Last Saturday, as temperatures plunged into the high 80s, Tucsonans were out in droves.
There was the Pride in the Desert thing, but I wasn’t invited, which is weird, because I certainly take pride in our desert. So the choice came down to heading downtown for the Tucson Meet Yourself celebration, or heading over to Hi Corbett Field to check out what the Tea Party has morphed into this week. Basically, it was a choice between my belly and the dark underbelly of local politics.
As I neared Hi Corbett Field, the traffic was horrendous. Turns out the Pride thing was being held at Reid Park, and the Tucson Unified School District was holding an event in the park as well. I had to park south of 22nd Street; during the walk to the ballpark, I told myself to be nice, that these Tea Partiers were just folks like you ‘n me. (Of course, I couldn’t help but think of Gene Wilder in Blazing Saddles, when his character, Jim, tried to explain the hostile townspeople to the new sheriff, saying, “These are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know … morons.”)
Last time I went to a Tea Party event, I amused myself by asking all of the constitutional experts in attendance exactly how many amendments there are to the Constitution. I received answers ranging from 13 to 87, without even one person getting it right. (There are 27.) This time, I told myself that I would just observe and report, no interaction whatsoever.
So, the first sign I saw read, “Take Back Our Country.” I asked the woman holding it, “Take it back from whom, exactly?” She said, “Well …” and then she froze on me like the common clay of the new West.
Tell me, Tea Partiers, take it back from whom? From someone like me, who works and pays taxes, who has been married to the same woman for 32 years, with whom I have raised two college-educated kids who go to church every week and don’t drink, smoke, use drugs or even cuss? You feel this burning need to take back the country from me simply because I vote for Democrats? Does it surprise you at all that a whole lot of normal people see you as a collection of nutbirds and haters?
It’s not your country or my country; it’s our country. And if you would take a break from patting yourselves on the back for being self-declared (and -defined) über-patriots, you might realize that we’re more alike than different. That might not be something that would make you feel the urge to scream out loud, but in the long run, it’s worth celebrating, and perhaps it’s even something we can build upon.
Later, I saw a sign that read, “It’s not about his race. It’s about his agenda.”
As for the incessant cries of racism that surround your movement, I’m still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Just because you hold an event to which thousands of white people—and virtually no blacks—show up doesn’t mean that the event or the attendees are racist.
I mean, if somebody put on a concert, and the acts included Reba McEntire, the Jonas Brothers, the Lennon Sisters, Pat Boone, Debby Boone, T. Boone Pickens and Richard (but not Karen) Carpenter, no one would scream “racism” if the crowd that showed up looked like a reunion of everybody who has ever been in the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.
The fact that the Tea Party is an almost-exclusively white movement might elicit charges of racism, but those charges may very well be simplistic and lazy. Another explanation might be that some of the tenets of the Tea Party movement are unappealing (or even off-putting) to people of color. Take, for example, the fact that the first successful Tea Party candidate, and perhaps the biggest name in the movement, Rand Paul, thinks it should be OK for restaurant-owners to deny people service based on the color of their skin. Yeah, black people, come join our cause as we openly question whether the Civil Rights Act was good or bad for America.
Since he first made that statement, Paul has backtracked, do-si-doed, and run over his own tow line like Captain Queeg, but he has never retracted the vulgar sentiment. And a whole lot of Tea Party people nod almost imperceptibly when the subject is raised, as though there were some kind of constitutional argument that could be made were it not for the fear of being branded a racist.
Then, of course, there is one of the core beliefs of the movement—that white males are the new oppressed minority in America. Come on, admit it: You either believe that to be true right now, or you see it right around the corner. Hordes of darker folks are closing in on you as though you were a lone-wolf lawman holed up in a farmhouse in a George Romero film.
Finally, crowd-size estimates have become a point of contention these days, so I thought I’d do my part. I started counting people, but after a while, I got bored and stopped. The official Tucson Weekly crowd total for the Tea Party event: at least 143.
This article appears in Oct 14-20, 2010.
Tom Danehy makes a supreme effort to not “get it.” As an example: He asks a woman carrying a sign, “Take (our country) back from whom, exactly?” and then infers that the woman is a moron because she didn’t answer quite as fast as his blunt question. Yet the answer is clear: From the Marxist thugs robbing us blind and destroying the fundamental liberties our nation was founded upon. If Tom Danehy doesn’t see that, then he can’t claim that he has more in common with the Tea Partiers than differences: In fact, one would have to surmise that he has more in common with the Marxist thugs than differences — and no, it doesn’t surprise us at all that Marxist thug lovers regard us as a bunch of nutbirds and haters: It is their standard operating ploy.
