like it or not, when we say “no” to legislation, we are saying “no” to the process. If that is the goal I understand it; however, but I do not support it.
America elected the current Administration (and both houses of Congress) on the promise of health care reform. Is our system so flawed that we can’t agree to live with its outcome? Is that why we have militias forming across the Country? We aren’t talking slavery here. I would propose that those who disagree with the current direction of our Government have a chance to make their voices heard in this year’s election and in 2012. (IMHO) That’s how the process should work (if one believes that our Governance process is fundamentally sound).
The Constitution only grants certain powers to the federal government. Giving itself the power with a simple majority vote to mandate healthcare coverage is not sufficient — it requires a constitutional amendment. I know that you think that the Interstate Commerce Clause provides sufficient power for this — I do not and I do not agree to live with the outcome.
@kelly3406
Actually, I believe that Article V, the supremacy clause, applies here (as do most Constitutional scholars). It actually trumps the interstate commerce clause.
@kelly3406
Excuse me, Article VI, Clause 2 (Supremacy Clause… should always check first). The clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as “the supreme law of the land.” The text establishes these as the highest form of law in the American legal system, mandating that state judges uphold them, even if state laws or constitutions conflict.
I am not talking about precedence of law. I am talking about the constitutionality of a federal statute that mandates all citizens to purchase healthcare insurance. Congress claims that the commerce clause makes such a mandate constitutional. Several state AGs disagree with that claim (as do I).
The Interstate Commerce clause was the justification for passing the health care bill (and its provisions). Once passed, the Supremacy clause applies. It mandates that state judges upholds Federal laws, even if state laws or constitutions conflict.
Please note my argument isn’t justification for or against the health care reform legislation, it is a simple Constitutional argument. Ironically, Conservatives are most likely to uphold this logic because it supports the enumerated rights that are the foundation of a Constitution while Progressives tend towards your argument (or, the Interstate Commerce Clause and/or the Supremacy Clause don’t really apply, are guidelines, or whatever). It’s interesting how that turned out.
Simply put, one either believes in the Constitution all of the time or one doesn’t. Health care or any of its issues are academic in this context. That’s why we have Article V (the amendment process) and regular elections (if we don’t love the ones we elected,we try again).
I agree that the Supremacy clause applies since it already passed. I recognize that HCR is the law of the land, just as McCain-Feingold was the law of the land, before it was declared unconstitutional.
But that does not mean that we have to just accept it. We can try to starve the beast (deny funding), abort the beast (repeal it), or kill the beast (challenge it in federal court where it should be declared unconstitutional).
But my view is that the Interstate Commerce clause does not provide justification for a federal mandate to purchase healthcare insurance. It is the first time in history that Congress has forced citizens to engage in commerce …. for simply existing and breathing. It would appear that a majority of U.S. citizens agree with me.
@kelly3406
If a majority of U.S. citizens agree with you (and they may), things will change in November. I consider the AG’s lawsuits across the Country politically motivated “stunts” since the American public will tell us how they feel in a few months (and that which may be written into law may be written out of law).
Isn’t that how Democracy is suppose to work? Lawsuits such as those proposed by the AG’s (including our own) often take years to wind through the Court system and cost time and money that could otherwise be devoted to the safety and security of Virginia residents. If’s as if the AG’s don’t “trust us” to decide this issue come November.
This is NOT how democracy is supposed to work. The Constitution is not supposed to be subject to a simple majority vote. The Framers designed our system to require super majorities for constitutional amendments and controversial issues to prevent the ‘tyranny of the majority’ and to uphold ‘majority rules, minority rights.’
You and I both know that the Republicans probably will not achieve a large enough majority to override a presidential veto of any measure to repeal HCR. Yet the same legislative protections were not afforded to opponents of HCR in the original debate. After Scott Brown was elected, HCR never should have passed without a super majority in the Senate, but the Democrats manipulated legislative rules to prevent compromise and debate.
Given this history of manipulation, I am quite comfortable with the lawsuits proposed by the AGs. It is true that it make take years to wind through the Court system, so I applaud their effort to start now rather than later. If it turns out that the lawsuits are not necessary after the fall elections, then the cases can always be dropped later.
Actually, any law passed by Congress is considered Constitutional. That doesn’t mean it “is” Constitutional; however, it remains so until challanged and overturned by the Supreme Court. We both know that what constitutes “Constitutional” depends on where you sit politically. While each side may argue ad nauseum for their position, they are both “right” (as all things are subject to interpretation). I’m an enumerated powers fan and believe if it “isn’t in there, we shouldn’t do it”. My arguements aren’t about health care, they are about rule sets and process.
We’ll just have to disagree about the AG’s lawsuit. The funny thing is, we are both “right” (again). When one side stops respecting the other side’s opinion, we all lose. It’s “our money” that the AG is spending on something of dubious value (hardly a Conservative value… and I am a Fiscal Conservative) at the expense of protecting the public safety and security of the Residents of Virginia. I don’t believe that our State Attorney General (and his staff) need this distraction in these troubled times.
There was nothing unconstitutional about the health care bill.
@kelly3406
Kelly, we have two of those “mandates” in New York, We are forced to have insurance on our vehicles and we are required to have our vehicles inspected each year. It is expensive and a pain in the neck ,however I believe it makes safer vehicles on the road and if someone runs into your car, you’re will be reimbursed by insurance instead of having to sue for what money your out as a result. I guess all in all they are reasonable “mandates”. So maybe all mandates aren’t bad.
LOOK! A squirrel!
Bear, however, the health care insurance mandate is forced upon you just for living. One does not necessarily have to drive.