NAACP Releases Report on Tea Party Racism

[FrankRep]

http://www.kochsoft.com/tna/logo.png (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
The New American Magazine on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-New-American-Magazine/146909368666979)



Earlier this week, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights announced their intent to release a report entitled, “Tea Party Nationalism: A Critical Examination of the Tea Party Movement and the Size, Scope, and Focus of its National Factions.” by Raven Clabough


NAACP Releases Report on Tea Party Racism (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/4957-naacp-releases-report-on-tea-party-racism)


Raven Clabough | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
21 October 2010


Earlier this week, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights announced their intent to release a report entitled, Tea Party Nationalism: A Critical Examination of the Tea Party Movement and the Size, Scope, and Focus of its National Factions. (http://www.teapartynationalism.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=itemlist&layout=category&task=category&id=29&Itemid=102)

Released on Wednesday, October 20, the report focuses specifically on six major Tea Party groups: FreedomWorks, 1776 Tea Party, Tea Party Nation, Tea Party Patriots, ResistNet, and the Tea Party Express. Co-authored by Leonard Ziskind and Devin Burghart. It ultimately concludes that the Tea Party movement is “permeated with concerns about race” and that the individual Tea Party groups “have given platform to anti-Semites, racists, and bigots.”

According to the introduction, “This report documents the corporate structures and leaderships, their finances, and membership concentrations of each faction. It looks at the actual relationship of these factions to each other, including some of the very explicit differences they have with each other. And we begin an analysis of the larger politics that motivate each faction and the Tea Party movement generally.”

The report meticulously outlines alleged “racist” and ethnocentric tendencies in Tea Party organizations as it proceeds through a variety of chapters: "Introduction"; "Local Tea Party Chapters"; "Origins of the Tea Parties"; "Tea Party Nation At A Glance"; "Tea Parties — Racism, Anti-Semitism and the Militia Impulse"; "Tea Party Patriots At A Glance"; "Who is an American? Tea Parties, Nativism, and the Birthers"; "Tea Party Express At A Glance"; "Correlation Between Unemployment Levels and Tea Party Membership?"; and "FreedomWorks At A Glance."

The chapter entitled “Tea Parties-Racism, Anti-Semitism, and the Militia Impulse” is perhaps the most troubling. It begins:



This section of the Special Report compiles opinion polling data, documents significant examples of racist vitriol on the part of the Tea Party leaders, shows incidents where well-known anti-Semites and white supremacists have been given a platform by Tea Partiers, and analyzes the attempt by white nationalist organizations to find new recruits in Tea Party ranks.


However, much of the cited material includes the presence of Confederate battle flags, signs that read “America is a Christian nation,” and “racist caricatures of President Obama," all of which are presented as indicators of “racism.” Another instance of racism addressed in this section are “venom (and spittle) directed at African-American Congressmen during the health care debate,” an incident (http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/congressman-cleaver-admits-he-was-not-spit-upon/question-950370/) which has long since been proven to be wholly exaggerated.

What is most notable about this section in the report, however, are the areas with which the writers take issue, such as assertions by Tea Party leaders that owning a firearm is a constitutional right, Tea Partiers’ defense of militias, strict Christian ideologies, and pride in the Confederacy .

Additionally, much of this chapter, as well as the report as a whole, seems to rest on unproved assertions, such as “The Council of Conservative Citizens is the largest white nationalist organization in the country and the group most active in the Tea Parties,” a claim seemingly unfounded and devoid of any citations to support the statement.