As an example of the Marxist thug mentality, Tom Danehy castigates Rand Paul for suggesting that a restaurant owner should be allowed to refuse service to a black person. Yet freedom of association (and its corollary, freedom to not associate) is a fundamental tenet of American liberty the Marxist thugs want to see destroyed. A restaurant owner has and rightfully should have the fundamental right to refuse service to a black person OR a white person OR any other person of his choice. His bigotry should be held up for ridicule far and wide, no doubt, but it is his RIGHT to refuse service to anyone, and control freaks like Marxists oppose all rights, preferring government-issued privileges they can pick and choose to offer to whomever they choose to benefit … for a price. It is “control,” and it does not recognize “rights.”
On the other hand, people who want to live in liberty must — absolutely MUST — protect the liberty of others, whether they like them or not. It is the only way liberty can exist. Furthermore, anyone who opens their premises to the public for commerce MUST honor the rights of the people so long as the exercise of those rights do not cause a public disturbance. But depriving people of their right to freedom of association protects no one’s liberty.
Lastly, white males as an oppressed minority: Has Tom Danehy ever watched any of the videos put out by the Black Panthers? Would he recognize the vicious racism against whites expressed therein if he did? Does he object to that virulent racism with even ten percent of the hostility he directs against the predominantly white Tea Partiers, who are predominantly white for no other reason than the fact that most blacks choose not to attend? Does he recognize, even in passing, that the Tea Partiers count among their supporters quite a few blacks of surpassing political expertise, such as Alan Keyes and Dr. Scott King? In other words, does Tom Danehy consider the Tea Partiers “racist” because the majority of blacks and Hispanics object to our message of limited government and self-reliance and personal responsibility and hard work and fundamental liberty, and therefore choose not to attend?
Frdmftr just proved Mr. Danehy’s Blazing point: “These are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know … morons.”
Frdmftr, you are so far off base … as is Rand Paul. You write as if a white restaurant owner’s refusal to serve non Anglos somehow protects that owner’s liberty. Then, a black restaurant owner could refuse to feed whites, thereby infringing on those whites’ liberty.
When a business is licensed that means racism is not allowed. Since some did not feel that way, the Civil Rights Act became law … instructing racists in what type of conduct is acceptable in the United States, where all are equal. ALL!
Teabaggers have been racist, uninformed people. Hopefully some of them will recognize that, investigate facts and not continue behaving as Fox News automatons.
I ask you Frdmftr, how many lynchings of white people by blacks do you know about? Compare that number to the number of black lynchings? Has there ever been a sign in an Arizona restaurant saying “No Whites”, like there have been signs posted in many Arizona restaurants as late as the 1960s, saying “No Mexicans, No Dogs, No N******”?
It’s difficult not to erode into profanity in responding to such an unacceptable opinion about Mr. Danehy’s column, which I consider another GREAT read.
One more thing: Why use a disguise (Frdmftr) when posting? Aren’t you willing to let everyone reading your comment know who you are? What’s your real name?
It’s laughable that Frdmftr purports that whites are oppressed. It’s sad that he defends racism as a constitutional right. Lastly, it’s pretty dumb he refers to anyone that doesn’t vote like him as “marxist thugs.” Sigh.
So, Frdmftr – would you support the right of a restaurant owner to serve you meat riddled with maggots and rotten potatoes? How about his right to promote his steak as USDA Prime beef but serve you rump steak from an old horse slaughtered for dog food? Or his right to advertise a daily special 99 cent half pound hamburger but serve you a 4 ounce burger and charge you $5.99? No, he doesn’t have those rights, because the same “Marxist Thugs” who grant him the privilege to prepare and sell meals to the public in the form of a restaurant license require him to submit to health laws and regulations and regular inspection of his premises, and also require him to comply with truth in advertising laws. And laws requiring him to make his restaurant accessible to those with physical handicaps, which Rand Paul also doesn’t like.
Like it or not, we are a nation of laws, laws to provide citizens with liberty and frredom – freedom to not be discriminated against, and freedom from unscrupulous businesses.
