The Tea Party isn't home to a large amount of racism — Brooklynian

The Tea Party isn't home to a large amount of racism

Subject: The Tea Party isn't home to a large amount of racism

Oh wait, yes it is.
Diana Serafin, a grandmother who lost her job in tech support this year, said she reached out to others she knew from attending Tea Party events and anti-immigration rallies. She said they read books by critics of Islam, including former Muslims like Walid Shoebat, Wafa Sultan and Manoucher Bakh. She also attended a meeting of the local chapter of ACT! for America, a Florida-based group that says its purpose is to defend Western civilization against Islam.

"As a mother and a grandmother, I worry," Ms. Serafin said. "I learned that in 20 years with the rate of the birth population, we will be overtaken by Islam, and their goal is to get people in Congress and the Supreme Court to see that Shariah is implemented. My children and grandchildren will have to live under that.... I do believe everybody has a right to freedom of religion. But Islam is not about a religion

In late June, in Temecula, Calif., members of a local Tea Party group took dogs and picket signs to Friday prayers at a mosque that is seeking to build a new worship center on a vacant lot nearby.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/us/08mosque.html?_r=2&hp


Everyone feel free to add on to this list. Unless of course these are isolated incidents!
«1

Comments

  • A message from the Temecula Tea Party;

    http://www.desertrosebooks.com/TemeculaTeaParty.html

    I found this with one hand tied behind my back in 30 seconds. You have to scroll down a bit. You know how to scroll down, don't you?
  • You have to scroll down a bit. You know how to scroll down, don't you?
    Oooh ad hominem insults, quality!

    That statement just said the protest wasn't organized by their group and that someone named Ernie White isn't their president. Nowhere in that statement did they refute that tea party members protested the mosque.

    :(

    On a different tea party website which they claim to not be affiliated with I did find this fun racism in the form of a made-up AP story!

    http://www.wethepeople-swrc.com/immigration.php

    image
    Picture: Renaldo: Leaving for a state that will support him with dignity.

    Illegals Boycott Arizona By Leaving new

    Phoenix, AZ (AP) - Thousands of illegal immigrants are showing their outrage with Arizona's controversial new SB-1070 law by boycotting the state and moving elsewhere.

    One example of those who are punishing the state by leaving is illegal immigrant Manuel Renaldo. As he loaded his stolen car with his family of twelve's belongings, Renaldo told this reporter through an interpreter, "It's a matter of principle, 'homes.' I refuse to be supported by someplace that treats me like a fucking criminal."

    The affects of the exodus are being felt by Arizona retailers who report dwindling beer, spray paint, and ammunition sales. Also hit hard are Arizona hospitals, who have reported a dramatic decline in births and emergency room visits by illegal aliens. "We're ecstatic," said one administrator for Banner Health in Phoenix. "At this rate we may see a profit one day."

    The boycott/exodus of Arizona by illegals is expected to grow exponentially leading up to the law's starting date.
  • Boygabriel wrote:
    That statement just said the protest wasn't organized by their group and that someone named Ernie White isn't their president. Nowhere in that statement did they refute that tea party members protested the mosque.
    BG, you are backpedaling. First you talk about the overt racism found in the Tea Party and when that is dismissed you go to the fact that they aren't first in line to dismiss any members who might of been in the demonstration.

    Isn't that sort of like demanding every Mosque refute each act of terrorism if it has a whiff of Islamic fascism?

    Unlike the lock-stepping Democrats of Brooklynian The Tea Party doesn't feel a need to police the every movement or statement by it's members. Is it possible that some members took part? Of course it is. But you've offered no proof that any Tea Party members did other then your belief that the NYT is telling the truth, something easily checked, therefore the need to refute anything is unnecessary.
  • I am making a claim about many of the people involved in a specific political movement. Just because there isn't a centralized racism-vetting committee doesn't mean the group doesn't attract a large amount of racists.
  • They should have stuck to an anti tax and defict reduction platform exclusively.

    Now they just are a bunch of ranters, who envision a magical time that never existed
  • They don't really have much of a coherent policy platform. They're long on anger and short on practical ideas.

    They want fewer entitlement programs, until individual tea partiers realize that includes social security and medicare.

    They want deficit reduction yet they like the Bush tax cuts and the indefinite wars in the middle east.

    When it comes to governing policies they're incoherent. Hence the quote in the other thread about how Republicans are the dog chasing the car.
  • Sorry, what "race" is Islam?
  • Good point - when referring to islamophobia I should have said 'bigotry' or 'religious hatred'.

    The racism is more accurate in regards to their immigration "stance", among other things.
  • Boygabriel wrote: Good point - when referring to islamophobia I should have said 'bigotry' or 'religious hatred'.
    Well, that, and you should have come up with actual examples of 'bigotry' or 'religious hatred' from the Tea Party instead of taking a lone grandmother and "members of the Tea Party" as representative of the entire movement.

    Furthermore, these people's membership in the Tea Party is completely anecdotal to their actions mentioned in the article. It's not like the protests were organized by the Tea Party, the NYTimes (rightly) assumed that by including the protesters' affiliation, they'd get people like you all riled up.

    I would think you would save a phrase like "religious hatred" for something like the murder of 10 Christian doctors volunteering their time in Afghanistan by Muslims for the "crime" of allegedly proselytizing while healing women and children.
    The racism is more accurate in regards to their immigration "stance", among other things.
    I hope you have more evidence for this than a single parody article on a website. Or is that what you call "a large amount of racism?"
  • There is no "tea party" therefore I don't think the "tea party" is racist.

    It is a decentralized "movement" which attracts lots of ignorant people with racist beliefs. This 'poor' grandmother and the 'study friends' she's made at tea party and immigration rallies are but one example.

    It's a topic I look forward to discussing so I started this thread. I will post more instances as I find them, and I'm sure others will too. So don't worry, you'll have plenty more in the future to dismiss and deny that they in any way indicate a trend.
    I would think you would save a phrase like "religious hatred" for something like the murder of 10 Christian doctors volunteering their time in Afghanistan by Muslims for the "crime" of allegedly proselytizing while healing women and children.
    Those are awful murders for sure, but you'd think wrong. If you care what I think (though something tells me you don't), what happened in Afghanistan is religious hatred and much more. Not letting people build places of prayer in America, out of fear, ignorance and hatred is, indeed, religious hatred and bigotry.
    I hope you have more evidence for this than a single parody article on a website. Or is that what you call "a large amount of racism?"
    Ha. You hope I have more evidence that that chapter harbors racism than the fact that it promotes racism on its website? Ok, I'll keep you posted.
  • Boygabriel wrote: There is no "tea party" therefore I don't think the "tea party" is racist.

    It is a decentralized "movement" which attracts lots of ignorant people with racist beliefs. This 'poor' grandmother and the 'study friends' she's made at tea party and immigration rallies are but one example.