Similarly, the chapter “Who is an American? Tea Parties, Nativism, and the Birthers,” rests on highly subjective examples to prove Tea Party racism. While describing the nationalism of the Tea Party movement, the chapter clarifies:



It is a form of American nationalism, however, that does not include all Americans, and separates itself from those it regards as insufficiently "real Americans." Consider in this regard, a recent Tea Party Nation newsletter article entitled, "Real Americans Did Not Sue Arizona.” Or the hand-drawn sign at a Tea Party rally that was obviously earnestly felt: "I am a arrogant American, unlike our President. I am proud of my country, our freedom, our generosity, no apology from me"


The chapter goes on to align the “birther” movement to the Tea Party movement, simply because a handful of “birthers” have been found at Tea Party events. The chapter goes on to criticize “birthers” for convincing an increased number of Americans to believe that the President is not a Christian, even though “social scientists have not yet said that this jump in the numbers … was caused by Tea Partiers’ propaganda.”

Overall, the report appears to be the random and unproven musings of a disgruntled group of people. It provided the NAACP with yet another opportunity to publicly reprimand the Tea Party movement for failing to “repudiate racism,” a point of contention addressed in a resolution passed by the NAACP at a July convention. The resolution came on the heels of accusations that black Congressmen had racial slurs (http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/mar/20/congressman-claims-health-care-bill-protesters-hur/) shouted to them and were spit upon prior to the health care law vote, though all claims have since been refuted.

While the report does admit that Tea Party leaders have expelled racist leaders like Mark Williams of the Tea Party Express, calling such maneuvers a “welcome first step,” and that most members of the Tea Party movement are “sincere, principle people of good will,” it unfairly generalizes an entire group based on the actions of a minute portion. Many of the actions and behaviors on which that minute portion are judged in the report are often subjective, and in some cases, unproved.

In a statement issued by NAACP President Ben Jealous prior to the release of the report, he indicated, “These groups and individuals are out there, and we ignore them at our own peril. They are speaking at Tea Party events, recruiting at rallies and in some cases remain in the Tea Party leadership itself. The danger is not that the majority of Tea Party members share their views, but that left unchecked, these extremists might indirectly influence the direction of the Tea Party and therefore the direction of our country: moving it backward and not forward.”

In response to the report, Sal Russo, political consultant of the Tea Party Express, says, “To attack a grassroots movement of this magnitude with sundry isolated incidents only goes to show the NAACP has abandoned the cause of civil rights for the advancement of liberal Democratic policies.”

CEO Arthur R. Thompson of the John Birch Society articulates similar sentiments: “The NAACP has a habit of calling anything ‘racist’ or ‘bigoted’ that disagrees with their socialist agenda. They have a long history of that.”

He adds, “They have destroyed black leaders who stood up for the Constitution or self-reliance. This has been their pattern since they ostracized Booker T. Washington.”

Ultimately, the danger of crying racism, notes Thompson, is that once something is branded racist, “many people [then] don’t look at the argument. They look at the emotion.”

Tea Party organizations have thus far dismissed the report as another tactic in the “smear campaign” launched by the NAACP against the Tea Party movement.


Read also: NAACP Set to Release Report on Tea Party Racism (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/4932-naacp-set-to-release-report-on-tea-party-racism)


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/4957-naacp-releases-report-on-tea-party-racism

[oyarde]

Can anyone explain to me why the NAACP would believe anyone cares about the views they have ?

[acptulsa]

Can anyone really, with a straight face, say that the Democratic Party is completely without racism? A party that nominally includes, what, over a third of the nation?

Can anyone really, with a straight face say that the tea partiers are more racist than the neocons? Can anyone really, with a straight face say that anyone in this nation has a worse case of racism than Obama's, Biden's and Etc's rabid elitism?

[johngr]

Increasingly overburdened net taxpayers, whose numbers are shrinking but (for now) still a narrow majority on one side and welfare clients, affirmative action and racial set-aside beneficiaries (government contracts and university) on the other. Then throw in any illegal aliens not counted above. They might be dishonest with their rhetoric and propaganda but least the NAACP can see and admits the racial dimension of the conflict.

[specsaregood]

Attention NAACP:
It takes one to know one. :P

[oyarde]

Can anyone really, with a straight face, say that the Democratic Party is completely without racism? A party that nominally includes, what, over a third of the nation?