Hey, Tea Party folks, don’t let these people get to you. If you want to get upset, then watch the supposed “debate” between Giffords and Kelly, with Nintzel and Shearer, both from Wick owned liberal closed-mind questioners. That will be something to get excited about. Then worse, watch Arizona Illustrated, that is fully loaded with Democrats. So, why even argue with these people.
The Tea Party turnout was great, with everything else that was going on that weekend.
So this guy wants to report 143…he is just goading you. The TRUTH will be known at the polls. And if people in the Tucson area are satisfied with Grijalva (he does have a huge number of illegals living in his District and no business is bigger there than the manufacturing of illegal SS cards, and Driver’s licenses which allows them to register to vote.) And Giffords with her private investment company, which is actually most likely a hedgefund devoted to Solar investment, and the fact she voted for everything right in line with Obama, Pelosi and Reid’s demands…make the illiterate and uninformed think they will get something for free…then she will win over a man of CHARACTER…VOX POPULI…THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN.
SO, THE ONLY VOICE YOU ACTUALLY HAVE IS YOUR VOTE…follow the lies to your demise or get off your duff and VOTE. We could get a surprise and win one!
Ah, Tom… over the years my reactions to your columns have ranged from amusement to extreme irritation (I love soccer). But today my reaction, lacking the option to increase font size to 100, is that I LLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOVVVVVVVVVEEEEEEEE you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ignorance, hate and greed are very popular… VOX POPULI… VOX POOP.
Mr. Danahey lives in the same sort of bubble my sister-in-law does. She came to a family reunion and was shocked, shocked that her entire family down to her third cousin was going to vote for Bush for a second term. Her bubble told her he was a dolt. Mr. Danahey’s bubble doesn’t include people who find the current administration’s philosophy and agenda abhorent. And, by the way, I have read the Constitution and the amendments. That was when I quit being a Democrat.
Frdmftr – speaking of morons, didn’t you mean “imply” rather than “infer”? And Dr. Scott King? Do you mean Coretta Scott King? Or did her husband take her name (Martin Scott King)?
Tea Party folks — time to secede from the union. Start your own country, declare war on everybody in sight, don’t fund schools or health care.
Just don’t inflict your ignorance on those of us who have a passing familiarity with English grammar — and all our teeth.
Ah, thank you, “Ricardo Small”, “mbh”, and “CochiseCitizen” for your comments, even though all three of you exhibit a distinct inability to read and comprehend anything beyond the first sentence of what you read, if that. And you call ME a “moron,” Mr. Small? Or is that simply your inability to address the issues? Never mind: I will give you here ANOTHER opportunity to debate the issues as thinking adults rather than infantile name-callers.
First, we will go to Mr. Small: Contrary to proving Mr Danehy’s point, you have proven my point: “Moron,” Mr. Small? Is that the best you can do? It’s the best Mr. Danehy could do, rather than face the issues and the facts and you have done no better. I write that a restaurant owner of any race, creed, or color who refuses to serve anyone, for any reason at all or no apparent reason at all is within his fundamental rights, and that those rights have been severely infringed upon by a lefti
Mea Culpa. I meant Dr. Marvin Scott, the Congressional candidate opposing Andre Carson in Indiana’s 7th District. Carson is one of two activist Muslims in Congress and an advocate of Sharia Law in the United States. I really blew that one. And I also should have mentioned Dr. Alan Keyes, former ambassador to the U.N. and former Assistant Secretary of State, and who just happens to be blacker than Obama, if anyone remains ignorant enough to believe the Tea Party is against Obama because of race.
I don’t know what happened to my last message in response to the drivel from “Ricardo Small,” “mbh,” and “CochiseCitizen.” It was at least as long as my first message, and now I don’t have time to rebuild it.
Everyone: Keep it civil and please refrain from name-calling. You may review our comments policy at http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tucson/Comment….