    It's a topic I look forward to discussing so I started this thread. I will post more instances as I find them, and I'm sure others will too. So don't worry, you'll have plenty more in the future to dismiss and deny that they in any way indicate a trend.
    I would think you would save a phrase like "religious hatred" for something like the murder of 10 Christian doctors volunteering their time in Afghanistan by Muslims for the "crime" of allegedly proselytizing while healing women and children.
    Those are awful murders for sure, but you'd think wrong. If you care what I think (though something tells me you don't), what happened in Afghanistan is religious hatred and much more. Not letting people build places of prayer in America, out of fear, ignorance and hatred is, indeed, religious hatred and bigotry.
    I hope you have more evidence for this than a single parody article on a website. Or is that what you call "a large amount of racism?"
    Ha. You hope I have more evidence that that chapter harbors racism than the fact that it promotes racism on its website? Ok, I'll keep you posted.
    Eh, I was just bored at work, figured I'd push your crazy-button a bit.

    I'll let you get back to posting insane, paranoid rants in threads that die as quickly as you stop bumping them.
  • Jimmy wrote:

    I'll let you get back to posting insane, paranoid rants in threads that die as quickly as you stop bumping them.
    Yes, I know I'm bumping, but that's too good a line. I'll have to use that on another blog somewhere. I think I wet myself a bit.
  • Boygabriel wrote: I am making a claim about many of the people involved in a specific political movement. Just because there isn't a centralized racism-vetting committee doesn't mean the group doesn't attract a large amount of racists.
    People like you and President Obama have set racism back 20 years. But please keep it up, it will only help us in November.

    image
  • A good PR firm would tell the Tea Party a good figurehead would help. ....populist movements always encouter similar issues
  • Hi Eggcream!

    First of all, President Obama and I want to thank tea partier Sharron Angle for keeping Harry Reid in office. Tea party candidates in general are going to help lessen the usual blow that the incumbent party historically takes during the first midterms and during a bad economy.

    So, thanks!

    Secondly, which tea party issue was it exactly that you wanted to debate? Keeping the government out of your medicare? Reducing the deficit while invading foreign countries? Or was it simply how to keep those damn kids off your lawn?

    Do let me know, as contrary to what you were hoping for, I'd love to debate various tea party positions.
  • Still full of bigots:

    Republican Allen West is the Tea Party candidate for House in Florida’s 22nd district ... said:
    [A]s I was driving up here today, I saw that bumper sticker that absolutely incenses me. It’s not the Obama bumper sticker. But it’s the bumper sticker that says, ‘Co-exist.’ And it has all the little religious symbols on it. And the reason why I get upset, and every time I see one of those bumper stickers, I look at the person inside that is driving. Because that person represents something that would give away our country. Would give away who we are, our rights and freedoms and liberties because they are afraid to stand up and confront that which is the antithesis, anathema of who we are. The liberties that we want to enjoy.”

    West went on to call Islam a “very vile and very vicious enemy that we have allowed to come in this country because we ride around with bumper stickers that say co-exist.”

  • Jimmy wrote: Sorry, what "race" is Islam?
    Does it really matter at this point? I'm no fan of the Tea Party, but such an oversight coupled with all the following high fives looks like the pot calling the kettle black (black being ignorant, but not black like black people, you know what I mean)

    The Tea Party started as something that could have really changed the country, and has been perverted and marginalized out of any kind of legitimacy. It's emblematic of America in a lot of ways
  • The Tea Party marginalized itself. It doesn't stand for anything beyond overly broad ideals that are completely impractical and lack any detail whatsoever.

    The Tea Party is a nebulous 'movement' of people who enjoy being angry, but have no practical outlet for their anger other than misplaced slogans at lightly attended rallies and a significant lack of understanding of how our legislative, judicial and executive foundations of the republic are carried out or reformed.

    'Lower my taxes but don't take away my entitlement programs or stop fighting our endless wars against the scary muslims!'

    'Obama is a socialist! Health care reform is socialism! TARP is socialism but it only made me mad once we had a Democratic president!'

    Socialism! Socialism! Socialism!
  • Cool The Kid wrote:

    The Tea Party started as something that could have really changed the country, and has been perverted and marginalized out of any kind of legitimacy. It's emblematic of America in a lot of ways
    I think Boygabriel is stating it has only itself to blame.

    Let's assume it would like to attract Boygabriel, CTK, and Whynot.

    ....how does it keep those who want to co-opt it for their own purposes away?

    It's a classic problem of any leaderless populist group, whether on the left or the right.

    ....third parties get defeated in this country as soon as they get off the ground. It's really frustrating.
  • Another quality endorsement from our favorite Party-That-Doesn't-Attract-Or-Endorse-Bigots

    :(

    As The Nashville Scene reported, Tennessee Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey -- during his Tea-Party-endorsed, unsuccessful bid to become the GOP nominee for Governor -- had this exchange with a citizen last month who was attending one of his campaign events (begins at 3:10 of the video below; h/t Gawker):
    Q. A point of national concern -- and it is in my mind and my heart -- and that's more of a national threat coming to the State of Tennessee -- we have a threat invading our country from Muslims.

    RAMSEY: OK, absolutely, up in Rutherford County . . . . They're trying to put a mosque into Rutherford County.

    Now, you know, I'm all about freedom of religion. I value the First Amendment as much as I value the Second Amendment as much as I value the Tenth Amendment and on and on and on. But you cross the line when they starting trying to start bringing Sharia Law here to the State of Tennessee -- to the United States. We live under our Constitution and they live under our Constitution. But it's scary . . . . nobody asked me about this on the Governor's race until this mosque started coming up there. I've been trying to learn about Sharia Law, and it is not good if that's what's going on.

    You could even argue whether being a Muslim is actually a religion or is it a nationality, way of life or cult, whatever you want to call it. . . . That's become an issue, but I've read enough about Sharia Law to know it's crazy.
    The gentleman who asked the question then went on to assert that 22 communities in the U.S. now live under Sharia Law, and -- he warned -- "it's expanding rapidly."
    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/29/mosques
  • You haven't seen a transcript of his speech have you? I've been trying to find one
  • Huh- I was trying to find...just a clear definition of Sharia Law- Wiki's a freakin' mess!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

    It makes me wonder about the T partiers and what exactly they THINK they know what Sharia genuinely is.

    I realize Wiki's not the be all end all go to for info- but. These people just gobble up whatever's thrown at them anyway- I imagine a rampant game of Hate Telephone....
  • Remember these are the same people who think the downtown community center is being put there because for centuries Muslims built mosques in "conquered lands".

    So no, I wouldn't expect them to have the foggiest idea what actual sharia is, besides scary stories of evil muslims who like to stone women.
  • A real hotbed of enlightenment down in D.C </sarcasm>



  • Just came across this. :( for the preferred party of America's most ignorant leaders & voters:

    link1
    Former Rep. Tom Tancredo on Obama: "There is something about this [country] that he dislikes intensely, and he wants to transform."

    In a phone interview with TPM, Tancredo, third party candidate for governor of Colorado, also reiterates the urban myth about Michelle Obama disdaining Christmas: "I remember a little thing, like Ms. Obama saying she didn't want any Christian artifacts in the White House during Christmas time. ... And hosting Ramadan events there."