Can anyone really, with a straight face say that the tea partiers are more racist than the neocons? Can anyone really, with a straight face say that anyone in this nation has a worse case of racism than Obama's, Biden's and Etc's rabid elitism?

I suspect there are more racists in the NAACP than there would be in Tea Party groups . I could be wrong .

[libertygrl]

Uh.... can anyone say LA RAZA, MEChA, etc., etc. Didn't you know? Protesting in this country is reserved for people of color and Liberals. White conservatives need not apply - unless they want to be considered racist of course. :rolleyes:

[johngr]

I suspect there are more racists in the NAACP than there would be in Tea Party groups . I could be wrong .

"Racism" doesn't work against, NAMs no matter how apt the label might be. Using it in self-defence legitimises it. Let the other side overuse it, thereby muting its effect. Ridicule them rather than saying "am not, you are".

[oyarde]

"Racism" doesn't work against, NAMs no matter how apt the label might be. Using it in self-defence legitimises it. Let the other side overuse it, thereby muting its effect. Ridicule them rather than saying "am not, you are".

Muting the effect is correct . I think that has already happened with average people , the elites will be the last to know that nobody cares .

[johngr]

Muting the effect is correct . I think that has already happened with average people , the elites will be the last to know that nobody cares .

They expect (and usually get) a Pavlovian response to accusations of that thought crime

http://randomfunnypicture.com/wp2/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/do-we-look-racist.jpg

Whites have been trained to be super-sensitive to such accusations but it's wearing off.

OTOH, white people (and north asians) are the least racially sensitive and least prone to respond to perceived racial slights.

[Hemlock]

Attention NAACP:
It takes one to know one. :P

xD Next time a D.C. Rally filled with liberals and progressives comes and blames the tea party for being racists, we should hold up a sign saying that.

[awake]

There isn't a name or label they haven't used... desperate.

[johngr]

xD Next time a D.C. Rally filled with liberals and progressives comes and blames the tea party for being racists, we should hold up a sign saying that.

I like "I'm like rubber and you're like glue; whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks on to you." better.

[Stary Hickory]

They have kind of destroyed the racist label...it lost it's meaning with all the tossing it around and such. They need something else to use, I am not sure what. Maybe Child rapists? If you do not agree with this you are Child Rapists!

[HOLLYWOOD]

SO... NAACP Releases Report on Tea Party Racism


When do we get the: TEA PARTY Releases Report on NAACP Racism?

[FrankRep]

When do we get the: TEA PARTY Releases Report on NAACP Racism?

boom!

Shocking Racism at Al Sharpton's Martin Luther King Anniversary Rally
YouTube - Shocking Racism at Al Sharpton's Martin Luther King Anniversary Rally (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfOT60S0cao)

[jkr]

pot, kettle, "kettle bla"...aww neva mind

[Theocrat]

pot, kettle, "kettle bla"...aww neva mind

http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t231/mtllude/pot-kettle.gif

[libertarian4321]

The NAACP looks at a half moon cookie and screams "RACISM!"

So take it for what it's worth.

[JohnEngland]

Sigh... This "racism" bullcrap by the far-left is really getting old. This is all political games to attack the Tea Party movement. The media, in particular, have tried to craft the narrative of racism and it's just sad and obvious to see how fake (and sinister) this all is.

If the NAACP want to find actual racism, they should just look in the mirror. Their organisation is racist by definition.

[Scipio]

OTOH, white people (and north asians) are the least racially sensitive and least prone to respond to perceived racial slights.

They publish these reports so they can get one of you to say something like JohnGr did above.

Something ignorant about race.

They will do this over and over again as long as you let them. They know they can call any group of republicans racists and like clockwork without even mentioning it some idiots will start yelling about "Affirmative Action" or "Reverse Discrimination".

It's like when you ask a religious Muslim if they agreed with the attacks on 911. They always try to explain the situation and why someone might have gotten the wrong idea.....it's a trap.

The answer is "No".

White Republicans need to learn to answer succintly too and not feed the News Trolls.