Okay, trying again, now that I have a bit more time: These are my responses to “Ricardo Small”, “mbh,” and “CochiseCitizen”. First, to “Ricardo Small”: I quote: “You write as if a white restaurant owner’s refusal to serve non Anglos somehow protects that owner’s liberty.” Nonsense. The restaurant owner, regardless of his race, creed, or color, has or rightfully should have the fundamental right to control who enters upon his premises and whom he chooses to serve or not serve. He already has (or would have if government would stop infringing upon it) the “liberty” to control his own property and choice of action. In contrast, the prospective customer has no liberty whatsoever with regard to anyone else’s private property. He cannot enter upon it without the property owner’s permission, and he cannot demand service from anyone who chooses not to offer it. Thus the restaurant owner in the instant discussion is not infringing upon his liberty, because he has none with respect to the restaurant owner’s property or choice of action. Even if admitted to the property, the property owner has the right to control, restrict, and/or limit the customer’s exercise of rights while upon the premises (except for the right to leave) — such as the right to free speech, the right to keep and bear arms in self defense, etc. Ever see a sign that says “We reserve the right to refuse service (or admittance) to anyone.”? In our nation, founded upon the principles set forth by our founding fathers, the property owner has the perfect right to enforce that rule according to his own preferences, and government has nothing (should have nothing) to say about it. To the extent government restricts the exercise of that right, government is engaging in a tyranny.
All this presupposes a private citizen owning property and exercising his fundamental rights and being personally responsible for his choices. It does not apply to a property owner (private citizen or artificial person) who opens his premises up to the general public for general purposes, for he has no right of control over the public at large. It also doesn’t apply to property owned by a limited liability corporation (artificial person) because the officer of the corporation cannot be held responsible for his decisions made in the name of the corporation — thus, since he has no responsibility for the consequences, he cannot restrict the rights of the citizens he invites onto his premises. To the extent government allows him to do so, government (and he) is engaging in a tyranny.
All that being said, I would not patronize a business restricting admittance or service on racial, creed, or color grounds, and I would make sure everyone knew about the despicable behavior. Just because I support fundamental rights doesn’t mean I support despicable behavior. I also will not patronize any business restricting any of my rights that do not disrupt the purpose of the business, such as my right to keep and bear arms. Exception: The officer(s) of a corporation are not responsible for the consequences, so they have no right to restrict my right to keep and bear arms on their premises open to the public. To the extent government enforces their rights without enforcing their responsibility, government is engaging in a tyranny — and we, the people, have a duty to change that.
Lastly, if I can wrap this up, Tea Partiers are not racist, uninformed people. If they were, I would not associate with them. (And the term “Tea Baggers” is a leftist smear term. Please don’t use it again.) From your apparent belief that anyone who exercises control over their own private property is infringing upon your rights, I suggest that perhaps it is you who are uninformed. You would do well to study the concept of individual sovereignty and liberty a little closer.
Next will be my response to “mbh.”
“mbh” says: “It’s laughable that Frdmftr purports that whites are oppressed. It’s sad that he defends racism as a constitutional right. Lastly, it’s pretty dumb he refers to anyone that doesn’t vote like him as “marxist thugs.” Sigh.”
Laugh it up. Where is your outrage that the New Black Panthers can intimidate voters at a polling place and the administration, in the face of factual evidence proving a felony, quietly drops the charges? Where is your outrage that the New Black Panthers can spew vitriolic hatred and threats of violence toward whites and Jews with impunity, while any white person making a marginally inappropriate comment about some non-Anglo is immediately pilloried in the press and is usually sued by some twerp who can’t prove the slightest injury? Where is your outrage when a white person who describes the NAACP as a “racist organization” (which it is, by definition) can be politically destroyed in the press and in his career for simply speaking the truth?
Unfortunately for your thesis, free speech and freedom of association are Constitutional rights, and regardless of how despicable we find racism to be (and I do), the expression of it and the associations one chooses according to it are Constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has made it very clear, that the most obnoxious speech is exactly that which is protected. Lastly, a whole lot of people do not vote the way I do, and they are not Marxist thugs thereby. But there are a whole lot of Marxist thugs currently running our country and our Fourth Estate, and a whole lot of Marxist sycophants (ignorantly or by knowing intent) supporting their destruction of the liberties our nation was founded to protect. I am appalled by how many of them are on this thread.
“CochiseCitizen” said: “So, Frdmftr – would you support the right of a restaurant owner to serve you meat riddled with maggots and rotten potatoes? How about his right to promote his steak as USDA Prime beef but serve you rump steak from an old horse slaughtered for dog food?”