    And so it goes.
    Also, this older gem:

    Former Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo added to his impressive history of inflammatory statements over the weekend, telling a Tea Party rally in South Carolina that they should send the President "back to Kenya."

    Addressing Tea Partiers in Greenville, South Carolina, Tancredo pumped up the crowd by saying "If his wife says Kenya is his homeland, why don't we just send him back?"
  • On a related note, as my good friend Ernie Anastos would say, keep fucking that chicken, Tea Parties:

    http://firedoglake.com/2010/09/05/contempt-for-democracy-attacks-on-voting-rights/
  • ----cite below. Full report can be found at: http://naacp.3cdn.net/36b2014e1dddfe3c81_v7m6bls07.pdf
    -----

    Just moments ago, the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights (IREHR) released a report documenting specific examples of Tea Party leaders and Tea Party-associated organizations providing platforms for anti-Semites, racists and other bigots.

    The report serves as a reminder: There is a very active presence of racists in America's public political discourse, and there is a very real threat of moving backward if we do not stand up and speak out.

    Please take a moment to read more from the report:

    http://action.naacp.org/TeaPartyReport

    To be clear: Whether we agree with their policy positions or not, we at the NAACP believe the majority of Tea Party supporters are sincere, principled people of basic good will. We have no problem with their expression of political views in our great democracy.

    We do, however, have a problem when prominent Tea Party members have direct ties to organizations like the Ku Klux Klan, and are allowed to use Tea Party events to spread their hateful messages. Moreover, we have a problem when Tea Party members call civil rights heroes vicious slurs or repeatedly and publicly deny the President's place of birth and his status as an American citizen.

    Most importantly, we have a problem when regular Tea Party members stand silent as those who share the Tea Party name push a racist agenda. A great man once warned, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

    We in the NAACP refuse to tolerate silence.

    Last summer, after months of waiting for accountability, we publicly called on Tea Party leaders to repudiate those who would use the Tea Party platform to espouse racism or call for violence against any group in our society.

    We are pleased that in response, Tea Party leaders took a few steps in the right direction. They expelled a leader who repeatedly made racist comments. They fired another who suggested gay people should be killed. Still, as this report shows, much remains to be done.

    For more than one hundred years, the NAACP has stood sentinel against racism and hate violence in the United States. We know that we have a moral obligation, summarized succinctly in our nation's pledge of allegiance, to oppose those who would seek to tear the United States apart by espousing hatred or calling for violence against any group in our country.

    We are One Nation. That is why we came together on October 2nd for a truly diverse March on Washington that spoke to this nation's greatest values. That is why we will continue to fight for hope, not hate.

    I commend the research done by the IREHR. Their report proves why our work is more important than ever. I encourage you to read this comprehensive effort. It delves deeper into the specific evidence that prompted the NAACP's call on the Tea Party to act responsibly than any prior study:

    http://action.naacp.org/TeaPartyReport

    Today, America stands at a choice point in its historic march towards making our nation's pledge real. In one direction, there is the possibility of a real debate between people of good will about the options for moving our nation forward. In the other, there is a place filled with vicious hate, threats, and lies that can only take us backward.

    Thank you for standing up for civil rights for all. Thank you for calling for the most basic civility in America's great town square. Thank you for insisting that America moves ever forward, never backward.

    Yours in the struggle,

    Ben Jealous
    President and CEO
    NAACP
  • Pathetic, the NAACP calling people racists. Ya'll are getting so desperate the closer we come to election day.
  • Actually, the NAACP compliments the Tea Party for getting rid of it's most offensive members and leaders.

    Populist movements are hard to control
  • Eggcream with ad hominem attacks and no criticism of substance.

    Standard.
  • I'm at a loss as to which word best describes the following.

    Bigoted?
    Racist?
    Hateful?
    Ignorant beyond comprehension-oh-wait-its-the-tea-party-par-for-the-course.

    According to the Tea Party, why should you vote again Keith Ellison in Minnesota?

    Because "He is the only Muslim member of congress."

    Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the tea party thinks this person is unfit for office because they are muslim.

    It's getting harder and harder for tea partiers to hide their bigotry.
  • Confirmed. The Minnesota Tea Party wants you to vote based on bigotry.


    Tea party's Judson Phillips defends essay attacking congressman for being Muslim

    But this is just a coincidence. Like all the other coincidences.
  • It's been a while, but this dying, racist movement still has a lot of good stuff.

    This man won their straw poll in February:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110228/el_yblog_theticket/little-known-candidate-herman-cain-wins-tea-party-support

    He recently went on to say this:

    Herman Cain, another likely GOP presidential contender, said over the weekend that he would not appoint a Muslim to his administration or the federal courts because he believes all Muslims "force their Sharia law onto the rest of us."

    "There is this creeping attempt, there is this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government," Cain, founder and former CEO of Godfather's Pizza, told ThinkProgress. "It does not belong in our government."

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tim-pawlenty-gop-presidential-hopefuls-blast-sharia-law/story?id=13238930&page=1

  • Tea Party leaders receive millions in US Farm Subsidies.

    Which will end first:

    The Tea Party?

    Or the perception that they're somehow fiscal hawks.

    Come on traditional media, you can do it, you can wake up!

  • Come on traditional media, you can do it, you can wake up!

    Oh, I think you're expected far too much of them.

  • Sigh. I know. Hope springs eternal.

  • You know Boygabriel, I haven't been on in quite some time, but you're still an idiot. You have no idea about the people in the Tea Partys and what they're about. Not a clue. All you see is what the media and the left wingers promote. Let me say that I've attended a number of rallies and it was with calm people, no hate signs, bringing their dogs with them to rallies and simply people who were sick and tired of having the government spend us into the poor house and trying to run our lives. Never did I hear antiIslamic rhetoric, and in fact, if someone even began shouting negativities about Obama, they got shut down, Get your facts straight before you spread ridiculous misinformation in your never ending rants.

  • Did you wear a tinfoil hat?

  • As a mod, I have to ask that you chill with the personal attacks. Play nice or don't play.

    Get your facts straight before you spread ridiculous misinformation in your never ending rants.

    dakota it's funny, b/c all I've done in this post is share FACTS.

    Feel free to specifically refute any of the examples I posted here.

    Otherwise I'm not sure what to tell you.

  • YES!

    Yet another debate on whether:

    1. a group merely has idiot members, or

    2. a group is largely composed of idiots, or

    3. a group is largely composed of idiots, but it is unfair to generalize that all of its members are idiots!

    How the hell does one have a populist movement in this country if we are expected to somehow make it idiot-free?

    When one looks around, there are a lot of idiots in this country, and its hard to keep out of meetings and away from microphones.

    -the democrats and republicans each have their share of idiots who set their agendas back

    -the civil rights movement had/has its share of idiots who set the cause back

    -ditto the feminists and pro-choice and prolife movements

    and every other movement I can think of, but am too lazy to list.

    I think if the majority of the people in the Tea Party are thoughtful fiscal hawks, the public will be able to eventually perceive them as such. I agree with dakotas way, there are a lot of very intelligent people who are checking out the Tea Party and seeing if provides an alternative to the Democrats and Republicans.