Let's practise:

Banker-Backed-Talking Head: The Tea Party is racist!

Tea-Partier: No we're not.

That simple. Cut the discussion off there. If they say "So and so is a tea-bagger and he's a racist."

Say, "Well I'm here right now, you can ask me. No I'm not a racist, next question."

[MelissaWV]

Racist? The Tea Party might be a racist organization. You are really onto something there. I heard they even called people "colored," and we know that's just unacceptable... right, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People?

[Theocrat]

I wonder if the National Association for the Advancement of White...uh, I mean, Asian...um, that is, Hispanic...er, what I meant to say was Colored People has seen this video:

YouTube - Response to Olbermann: "People of color" at Tea Parties (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcsnWLLdl70)

It sure would have answered some questions before they released a report.

[JoshLowry]

My tin foil hat says this is a timed swipe at Tea Party candidates.

LOL theo.

[osan]

Can anyone explain to me why the NAACP would believe anyone cares about the views they have ?

Hear hear.

I also chuckle at the whole "people of color" thing. If we wish to be scientific about it, white people are the most colorful of all. :)

[osan]

My tin foil hat says this is a timed swipe at Tea Party candidates.

LOL theo.

Gee Josh, you don't say... :)

But naturally, this will serve to reinforce those who already hold similar opinions. It may even draw in some of the dullards out there. Not much to be done about that bit, I suppose.

[Valli6]

When will the NAACP be releasing their report on Hallmark Greeting Cards' Racism?
YouTube - NAACP calls Hallmark "Black Holes" graduation card racist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uneOOclsaPs)

And remember Mary Frances Berry?


“Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.”
http://www.politico.com/arena/bio/mary_frances_berry.html (scroll down)

[BlackTerrel]

Increasingly overburdened net taxpayers, whose numbers are shrinking but (for now) still a narrow majority on one side and welfare clients, affirmative action and racial set-aside beneficiaries (government contracts and university) on the other. Then throw in any illegal aliens not counted above. They might be dishonest with their rhetoric and propaganda but least the NAACP can see and admits the racial dimension of the conflict.

Disassociating from people like John would go a ways to quelling such accusations.

I don't believe the tea party is inherently racist but there are certainly racist elements that latch onto it (just like they latched onto Ron Paul) and they should be purged.

[sratiug]

Disassociating from people like John would go a ways to quelling such accusations.

I don't believe the tea party is inherently racist but there are certainly racist elements that latch onto it (just like they latched onto Ron Paul) and they should be purged.

Are you saying his comment was racist?

[FrankRep]

Are you saying his comment was racist?
johngr has a history of making racist posts.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The NAACP is a racket, and instead of reconciling between blacks and whites openly fosters antagonistic provokations, because without these provokations there would be no need for the NAACP. Thus, in its ultimate irony the NAACP is itself a fosterer of racism and a stoker of division, because without that, they would not be in "business". When will people wake up to the nature of these rackets?

[Brian4Liberty]

The NAACP is a racket, and instead of reconciling between blacks and whites openly fosters antagonistic provokations, because without these provokations there would be no need for the NAACP. Thus, in its ultimate irony the NAACP is itself a fosterer of racism and a stoker of division, because without that, they would not be in "business". When will people wake up to the nature of these rackets?

Exactly. The same reason why Unions support massive immigration...

[BlackTerrel]

Are you saying his comment was racist?

Not in and of itself but in the context of who he is - yes.

John has a history of posting about black people's tiny IQ's and our propensity to enjoy rape.

[johngr]

johngr has a history of making [though crime] posts.



They publish these reports so they can get one of you to say something like JohnGr did above.

Something ignorant about race.
Pattern recognition is not ignorant..

[johngr]

Not in and of itself but in the context of who he is - yes.

John has a history of posting about black people's tiny IQ's and our propensity to enjoy rape.

If you have some psychological testing or crime statistic data refuting what I have said (and I never used your words -- look through my posts) please post it. Are facts racist?