Do you understand the latin phrase “non sequitur”? The most general definition is “a reply that has no relevance to that which preceded it.” In other words, what the heck are you talking about, and what possible relevance does it have to the discussion of whether a property owner has the right to control who enters upon his property or not, or who he chooses to serve and not serve? You are talking about Health Department standards and Truth in Advertising laws, and they have no bearing whatever on the instant discussion — unless it is your argument that obtaining a compelled license to engage in commerce waives all right to control who enters your property or who you are required to serve against your will, and it does not. Rights are inherited and UNALIENABLE — that means you cannot be compelled to waive them. Any color of law compelling you to waive them is null and void from the moment of its inception. Any enforcement of a null and void color of law is a tyranny.
Save Arizona from the Arizonans – The use of infer in that sentence seems correct to me. Danehy asked the woman a question and drew the conclusion that she was a moron.
Frdmftr: You do realize that you, as the rest of the country (ie everyone) are paying the lowest taxes since the end of WWII? Which makes the whole “Taxed Enough Already” movement seem fairly ridiculous. The fact is the bush tax cuts lowered middle class taxes 2% and the wealthy got 3.6% off their tax bill.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/…
And you do realize that the big ‘maxist thug’ in the oval office gave you another tax break, right?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-620…
You also realize that the good people of the tea party are dupes and pongs in a larger war between the super-wealthy (ie Koch brothers, the health insurance industry, dick armey and his ilk) and the middle class. These special corporate interests have fooled you into rallying against your own self interest and against 98% of americans.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08…
The tea party is no grassroots operation. In fact the Koch’s came up with the idea in 1984. The chicago tea party website was registered a full 6 months before santelli had his ‘tea party’ tandrum on CNBC:
http://exiledonline.com/exposing-the-famil…
just my 2 cents…
Lets see, we have already litigated most of the Tea Bag agenda—in the 1861-1865 time frame. Minor dust up that one. I guess their real agenda is restore the whole country to the Confederacy of 1861.
“devmonkey” says: “Frdmftr: You do realize that you, as the rest of the country (ie everyone) are paying the lowest taxes since the end of WWII? Which makes the whole “Taxed Enough Already” movement seem fairly ridiculous. The fact is the bush tax cuts lowered middle class taxes 2% and the wealthy got 3.6% off their tax bill.”
And I reply: You do realize that a “Direct Tax” is any tax that you cannot shove off onto someone else, like a business shoves taxes off onto its employees and customers, don’t you? And you do realize that Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution flatly prohibits any Direct Tax that is not in proportion to the census or enumeration, don’t you? And you are aware, aren’t you, that even if the 16th Amendment (Income Tax) was ratified (which it wasn’t) it was never intended to apply to private individuals, and in fact was not imposed on private individuals for 25 years after it was fraudulently claimed to have been ratified? And then only on government employees who were deemed to be “exercising a privilege granted by government.” And you must be aware, since you claim to know what you are talking about, that robbing citizens of their property (their wages) before they even see their wages didn’t start until 1943, yes? And that withholding was determined to be unconstitutional at that time, but was allowed as part of the War Effort because it had a two-year sunset clause — even though everyone with any sense knew that it would never sunset, and it hasn’t. Thus, since your surely know all that, you must obviously conclude that any so-called “Personal Income Tax” whatever, any amount above zero imposed by the federal government directly upon a private citizen, is illegal, unconstitutional, and a progressive (read “Marxist”) proposal straight out of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto.
All that being said, the only reason USA Today claims the lowest tax rates since 1950 is because 1) they conveniently ignore Social Security, which is more than 42% of the total tax burden and goes directly into the General Fund just like real taxes, and 2) they conveniently ignore the enormous tax represented by the inflation rate caused by printing worthless fiat money and spending it into circulation, making all fiat money more worthless. Furthermore, the IRS doesn’t collect taxes to give government funds to operate on; when government wants to throw away money (Stimulus packages, etc.) it borrows it from the Fed and pays exorbitant rates of interest for it. The only reason the IRS exists is to take that worthless fiat paper out of circulation fast enough to create the illusion that it is not causing (immediate, overnight) hyperinflation.
Lastly, you may think some bigwig created the Tea Party concept but I doubt it, but it doesn’t matter now in any event: It has taken on a life of its own, and this government had better clean up its act and restore itself to the constraints of the Constitution, because the people are going to clean some clocks if it doesn’t.