    When those people are people you know, it is hard to dismiss the movement as a result of its idiot members. ....it suddenly becomes a movement.

    THe trick is for the Tea Party Movement to get some hyper intelligent figureheads, who become who the media goes to for defacto Tea Party Opinions.

  • It's isolated!!!

    April 16, 2011 04:00 PM

    Republican Tea Partiers just can't seem to get enough of those Obama/black people/chimpanzee jokes

    93 comments

    By David Neiwert



    Credit: OCWeeklyBlog

    This is the image e-mailed to her friends by Orange County Republican committeewoman and Tea Party activist Marilyn Davenport

    Republicans seem to have a really, really narrow idea of what constitutes racism -- which is how they're able to claim that the Tea Parties aren't riddled with racism throughout.



    But then little stories like this one from Orange County
    keep bubbling up to the surface of their fetid little Tea Party cesspool:

    The Weekly has obtained a copy of an email sent to fellow conservatives this week by Marilyn Davenport, a Southern California Tea Party activist and member of the central committee of the Orange County Republican Party.

    Under the words, "Now you know why no birth certificate," there's an Obama family portrait showing them as apes.

    As always, the "sweet little old lady" who sent the mail had no idea that anyone might possibly construe the mail as racist, even though comparing black people to various kinds of apes has always been a stock feature of racist denigration in America. Why, some of her best friends are black!

    Reached by telephone and asked if she thought the email was appropriate, Davenport said, "Oh, come on! Everybody who knows me knows that I am not a racist. It was a joke. I have friends who are black. Besides, I only sent it to a few people--mostly people I didn't think would be upset by it."

    The image did upset several local Republicans.

    "It's unbelievable," one high-ranking OC GOP official told me. "It's much more racist than the watermelon email. I can't believe it was sent out. I'm not an Obama fan but how stupid do you have to be to do this?"

    Another GOP official, who also asked not to be identified, said that Davenport is "a really, really sweet old lady so I am surprised to hear about this."

    Scott Baugh, chairman of the OC Republican Party, told Davenport that the email was tasteless, Davenport--a Fullerton-based political activist--admitted to me during the telephone interview.

    "You're not going to make a big deal about this are you?" she asked me. "It's just an Internet joke."

    But Baugh believes the email is a big deal.

    "When I saw that email today I thought it was despicable," Baugh said. "It is dripping with racism and it does not promote the type of message Orange County Republicans want to deliver to the public. I think she should consider stepping down as an elected official."

    And just remember: There's nothing, NOTHING racist about those Tea Partiers, either. Just another isolated incident. Move along, please.

    (H/t Tom Sullivan)

  • Isolated incidents.

    Let’s just look at news items from the past four weeks:

    – Marilyn Davenport, a Southern California Tea Party activist and member of the central committee of the Orange County Republican Party, sent an e-mail out to fellow conservatives that featured the words “Now you know why no birth certificate,” over a photo of a family of three apes, the infant one of which had Obama’s face superimposed.

    Michele Bachmann’s longtime and embarrassing association with seriously bonkers anti-gay (and anti-a-lotta-other-stuff) bigot Bradlee Dean finally hit the national media, thanks to Rachel Maddow’s show earlier this week.

    – Even as recent polling shows nearly six in ten Minnesotans don’t want the state constitution amended to include a ban on same-sex marriage, state Republican legislators like Gretchen Hoffman are pushing ahead with their plan to put the constitutional enshrinement of marriage inequality on the ballot in November of 2012.

    – The well-funded conservative issues group “Minnesota Majority”, currently known for a strange bit of performance art involving a truck plastered with graphics that seemingly imply that being made to pay their share of taxes will cause Minnesota’s rich to frequent soup kitchens, also is involved in lobbying for insurance companies against any sort of meaningful health care reform — and its most notable representative in that effort, Dave Racer, has a career apparently predicated on making political hay out of inflaming people’s racist impulses. Check this out:

    Minnesota Majority’s Web site features an issue paper on health care, which backs consumer-driven health care and claims that racial diversity and single-parent households negatively affect health in the United States.

    “Black women, for a variety of reasons, are more prone to underweight babies than are Caucasian and Asian women. It is not surprising that Sweden has a lower infant mortality rate, or that Japan has a longer life expectancy than the United States does. They are nearly racially pure; we are not,” says the Web page, written by public speaker and former radio talk show host David Racer.
  • Calling a Muslim-American a radical jihadist? Check

    Equating Islam with 9/11? Check

    Bigotry? double check

    Tuesday, Jun 28, 2011 10:29 ET

    Muslim Rep. Ellison draws anti-Muslim Tea Party challenger

    Minneapolis Tea Partier says she's challenging Keith Ellison because he's a "radical Islamist"

    By Justin Elliott

    Keith Ellison, one of two Muslim members of Congress, has drawn a Tea Party challenger who says she is running because she believes Ellison is a "radical Islamist."

    Lynne Torgerson wrote a post last week on the website of Tea Party Nation on the need to ban Shariah in the U.S., and her claim that Ellison sees Islamic law as supreme:

    I, Lynne Torgerson, am running for Congress in Minnesota, against radical Islamist Keith Ellison.  Keith Ellison fails to oppose banning Islamic Sharia law in the United States.  He accuses people of trying to ban it as "conspiratorilists." [sic] Keith Ellison also fails to support that the United States Constitution should be supreme over Islamic Sharia law. 
    Torgerson actually ran last cycle, garnering 4 percent as an independent. A Minneapolis criminal defense attorney, her campaign website was dominated by critiques of Islam:

    "And, what do I know of Islam? Well, I know of 911."

    And here's a video uploaded yesterday of Torgerson asking Ellison at an event whether he believes Shariah or the U.S. Constitution should be supreme in the United States.

    "I believe that the United States Constitution, which has been amended well over 25 times, is the bedrock of American law," Ellison says. "This whole movement to ban Shariah -- bills like this have been introduced in 22 states -- in my view is a very thinly disguised effort at religious persecution of people that are Muslim."

    •Justin Elliott is a Salon reporter. Reach him by email at jelliott@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @ElliottJustin More: Justin Elliott

  • Well, it's been four months since I visited this post, but Tea Party darling, and Koch-brother-funded simpleton Herman Cain is carrying the torch for tea party bigotry.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/15/1036628/-Herman-Cain-cites-anonymous-claim-that-most-Muslims-are-extremists

    “There are peaceful Muslims,” Mr. Cain explains, “and there are extremists.”

    He added: “I have had one very well-known Muslim voice say to me directly that a majority of Muslims share the extremist views.”

    Pressed on whether he believes that is true, Mr. Cain says he believes his anonymous acquaintance is correct because “that’s his community. I can’t tell you his name, but he is a very prominent voice in the Muslim community, and he said that.”

    Herman Cain ladies and gentlemen!

    Shall we discuss his relations to women or is that a different post?

  • Guess it got tiring to read the non-stop articles about OWS rape, sexual assault, murder, drug overdose, violence, neo-communism, public defecation and masturbation, shooting bullets at the White House, theft, terrorism, anti-Semitism, disease outbreaks and general idiocy, so you had to drag this out. I can understand your frustration.