[BlackTerrel]

If you have some psychological testing or crime statistic data refuting what I have said (and I never used your words -- look through my posts) please post it. Are facts racist?

I dunno massa my pea size brain not know facts.

Please post some more IQ charts so I can be impressed by how smart the aryans are again.

[devil21]

Disassociating from people like John would go a ways to quelling such accusations.

You can't control who supports you since everyone has different reasons for their support, whether good or bad.



I don't believe the tea party is inherently racist but there are certainly racist elements that latch onto it (just like they latched onto Ron Paul) and they should be purged.

All parties and those who claim no party have plenty of racist elements. It's just become a politically expedient method to attack non-status-quo candidates when talking about the issues isn't a good idea for the attacker. There's racists of every stripe so what burns many of us up is that it's being painted as if only Tea Party members are racists. I'm sure there's racists in the Tea Party, just like there are in the Democrat party and the Neo-con party. Why is only the Tea Party talked about though? It's huge hypocrisy and just plain disingenuous....it's also why people are getting fed up with politics-as-usual and supporting the non-status-quo candidates. The whole charade is getting old.

Ill make you a promise. I'll single-handedly purge all racists from the Tea Party if you purge the racists from the Democrat party or the Neo-con Party. Deal? Keep me posted, k?

(Btw, the post directly above mine is the same disingenuous nonsense I just posted about. YOUR response is the racist one BT, not johngr's.)

[johngr]

I dunno massa my pea size brain not know facts.

Please post some more IQ charts so I can be impressed by how smart the aryans are again.

Your sarcasm personalises something that's not personal. That I hold that constitutional differences account for group differences in economic and professional achievement and argue against affirmative action on that basis or would avoid and wouldn't want to live in the 15th arrondissement in Paris, Neukoln in Berlin or Rinkeby (Little Mogadishu) in Stockholm has nothing to do with you or any indivudual.

[ronpaulhawaii]

NAACP gets called out for its hypocrisy

YouTube - NAACP Racist Hypocrisy. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tf8eEHi2gOc)

[MelissaWV]

Your sarcasm personalises something that's not personal. That I hold that constitutional differences account for group differences in economic and professional achievement and argue against affirmative action on that basis or would avoid and wouldn't want to live in the 15th arrondissement in Paris, Neukoln in Berlin or Rinkeby (Little Mogadishu) in Stockholm has nothing to do with you or any indivudual.

Just the individuals living there ;) (Or, more accurately, your informed opinion of them.)

* * *

Words like "purging" and calling for disassociation with certain posters seems more like a tactic of some other parties to me, but the call for such tactics will always abound. Hell, those tactics might even be praised since they're part of such a "winning formula."

Debates on the merits of such statistics as john talks about are worthy debates to have, and shouldn't be taboo topics. By the same token, the aforementioned discussion is not worth having if the side championing the data fails to acknowledge that there are problems with how data is collected for a large number of these "studies." Additionally, studies often do the concluding for you. One may or may not come to the same conclusion from the same numbers if coming to it with a different set of life experiences and supporting data.

In other words, it still all comes back to personal interpretation of data and personal preference. Since most of us on the board are working towards making everyone able to exercise those preferences without the force of law telling them otherwise, perhaps less infighting and talk of "purging" would be prudent.

[RM918]

Purging! The NAACP demands we attack each other instead of going after statists, of course, and not because they're so very concerned we might oppress somebody. It's a tactic they've been using for a long, long time under the guise of concern for racial hate, which is horseshit. They're just wielding their status as victims to aide their own interests.

I think John and people like him are assholes for saying what they say, but so long as he checks his beliefs at the door and doesn't do anything beyond being an asshole, I wouldn't advocate 'purging' anyone. You start doing that, then no-one's able to speak freely. Who decides where the line is? What happens if someone gets 'offended'? It's just kicking people out to cover our own asses, and it does absolutely nothing to stem racism - I'd argue it actually promotes it by forcing people to keep their thoughts to themselves and never be challenged on it.