Frdmftr: Times change.. otherwise white people would still own slaves in this country. The 16th amendment fixed that direct tax issue. You want to live in 1780 be my guest, I’ll stick to the 21st century. Personal taxes are basically Marxist? Good luck with that.. let me know what country you’ll be moving to. Brunei has no taxes I believe. And yeah, 1943 – our country defeated the axis powers and spent billion and billions doing it, hence, the taxes. as you know we are still paying for that freedom to not live under Nazi control. Us winning WWII allowed the wealthy to maintain and gain more wealth. Good for them. I wonder how they would have fared under Hitler.
Fiat currency? You are a true disciple.
Social Security – personal I don’t mind taking care of your grandma and grandpa. That’s just me though.. and probably 75% of americans, I’m just guessing here.
True, the party may have taken on a form of it’s own – but the message, including your posts, is right on target with the Koch’s, the insurance industry, big oil and Dick Armey. And if you don’t mind, then I don’t care.
“what possible relevance does it have to the discussion of whether a property owner has the right to control who enters upon his property or not, or who he chooses to serve and not serve?”
Well, Frdmftr, then let me make it simpler for you: When property is private, not open to the public, the owner has his inalienable right to control who enters it. When he requests the privilege of a business license to operate a restaurant to the general public, he gives up that right – because operating a business open to the public is not a right, it is a privilege. And with that privilege comes the responsibility and requirement of complying with all laws and regulation, including Health, Advertising, Non-Discrimination, and accessibility.
cochisecitizen,
You make excellent points but here is the rub; our freedom fighing friend believes all those laws and regulation should be repealed, along with the Civil Rights Act and any and all other laws he/she finds inconvient or not in keeping with his/her religious values. Public space laws will not be a problem when the American Taliban have finished “fixing” our nation and returning us to true Christian Nation status.
“Tucson Tom” claimed, strangely: “Lets see, we have already litigated most of the Tea Bag agenda—in the 1861-1865 time frame. Minor dust up that one. I guess their real agenda is restore the whole country to the Confederacy of 1861.”
Please do check your real history, not the pablum fed to our kids in the public school system. “The war was fought over Southern independence, not over slavery. Lincoln said repeatedly the war was not being fought over slavery. In August 1862, over a year after the war started, Lincoln wrote an open letter to a prominent Republican abolitionist, Horace Greeley, in which he said he did not agree with those who would only “save” the Union if they could destroy slavery at the same time. Lincoln added that if he could “save” the Union without freeing a single slave, he would do so” (Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862, published in the New York Tribune). Please see http://www.factasy.com/civil_war/2008/02/2…, as well as dozens of other sources revealing that Lincoln, bless his black heart, was the guy who set the precedent that the Constitution could be thown out, shredded, ignored, and generally trashed any time the federal government felt exigencies required it. The slippery slope has been getting steeper and steeper ever since. (And there is a whole lot of other documentation supporting the view that Lincoln not only did not oppose slavery, but several Union States maintained slavery throughout the war, that Lincoln was not a Christian but according to his brother was an atheist who mocked Christianity, and that he was worse than Obama (so far) in destroying the right of free speech and freedom of the press. And as I have indicated several times so far, I have sworn eternal hostility to any form of coercion over the mind, body, or liberty of any living human being, and I don’t give a flying frisbee for his race or color or creed — so long as he hasn’t declared war on the human race as the Nation of Islam has apparently done.)
“Lingohead”, attempting to put words in my mouth, said: “cochisecitizen,
You make excellent points but here is the rub; our freedom fighing friend believes all those laws and regulation should be repealed, along with the Civil Rights Act and any and all other laws he/she finds inconvient or not in keeping with his/her religious values. Public space laws will not be a problem when the American Taliban have finished “fixing” our nation and returning us to true Christian Nation status.”
I don’t remember hiring you as my secretary or publicity manager, but if I did you would be a lot better informed about my point of view. As it is, you know nothing about me, and really shouldn’t be trying to pigeon-hole me. For your information, I am every bit as hostile toward theocratic coercion and fascist coercion as I am toward Marxist coercion. Right now the mainstream views are ‘WAY to the left of center mainly due to ignorance and public school brainwashing and political correctness run amok. The people I’ve been debating on this thread are prime examples; most of you don’t even know you are so far to the left you are about to invite a violent communist revolution that’s going to make the Bolshevik Revolution look like a Sunday School picnic. Lenin called such people “useful idiots,” with a smirk. I don’t think you are idiots; I just think you need to wake up and find out how close you are to losing everything you think is so wonderful about this country — because you are inviting the implacable enemies of liberty to move in and sit on your head. You aren’t only inviting them in, you are all but demanding it. You’ve given away your sovereignty, and you a bitching and moaning because the Powers That Be haven’t quite taken full control of every decision you have to make. I’m just trying to get you to take back your rights and your responsibilities — and you do that by doing whatever is necessary to help THE OTHER GUY be free: And yes, I am talking about the non-Anglo, AND the Anglo. I’m talking about the Jew and the Christian and the Atheist — I think Atheists are not only wrong; if they’d open their eyes and look around they’d know better, but they have an absolute unassailable right to believe what they want to, and you and I have an obligation to protect and defend that right. You can’t be free unless you are willing to sacrifice to make sure the other guy is free. Putting it another way: If you let government do it to THEM, you are letting government do it to YOU.