    PS - I do hope you see the irony in calling Herman Cain a "Tea Party darling" in a thread dedicated to trying to label the Tea Party as a bunch of racists.

    Up Twinkles!!1!

  • Jimmy said:

    PS - I do hope you see the irony in calling Herman Cain a "Tea Party darling" in a thread dedicated to trying to label the Tea Party as a bunch of racists.

    That is seriously one of the most hilarious things I expect to read today.

    Thank you.

  • I missed the part where you addressed Cain's bigotry.

    Jimmy said:

    Guess it got tiring to read the non-stop articles about OWS rape, sexual assault, murder, drug overdose, violence, neo-communism, public defecation and masturbation, shooting bullets at the White House, theft, terrorism, anti-Semitism, disease outbreaks and general idiocy, so you had to drag this out. I can understand your frustration.

    PS - I do hope you see the irony in calling Herman Cain a "Tea Party darling" in a thread dedicated to trying to label the Tea Party as a bunch of racists.

    Up Twinkles!!1!

  • ah, a contest over who is more racist!

    these are always silly.

    Each side pulls out incidents.... while I think about lunch.

  • Not the basis of my comment, btw.

    The racism level misses the point of why such candidates are put forth.

    Since Bush the Republicans (and conservative Tea Party annexees) have a history of putting candidates forward that are uninformed, less worldly, utterly dependent and that can be bought. Ones vastly less competent and reliant upon advisors and sponsors. Ones that are utterly indebted to and helpless without the Cheney and Koch Bros types and very easily controlled.

    The race/gender appointments they've made, while not racist or whatever on the face of those, are secondary to that but also key in not just running an old, rich white guy against the Dem nominee, now a sitting President.

    But on that secondary note, note that none of those strategic race/gender candidates are braintrusts. They are no the best and the brightest and chosen specifically because of that, so they may easily be manipulated and controlled as per Bush.

  • whynot_31 said:

    ah, a contest over who is more racist!

    these are always silly.

    Each side pulls out incidents.... while I think about lunch.

    Ah yes, a classic whynot false equivalency, as if there's anything in the Democratic party that remotely approaches the amount of various republican proposals and comments (at every level of government) that are dripping with bigotry.

    But hey, you have the privilege of being white, so I'm not surprised it's all the same to you.

  • jeffrey said:

    Not the basis of my comment, btw.

    The racism level misses the point of why such candidates are put forth.

    ...are they the same reasons the democrats choose to run a senator with no experience last time?

  • Boygabriel said:

    Ah yes, a classic whynot false equivalency, as if there's anything in the Democratic party that remotely approaches the amount of various republican proposals and comments (at every level of government) that are dripping with bigotry.

    But hey, you have the privilege of being white, so I'm not surprised it's all the same to you.

    I think you are simplifying things into "racism" when it is actually a much more complex array of self-interests.

  • whynot_31 said:

    ...are they the same reasons the democrats choose to run a senator with no experience last time?

    Sure, many people mentioned it to be a major factor in their vote. Along with the huge promises to change so much else, which died the minute they hit the reality of Washington deadlock, filibuster and politics as usual.

    But this still isn't racism.

    Along racial lines, yes, but racism is only a small part of the discussion of race just as sexism is only a small part of the discussion of gender.

    And by this same token the Koch Brother's choice of Herman Cain and all of the policy they put in his mouth -- which was of course foisted as gospel on the Tea Party via the hundreds of fake grass-roots Tea Party small orgs the Kochs founded and control -- is merely a strategic consideration that has everything to do with racial politics given the current context of trying to split some of the current President's voter support along racial lines.

    But to speak to Jimmy's point...this is the Kochs etc. putting forward and controlling messaging in the party they and their peers clearly control.

    Cain's rise strictly due to Koch support (as it's been verified that he has NO campaign staff in any state, just a few staff at the Koch Bros' American for Prosperity org handing messaging and decrees out to their local Tea Party shell orgs), having nothing to do with any sort of legitimate bottom-up, populist Tea Party member support for him that would speak to the presence of racism in the party or not.

    So again, Cain's appointment by the Kochs to be the lead Tea Party candidate (and hopefully Republican nominee) speaks nothing either way of racism.

  • whynot_31 said:

    I think you are simplifying things into "racism" when it is actually a much more complex array of self-interests.

    And I think you your false equivalencies are a joke. I'm open to evidence otherwise.

    And FWIW - very early in this thread I admitted that my post should be titled "bigotry", not racism per se.

  • jeffrey said:

    Sure, many people mentioned it to be a major factor in their vote. Along with the huge promises to change so much else, which died the minute they hit the reality of Washington deadlock, filibuster and politics as usual.

    But this still isn't racism.

    Along racial lines, yes, but racism is only a small part of the discussion of race just as sexism is only a small part of the discussion of gender.

    And by this same token the Koch Brother's choice of Herman Cain and all of the policy they put in his mouth -- which was of course foisted as gospel on the Tea Party via the hundreds of fake grass-roots Tea Party small orgs the Kochs founded and control -- is merely a strategic consideration that has everything to do with racial politics given the current context of trying to split some of the current President's loyalists along racial lines.

    I completely agree.

  • Boygabriel said:

    And I think you your false equivalencies are a joke. I'm open to evidence otherwise.

    And FWIW - very early in this thread I admitted that my post should be titled "bigotry", not racism per se.

    I'm of the belief that the one who calls the other a "bigot" or "racist" usually loses, but you can feel free to use such terms.

    In my view, the Tea Party is actually doing a pretty good job distancing itself from people who see things exclusively in terms of race or bigotry.

    ...they are starting to articulate a very fiscally conservative message of self reliance and small government; A message I think will sit well with people who have (for the most part) not needed government assistance.

    ...yup, in the US, this is often white people.

  • whynot_31 said:

    I'm of the belief that the one who calls the other a "bigot" or "racist" usually loses, but you can feel free to use such terms.

    Another great silencing technique. By your logic, nobody can ever be identified and proven to be racist or a bigot.

    In my view, the Tea Party is actually doing a pretty good job distancing itself from people who see things exclusively in terms of race.

    Well, there is no "tea party". It's loose knit group of communities who have nebulous policy ideas.

    And Herman Cain's bigoted beliefs would seem to contradict your view.

    whynot_31 said:

    I completely agree.

    jeffrey said:

    Sure, many people mentioned it to be a major factor in their vote. Along with the huge promises to change so much else, which died the minute they hit the reality of Washington deadlock, filibuster and politics as usual.

    But this still isn't racism.

    Along racial lines, yes, but racism is only a small part of the discussion of race just as sexism is only a small part of the discussion of gender.

    And by this same token the Koch Brother's choice of Herman Cain and all of the policy they put in his mouth -- which was of course foisted as gospel on the Tea Party via the hundreds of fake grass-roots Tea Party small orgs the Kochs founded and control -- is merely a strategic consideration that has everything to do with racial politics given the current context of trying to split some of the current President's loyalists along racial lines.