The problem with racism is very rarely hate, but ignorance.

[Valli6]

Pretty good clip of BENJAMIN EVANS of the St Louis Tea Party, debating ADOLPHUS PRUITT of the NAACP St Louis Chapter. (10/21/10)
http://www.kmov.com/video/featured-videos/Tea-Party-and-NAACP-square-off-on-Awake-105431243.html

[johngr]

Purging! The NAACP demands we attack each other instead of going after statists, of course, and not because they're so very concerned we might oppress somebody. It's a tactic they've been using for a long, long time under the guise of concern for racial hate, which is horseshit. They're just wielding their status as victims to aide their own interests.

I think John and people like him are assholes for saying what they say, but so long as he checks his beliefs at the door and doesn't do anything beyond being an asshole, I wouldn't advocate 'purging' anyone. You start doing that, then no-one's able to speak freely. Who decides where the line is? What happens if someone gets 'offended'? It's just kicking people out to cover our own asses, and it does absolutely nothing to stem racism - I'd argue it actually promotes it by forcing people to keep their thoughts to themselves and never be challenged on it.

The problem with racism is very rarely hate, but ignorance.

Attacking and purging "racists" (read: white people) who want the government off people's backs gets into issues of freedom of association (section 8 neighbourhood and regional racial composition engineering, HUD anti-discrimination laws in real estate and rental property) freedom of contract (affirmative action, dictating whom businesses must do business with) and freedom of conscience (de facto thought crime).

Btw, is calling people an asshole your way of "challenging" someone's views?

[Scipio]

Attacking and purging "racists" (read: white people) who want the government off people's backs gets into issues of freedom of association (section 8 neighbourhood and regional racial composition engineering, HUD anti-discrimination laws in real estate and rental property) freedom of contract (affirmative action, dictating whom businesses must do business with) and freedom of conscience (de facto thought crime).

Btw, is calling people an asshole your way of "challenging" someone's views?

This....right here....is why outsiders think you're a bunch of racists.

Someone says "race" and now we're discussion HUD and Section 8 and Welfare.

It's okay. I'm sure a bunch of weirdo segregationist right wing gun nuts have the numbers to get Ron Paul elected in 2012.

No need to try to reach out to Blacks. No need to try to draw any distinction from the Ron Paul supporters of today from the long list of Nazis and Klansmen who've traditionally supported Libertarians in the past...

The first step to maybe, I dunno, making non-Nazis feel more welcomed coming to a 99.999% white political movement, might be NOT blanketly proffering statistics about Welfare and Section 8 Housing out-of-the-blue when the subject of race comes up.

If you want to talk welfare or housing I'll talk welfare or housing all day. But you really have to ask YOURSELF what makes YOU bring those things UP as a response to allegations of racism.

[johngr]

This....right here....is why outsiders think you're a bunch of racists.

Someone says "race" and now we're discussion HUD and Section 8 and Welfare.

It's okay. I'm sure a bunch of weirdo segregationist right wing gun nuts have the numbers to get Ron Paul elected in 2012.

No need to try to reach out to Blacks. No need to try to draw any distinction from the Ron Paul supporters of today from the long list of Nazis and Klansmen who've traditionally supported Libertarians in the past...

The first step to maybe, I dunno, making non-Nazis feel more welcomed coming to a 99.999% white political movement, might be NOT blanketly proffering statistics about Welfare and Section 8 Housing out-of-the-blue when the subject of race comes up.

If you want to talk welfare or housing I'll talk welfare or housing all day. But you really have to ask YOURSELF what makes YOU bring those things UP as a response to allegations of racism.

Such things are large part of what the conflict is about and a big part of the government-imposed burden the tea partiers want to be rid of. And keeping such burdens in place and increasing them is the primary motivation of the people attacking tea partiers as racist. They want to keep section 8, welfare and affirmative action. They are attacking anyone who disagrees with these things as "racist" because it has worked in the past.They are anti-freedom of association, freedom of contract and freedom of speech.