“CochiseCitizen” said: “Well, Frdmftr, then let me make it simpler for you: When property is private, not open to the public, the owner has his inalienable right to control who enters it. When he requests the privilege of a business license to operate a restaurant to the general public, he gives up that right – because operating a business open to the public is not a right, it is a privilege. And with that privilege comes the responsibility and requirement of complying with all laws and regulation, including Health, Advertising, Non-Discrimination, and accessibility.”
And you think it’s a good thing, to give up your rights to a faceless bureaucracy that 1) doesn’t protect you from lawsuits; 2) doesn’t protect your customers; 3) increases everyone’s taxes whether they patronize the restaurant or not, and 4) throws the door wide open to cronyism, bribery, corruption, racketeering, and empire-building. And you think you are “free?” You aren’t free; you are just wrapped in cotton batting by the nanny State, and you pay through the nose for the privilege — we ALL pay through the nose for YOUR “privilege” — and worse, the State will abandon you the first time you rock the boat. That’s why the State doesn’t like monopolies; it wants to BE the monopoly, and it wants YOU to be a nice docile little slave. And so you are, without a second thought.
The fact of the matter is, you have a right to work and you have a right to sell your skills and your merchandise in the marketplace. Don’t you think you would be a lot more prosperous and free if all you had to do was post a bond with a private agency and agree to maintain certain standards in your restaurant because you WANT to have a good reputation in the business, and your bonding agency helps you by keeping you abreast of the latest techniques of sanitary and wholesome food preparation, and by inspecting your premises and catching dangerous situations before they injure a customer, and all the customers are confident in YOUR restaurant because you have an excellent rating with that bonding agency, and if by some mischance someone is injured by your mistake, the bond immediately covers the the costs. Of course, some people just can’t be comfortable with themselves unless some government thug with a big mallet in his hand is looking over their shoulder every minute and threatening them with a lump on the forehead if they step ever so slightly out of line.
You see, generally — not always, mind you, but usually — “Freedom is the answer! Er … what was the question again?”
True Christian nation, baaahhh..there is nothing in the teachings of Jesus about hating your neighbor, bearing false witness, Doing bad to others, I thought he taught to love your nieghbors as yourself, bless those that curse you, doing unto others as you would have them do to you…No, Tea party is not christian at all…reminds me more of the Klu Klux dogma. This country was founded on the assumption that we have separation of church and state. Guess religious extremists do not subscribe to that standard.
I think we need to start a counter “chai” party…
“Nisa” said “This country was founded on the assumption that we have separation of church and state.”
Oh? Is that why the first Bible printed in the United States was commissioned by the U.S. Congress to be used in schools? Is that why the four huge paintings commissioned by Congress and hung in the Capitol Rotunda represent two prayer meetings, a Bible study, and a Baptism? Is that why, in 1800, both houses of Congress decided to turn the capitol building into a church on Sundays? Is that why, in 1857, the Capitol building was the largest church in the United States? Is that why, after Thomas Jefferson became president, he ordered the Marine Corp Band to come play the Christian religious services in the capitol? Is that why these church services continued for half a century, and in 1857 2,000 people a week attended services in the Hall of the House of Representatives? Is that why four different churches held there services every week in the United States Capitol buildings? Have a look at YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfEdJNn15E.
Are you folks becoming aware of just how little you know about the greatest, formerly freest, for the first 100 years the most prosperous (until the banker got their mitts on the economy) nation on the face of the Earth? Are you beginning to understand how totally brainwashed you have become?
Welcome Tom!
Tom, why did you think you weren’t invited to Pride? Everyone is welcome at Pride.