    I pity people who think Obama's support is based largely on race. It is the biggest reason I desperately want Cain to win the nomination:

    I'm curious what kind of knots Limbaugh and other gasbags are going to tie themselves into trying to explain how libruls love Obama b/c he's black, but hate Cain b/c he's black.

    It's high comedy.

  • Boygabriel said:

    I pity people who think Obama's support is based largely on race.

    Just to be clear, this was specifically not where I was going in my post above. It definitely was a significant factor for a decent percent of voters but misses the whole point of all that huge messaging he put out there as the central focus. But then again, you might not have been referring to what I wrote. :)

    And I totally agree with your point there.

    Boygabriel said:

    It is the biggest reason I desperately want Cain to win the nomination:

    I'm curious what kind of knots Limbaugh and other gasbags are going to tie themselves into trying to explain how libruls love Obama b/c he's black, but hate Cain b/c he's black.

    It's high comedy.

    Now Limbaugh etc., there is absolutely no denying that they've always pushed some seriously racist and sexist garbage.

    And their massive audiences, by definition as being massive audiences, eat it up.

  • whynot_31 said:

    ...they are starting to articulate a very fiscally conservative message of self reliance and small government; A message I think will sit well with people who have (for the most part) not needed government assistance.

    ...yup, in the US, this is often white people.

    You mean it sits well with people who DON'T THINK need gov assistance or benefit from gov programs.

    The entire platform is based upon people being ignorant of their benefits and privilege.

    A 2008 poll of 1,400 Americans by the Cornell Survey Research Institute found that when people were asked whether they had “ever used a government social program,” 57 percent said they had not. Respondents were then asked whether they had availed themselves of any of 21 different federal policies, including Social Security, unemployment insurance, the home-mortgage-interest deduction and student loans. It turned out that 94 percent of those who had denied using programs had benefited from at least one; the average respondent had used four.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/opinion/our-hidden-government-benefits.html

  • Yes, the wealthy believe that they benefit less from government programs than others. The task is to convince them that they need government, and should have to pay for more it than they already are.

    ...so far, not enough of them are buying it.

    P.S. You know everyone is "racist" and "bigoted" to some degree, right? In order to preserve the impact of the terms, I try to use the terms only against people who are of the white hood swastika variety.

    ...but lots of folks use the terms against people who they merely have political differences with, and/or because they are advocating policies which have a disproportionate impact on folks who are of a different race.

    Neither of which meets my strict definition of "bigotry" or "racism".

    ...to meet my definition, you really have to know the actor's motivation (For example "we should not make poor people dependent on the government" vs "people who benefit from this program are mostly x race, and therefore we should cut this program").

    Just because the Tea Party advocates for cutting programs that have a disproportionate impact on a given race, doesn't make them racist.... Also, if we are going to give the leaderless OWS movement a pass for its idiots not representing the movement, we must do the same for idiots which exist among the leaderless Tea Party.

  • Yes, the wealthy believe that they benefit less from government programs than others. The task is to convince them that they need government, and should have to pay for more it than they already are.

    No, not the wealthy. MOST people think that. Especially Republican and tea party voters.

    So again, the entire platform is based on fundamental misconceptions of how the government helps them.

    P.S. You know everyone is "racist" and "bigoted" to some degree, right? In order to preserve the impact of the terms, I try to use the terms only against people who are of the white hood swastika variety.

    Again, I am happy for you and your privilege. It allows you to only care about "the impact" bigotry once it reaches KKK level.

    I am sure that many Muslims, and non Muslims such as myself, do not agree with you.

    "there are people who are more bigoted" is not a response.

    "everyone is a little bit racist" is not a response.

    "some people see racism in discussions of welfare reform" is not a response.

    What Herman Cain said is very clearly bigoted. I am open to hearing arguments to the contrary.

  • In the middle east, the US is increasingly viewed as being one of the largest, most powerful Christian nations on earth.

    If a Muslim candidate in Pakistan was to state "There are moderate Christians, and extremist Christians, but most are extremists", do you think the majority would nod their heads?

    I suspect they would, because their image of Christians is comes people who bomb them. ...they are unable to separate the actions of the US government from the disparate interpretations and teachings of "Christianity".

    The US population is quite similar, and Herman Cain knows it.

  • That's great.

    It was a bigoted thing to say.

    I'm open to arguments otherwise.

  • I think Cain might be enough to motivate me to campaign for Obama again.

    ...last time, I was assigned by the Democratic Party to go to white neighborhoods to show whites it is ok to be white and vote for Obama.

    I wonder where the Democrats will send me this time.

  • Non sequitur.

  • Playing to people's unfounded beliefs is a good way to win.

    I was psyched when the Democrats appeared to have figured it out in 2008. Lots of people came out voted that had never voted before.

  • The Tea Party: playing to bigots in order to win elections.

  • The Tea Party political parties: playing to bigots unfounded beliefs in order to win elections. A practice that has been used since the beginning of time.

    As long as voters fall for it, it's kinda silly to blame any party for engaging in it.

    A sucker and his money vote are soon parted.

  • Did you just equate pandering to bigotry with, say, liberals excitement over Obama's "change" in '08?

    That is an impressively terrible false equivalency, even by your standards.

  • I didn't use the word bigotry. I used the terms "unfounded beliefs".

    Will the liberals be wiser this time?

    Bad news: The Tea Party voters and candidates seem to be as malleable as ever.

  • I didn't use the word bigotry.

    Don't get cute.

    You referred to bigotry as an "unfounded belief," and then claimed such things exist on both sides.

    Own what you post.

  • I use the terms "racist" and "bigots" very rarely. I try not to engage in hyperbole, because I believe it makes me sound less credible.

  • Since you're content to play word games, I'll try again:

    Don't get cute.

    You changed bigotry to "unfounded belief," and then claimed such things exist on both sides.

    It is a miserable equivalency.

    Own what you post.

  • BG- I've defined my terms, and won't expand their definitions to meet your needs.

    Jeffery- You seem to understand what I am writing; both sides seem pretty similar if you limit the analysis to things like race and bigotry.

    Soon, we will have to create new terms that have the impact that "racism" and "bigotry" once had.

  • Racism is still rampant in the country (as it is all over the world) to pretend that racism exists in equal measures across every single divide including race, political party, state, or educational level is not only ignorant but it's irresponsible and dangerous as well.

    The majority of us all know what breeds racism and what environmental/social climates facilitate its growth. Racism is more prevalent in certain "groups" of individuals. We see it, you see it, by ignoring this we allow racism to stay "hidden."

    I ask who gains from keeping racism thinly veiled? Also whopretends to not see where racism exists in greater percentages?

    We know the answers to those questions as well.

  • It definitely exists in some groups more than others.

    In fact, many groups have the hatred of other groups as being among their core tenets or beliefs.

    Other groups stumble around the edges of the definition, or seem to take actions against a given race ...but, without knowing thier motivations, I hesitate to label them as bigoted or racist.

    Fear not, this does not mean I do not confront people who act upon unfounded beliefs. I try to make sure they gain no benefit from holding such beliefs, and hopefully even "out them" in a way that causes them to lose standing.

  • whynot_31 said:

    BG- I've defined my terms, and won't expand their definitions to meet your needs.