[devil21]

This....right here....is why outsiders think you're a bunch of racists.


And your post is why most of us don't care what you think. You engage in even worse racial rhetoric than the people you are decrying. Guilt by association, collectivism, appeal to emotion, etc.

There's a fine line that separates racism with just plain truth and it seems they have gotten muddled by PC types not prepared to discuss issues without some emotional attachment. Do comments like johngr's inflame some people? Sure. Does that make the statements any less true? Not necessarily. And that's the problem with much of this whole line of discussion. Hypersensitivity has taken over to the point that even speaking unflattering truth (much less opinion) is branded as hate speech or racist or whatever other politically expedient label is handy at the moment, so that the actual content doesn't have to be addressed.

[Scipio]

And your post is why most of us don't care what you think. You engage in even worse racial rhetoric than the people you are decrying. Guilt by association, collectivism, appeal to emotion, etc.

There's a fine line that separates racism with just plain truth and it seems they have gotten muddled by PC types not prepared to discuss issues without some emotional attachment. Do comments like johngr's inflame some people? Sure. Does that make the statements any less true? Not necessarily. And that's the problem with much of this whole line of discussion. Hypersensitivity has taken over to the point that even speaking unflattering truth (much less opinion) is branded as hate speech or racist or whatever other politically expedient label is handy at the moment, so that the actual content doesn't have to be addressed.

I'm-rubber-you're-glue...no I get it.

You're having an arguement with thin air. It's probably an arguement you've had many times in real life or maybe just really wanted to have but for the sake of this thread it stands out as a straw man.

No one is getting upset about JohnGR's comments or views in and of themselves. The point is that you're all just BLIND to the fact that bringing up a bunch of social issues is not a quid pro quo response to an allegation of racism.

If we were discussing entitlements or social programs that'd be one thing. But we're not.

So at BEST you're assuming it's because you hold these views that we think you're a racist...rather than asking us why.....and at WORST, you DO have a problem with racism and you think that minorities themselves as some whole give a care about welfare or section 8 or any other entitlements.

Both possibilities serve only to drive a massive wedge between Americans for no one's benefit but the special interest groups.

You're playing INTO their hand...and you may even be "in the right"...but at what cost? The cost it you're going to ostracize a LOT of prospective voters. Again, I'm not JUDGING you or johngr. I don't even know your views and they're probably right....but you gotta learn to pick and choose when to start going on about Affirmative Action or Welfare.

The NAACP exists only BECAUSE they can make you guys look like biggots when you fall into their traps.

[Kylie]

NAACP gets called out for its hypocrisy

YouTube - NAACP Racist Hypocrisy. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tf8eEHi2gOc)



Booya, NAACP!

[Scipio]

Such things are large part of what the conflict is about and a big part of the government-imposed burden the tea partiers want to be rid of. And keeping such burdens in place and increasing them is the primary motivation of the people attacking tea partiers as racist. They want to keep section 8, welfare and affirmative action. They are attacking anyone who disagrees with these things as "racist" because it has worked in the past.They are anti-freedom of association, freedom of contract and freedom of speech.

If you're not a racist. Just say you're not.


P.S. I agree with you 100% about the NAACP and Democrats existing wholly for the social services racket...but just for the record I do hope you know that no significant voting block or racial element in this country demogogues on their own welfare/section8 benefits. IE welfare recipients wouldn't vote for a candidate simply on welfare reform alone.

NO ONE wants to be on welfare or government assistance if they had a reasonable opportunity for prosperity in some other way. I'm not saying YOU are doing this, but it is EXTREMELY insulting when ppl make comments or assume that black people or even just poor people (as a group or in any significant numbers) vote with no other issue than their own food stamp allotment.

Sure when put between John Jackson and Jack Johnson a guy's gonna vote for the one giving out freebies...but offer REAL CHANGE, offer REAL prosperity and there won't be enough hand-outs in the world to stop the votes.

[johngr]

If you're not a racist. Just say you're not.