    Actually, the point is precisely that you expanded bigotry to a category of something that somehow includes a bias that exists in the Democratic Party.

    What that thing is I would love to know.

    Soon, we will have to create new terms that have the impact that "racism" and "bigotry" once had.

    No, actually.

    Hermain Cain said something bigoted.

    His example actually strengthens the definition of the word.

  • People who believe that they have fewer unfounded beliefs than others alternate between being fun and predictable.

    They use loaded terms that constantly lose their impact. Don't worry, everyone with an ideology or an identity does it: We are all people.

    This ride is great.

  • Another failure to address either question.

    Cain's comment was bigoted.

    You have the privilege of not being Muslim and such bigotry not effecting your life directly.

  • Oh Herman.

    Herman. Herman. Herman.

    Cain speaks for nearly a half an hour and despite a couple fleeting "999" mentions, keeps his speech to topics of faith and his recent battle with cancer. He begins with a story about how he knew he would survive when he discovered that his physician was named "Dr. Lord," that the hospital attendant's name was "Grace" and that the incision made on his chest during the surgery would be in the shape of a "J."

    "Come on, y'all. As in J-E-S-U-S! Yes! A doctor named Lord! A lady named Grace! And a J-cut for Jesus Almighty," Cain boomed.

    He did have a slight worry at one point during the chemotherapy process when he discovered that one of the surgeon's names was "Dr. Abdallah."

    "I said to his physician assistant, I said, 'That sounds foreign -- not that I had anything against foreign doctors -- but it sounded too foreign," Cain tells the audience. "She said, 'He's from Lebanon.' Oh, Lebanon! My mind immediately started thinking, wait a minute, maybe his religious persuasion is different than mine! She could see the look on my face and she said, 'Don't worry, Mr. Cain, he's a Christian from Lebanon.'"

    "Hallelujah!" Cain says. "Thank God!"

  • It seems I must use your terms and methods to be considered truly on your side.

    It is a human trait that people can believe that they are the only ones fighting a fight, when they are actually dismissing potential allies as being their enemies as result of varying methods. As a result, I don't hold it against you.

    In Nov 2012, America will again decide how perceives the world, and how it wishes to be perceived by the world.

    If Cain ends up being the Republican nominee, I hope his present strategy of finding an enemy fails. For the sake of the Democrats, I hope they are able to cast some group as an enemy so they may bolster their own returns.

    The Tea Party? The rich? The fiscal hawks?

    To keep it simple, both sides might even use the same rhetoric again...

    oh, right, the linguistics question. Maybe Chomsky can help you.

  • Herman Cain has now issued multiple bigoted statements about a very large group of people.

    I don't really care what side you think I think you're on.

    Nor do I care about your beltway wisdom about how the Democrats can win.

    One of our two major parties regularly relies on bigotry, the other does not.

    This is a topic worthy of our attention, lest people draw false equivalencies.

    whynot_31 said:

    It seems I must use your terms and methods to be considered truly on your side.

    It is a human trait that people can believe that they are the only ones fighting a fight, when they are actually dismissing potential allies as being their enemies as result of varying methods.

    In Nov 2012, America will again decide how perceives the world, and how it wishes to be perceived by the world.

    If Cain ends up being the Republican nominee, I hope his present strategy of finding an enemy fails. For the sake of the Democrats, I hope they are able to cast some group as an enemy so they may bolster their own returns.

    The Tea Party? The rich? The fiscal hawks?

    To keep it simple, both sides might even use the same rhetoric again...

    oh, right, the linguistics question. Maybe Chomsky can help you.

  • I don't think any of the equivalencies being drawn are false.

    You may want to look at this in terms of what groups of people believe they have to lose and gain.

    After all, aren't the arguments over who is morally superior are pretty silly, given that we would all act the same way if in the other's role?

    Chomsky is a good guy, and might be able to help.

    I like him.

  • You're trying to turn this into something else instead of dealing with facts as presented.

    This isn't about moral superiority or electoral strategy.

    Cain is saying bigoted things.

    Try thinking about this fact outside of your non-Muslim privilege.

    I don't think any of the equivalencies being drawn are false.

    You may want to look at this in terms of what groups of people believe they have to lose and gain.

    After all, aren't the arguments over who is morally superior are pretty silly, given that we would all act the same way if in the other's role?

    Chomsky is a good guy, and might be able to help.

    I like him.

  • I believe Cain's statements to be completely about electoral strategy, but he may coincidentally actually hold these views.

    Maybe someday I will run for an election. I imagine it will be much like getting a job offer after BSing my way through interviews in which I told people what I think they wanted to hear.

    Elections are much like interviews, it is tough to parse out what is coincidence vs. deeply held views. It is all just verbiage and linguistics, what really matters in life is actions.

    As I look back on history, I see both the republican and democrats being willing to send our armed forces into conflicts in which people will be slaughtered. Although many of these conflicts seemed waged under the rhetoric of "democracy/freedom", they all seem to have religion, resources and race as their basis.

    In light of human nature, the real questions may be:

    Is the honesty of Republicans a fault or an asset?

    Is the rhetoric of "diversity" and "inclusion" by Democrats a fault or an asset?

  • You have the privilege of only viewing Cain's words as rhetoric because he is not talking about you, and you are not from a disenfranchised or persecuted group.

    I bet Muslims feel differently.

    Republicans must own their bigoted rhetoric, and neither they nor you get to pretend it doesn't have real world consequences.

    I believe Cain's statements to be completely about electoral strategy, but he may coincidentally actually hold these views.

    Maybe someday I will run for an election. I imagine it will be much like getting a job offer after BSing my way through interviews in which I told people what I think they wanted to hear.

    Elections are much like interviews, it is tough to parse out what is coincidence vs. deeply held views. It is all just verbiage and linguistics, what really matters in life is actions.

    As I look back on history, I see both the republican and democrats being willing to send our armed forces into conflicts in which people will be slaughtered. Although many of these conflicts seemed waged under the rhetoric of "democracy/freedom", they all seem to have religion, resources and race as their basis.

    In light of human nature, the real questions may be:

    Is the honesty of Republicans a fault or an asset?

    Is the rhetoric of diversity and inclusion by Democrats a fault of an asset?

  • Just convince yourself I like Cain and the Republicans, and am responsible for their actions.

    Deem me unaware and complicit. .... part of the problem.

    No other method or language is acceptable.

    Shouldn't we define terms first? Shouldn't we save some terms for special occasions?

  • My advice to you is to stop thinking about what camp I put you in (I generally don't do that to people, esp with political persuations) and just respond to the topic at hand.

  • Republican Allen West is the Tea Party candidate for House in Florida’s 22nd district

    Some argue this is a sign the Tea Baggers are not racist. But the reality is that if the TP endorsed the Quanell X of the New Black Panthers in Houston, that would be a sure sign it is not racist:


  • On a related note, it has been fun to watch the recent debate over whether a student can display the Confederate Flag in the window of his college dorm room.

    http://www.wtsp.com/news/national/article/224554/81/Black-student-defends-his-Confederate-flag

  • heritage not hate!

    (not mentioned: it's a heritage of hate)

  • Some day I want to win something, in large part because I'll gain the ability to write history.

  • Tea Party darling and failed office seeker calls Obama "n*gger", calls for assassination of him and his "monkey children".

    :(

    December 19, 2011 07:00 AM

    Failed Tea Party Politician Posts Facebook Page Calling For Obama Assassination

    By Nicole Belle

    Keeping it classy:



    California libertarian and Tea Party darling Jules Manson is caught calling for the assassination of President Barack Obama and his children. On Sunday, many Facebook users were greeted by the shocking spectacle of a California libertarian and Ron Paul supporter by the name of Jules Manson advocating for the assassination of President Barack Obama. Manson, a failed politician, recently ran for and lost a seat on the City of Carson’s City Council last March. The following is the text of Manson’s racist, treasonous, deplorable post:

    “Assassinate the (expletive deleted by examiner editors) n****r and his monkey children”

    Manson posted the disturbing and openly racist call to assassinate Obama and Obama’s children on his own Facebook wall, which was open to the public. Manson, a Ron Paul libertarian, was angry with Obama over a policy matter.

    Manson has since taken down the post and made his Facebook page private, due in no small way to the outrage rightfully directed at him. But that was after Manson tried to rationalize that his use of the n-word didn't make a racist. No, seriously.



    Two hours after making the offensive post, and after being bombarded by hundreds of Facebook users outraged by his racist call to assassinate the leader of the free world, Manson made a bizarre Facebook post, presumably in the hopes of justifying his unjustifiable rant. There Mason argued that using the word “n****r” does not make him a racist.

    Okay, then. Manson ran as a "Libertarian conservative" for City Council for the City of Carson in Los Angeles County and lost. Manson was upset over the NDAA vote, although curiously, his call for assassination didn't involve anyone in Congress who overwhelmingly voted for it, nor does it explain his inclusion of the Obama children or use of really repulsive racist language. Whatever caused his outrage, I hope he thinks it's worth the Secret Service visit he so richly deserves.

  • The next 5 years are going to be fun as people slowly learn that Facebook is not private.

    Lots of dumb people will ruin their own careers.

  • Tea Party darling who couldn't win a city council seat hmmm....

    Ron Paul is set to take Iowa BTW.

  • Oh Ron Paul, you racist, angry little man.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/ron-pauls-shaggy-defense/250256/

    Ron Paul's Shaggy Defense

    By Ta-Nehisi Coates

    Dec 20 2011, 10:00 AM ET 89

    The Times notes that Ron Paul's racism newsletters are, again, becoming an issue. The standard defense has generally been Paul didn't write the newsletters. I think an honest reckoning with that defense would have someone question the faculties of an adult who would allow a newsletter filled--by Paul's own admission--with bigotry to be published under one's name. Had I spent a decade stewarding an eponymous publication steeped in homophobia and anti-Semitism, I would not expect my friends and colleagues to accept an "I didn't write it"excuse. And I have no (present) designs on the launch codes. It is a peculiar thing when the basic standards of honesty and decency are lowered in direct proportion to the power one seeks to wield. This is especially true of our friends. One has a hard time imagining a President Barack Obama who had done a stint writing for, say, for The Final Call lambasting gays and Jews.

    Be that as it may, I think it's extremely important that the discerning consumer understand that the problem isn't merely that Ron Paul claims that the newsletters are a bizarre forgery, but that when initially asked about them Paul actually defended the letters.

    As Matt Welch reported back in 2008, In 1992, Paul published a newsletter in which he claimed:



    Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

    Paul defended this statement citing criminal justice stats and saying, "These aren't my figures," Dr. Paul said Tuesday. "That is the assumption you can gather from" the report.

    In that same column, Paul noted that:



    If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be.

    Challenged on this assertion Paul said in his defense:


    "If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.

    That same year Paul asserted that,

    "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions."

    Paul defended the comment through his spokesman:

    Sullivan said Paul does not consider people who disagree with him to be sensible. And most blacks, Sullivan said, do not share Paul's views. The issue is political philosophy, not race,

    Sullivan said. "Polls show that only about 5 percent of people with dark-colored skin support the free market, a laissez faire economy, an end to welfare and to affirmative action," Sullivan said. [...]

    "You have to understand what he is writing. Democrats in Texas are trying to stir things up by using half-quotes to impugn his character," Sullivan said. "His writings are intellectual. He assumes people will do their own research, get their own statistics, think for themselves and make informed judgments."

    You can make what you will of that defense. But the point I am driving at is that Paul not only did not disown the opinions at the time, he actively claimed them as his own and then disparaged anyone who questioned his words:

    "If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man's character, what kind of a world do you live in?" Dr. Paul asked.

    In 2001, Paul found himself in a new millennium, and a new country, and in due course, came upon a different tune. Confronted with the newsletters in 2001 (before The New Republic story) and particularly his brutal attack on Barbara Jordan as "Barbara Morondon," the "archetypical half-educated victimologist" whose "race and sex protect her from criticism" Paul explained:

    When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." Paul says that item ended up there because "we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."

    His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them ... I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'"

    Note Paul's language: It "ended up" in the newsletter. "Other people" wrote the words. "Campaign aids" said that honesty was too confusing. No actual named person did anything.

    Racism, like all forms of bigotry, is what it claims to oppose--victimology. The bigot is never to blame. Always is he besieged--by gays and their radical agenda, by women and their miniskirts, by fleet-footed blacks. It is an ideology of "not my fault." It is not Ron Paul's fault that people with an NAACP view of the world would twist his words. It is not Ron Paul's fault that his newsletter trafficked in racism. It is not Ron Paul's fault that he allowed people to author that racism in his name. It is anonymous political aids and writers, who now cowardly refuse to own their words. There's always someone else to blame--as long as it isn't Ron Paul, if only because it never was Ron Paul.

    This is not a particular tragedy for black people. The kind of racism which Paul trafficked is neither innovative nor original. Even his denials recall the obfuscations of Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens. But some pity should be reserved for the young and disgruntled, for those who dimly perceive that something is wrong in this country, for those who are earnestly appalled by the madness of our criminal justice policy, for those who have watched a steady erosion of our civil liberties, and have seen their concerns met with an appalling silence on the national stage. That their champion should be, virtually by default, a man of mixed motives and selective courage, is sad.

    MORE: Scans of Ron Paul's newsletters can be seen here. Also, I want to urge people to read Matt Welch's piece.

  • Still would rather have RP than Obama in the White House sorry

    This is how bad this game of "the lesser evil" has become

    Another 4 years of Obama would lead to our fiscal collapse

  • Cool The Kid said:

    Still would rather have RP than Obama in the White House sorry

    This is how bad this game of "the lesser evil" has become

    Another 4 years of Obama would lead to our fiscal collapse

    I think the republicans will get both houses in 2012, so think your fears are unfounded; He will no longer be able to spend money while not being able to tax.

    If I am correct, Obama will win the election and then be largely powerless; He will not be able to spend money OR tax.

    ...it will be quite a ride.

This discussion has been closed.