I don't recognise that that term points to any discoverable object. It is an ethno-political construct. And it's a polemical term, like Islamist, pinko, or eco-fascist.

[johngr]

If you're not a racist. Just say you're not.

I don't recognise that that term points to any discoverable object. It is an ethno-political pejorative construct. And a polemical term, like Islamist, pinko, or eco-fascist. Its common use pathologises normal ethnic affinities.

[devil21]

I'm-rubber-you're-glue...no I get it.

Grow up.



You're having an arguement with thin air. It's probably an arguement you've had many times in real life or maybe just really wanted to have but for the sake of this thread it stands out as a straw man.

Wasn't your previous post devoted to implying Libertarians are KKK members and other such racist drivel?



No one is getting upset about JohnGR's comments or views in and of themselves. The point is that you're all just BLIND to the fact that bringing up a bunch of social issues is not a quid pro quo response to an allegation of racism.

If that's his opinion or his thoughts on the matter then who are you (or I) to say he's wrong to bring it up? I don't know if you're a liberty minded individual or just trolling this forum but one of the cornerstones of the movement is that people are entitled to their own thoughts and opinions. Who made you the arbiter of what is or is not a quid pro quo response? Regardless of what johngr or myself or ANY Tea Party type says or doesnt say, we will continue to be painted as racist because it's an emotional political ploy. There's multitudes of examples showing a lack of racism in the Tea Party yet people like you and BT hop on the first perceived slight as "evidence", even if the slight is 100% accurate.



If we were discussing entitlements or social programs that'd be one thing. But we're not.

So at BEST you're assuming it's because you hold these views that we think you're a racist...rather than asking us why.....and at WORST, you DO have a problem with racism and you think that minorities themselves as some whole give a care about welfare or section 8 or any other entitlements.

Who needs to ask why? I already know why you think people are racists. It's called projection and deflection. It is you that sees all things in racial terms and finds racism in everything. Maybe even a hint of "victim complex". Note your previous post was the only post (along with BT's) that contained overt racist statements.



Both possibilities serve only to drive a massive wedge between Americans for no one's benefit but the special interest groups.

That I can generally agree with. Class warfare is an effective tool of the elites. Having said that, did you watch the youtube video earlier in this thread of Glenn Beck vs. Al Sharpton and the Black Panthers? The racists are obvious and I don't see how you can expect people that are NOT racist to just sit idly by while they are insulted and attacked for political reasons.



You're playing INTO their hand...and you may even be "in the right"...but at what cost? The cost it you're going to ostracize a LOT of prospective voters. Again, I'm not JUDGING you or johngr. I don't even know your views and they're probably right....but you gotta learn to pick and choose when to start going on about Affirmative Action or Welfare.

Sometimes being right is all that ultimately matters. That's a topic for its own thread though. So you're suggesting to start censoring oneself and become a dumbed-down PC sissy just to appease others and avoid a phantom racist label that doesn't even apply? No thanks. That would make me just another part of the problem.



The NAACP exists only BECAUSE they can make you guys look like biggots when you fall into their traps.

It wouldn't have anything to do with your own post calling Libertarians KKK members and other nonsense conclusions? If people stopped repeating what the NAACP says then they would lose all their power.

[JustinTime]

No need to try to reach out to Blacks.

Dont 'reach out' to anyone, just state your beliefs.

Im a white, male, middle-aged small business owner and I dont want anyone 'reaching out' to me, that only means they are telling me what they think I want to hear. I want politicians to simply tell me what they believe and I will make up my own mind.

[MelissaWV]

This....right here....is why outsiders think you're a bunch of racists.

Someone says "race" and now we're discussion HUD and Section 8 and Welfare.

It's okay. I'm sure a bunch of weirdo segregationist right wing gun nuts have the numbers to get Ron Paul elected in 2012.

No need to try to reach out to Blacks. No need to try to draw any distinction from the Ron Paul supporters of today from the long list of Nazis and Klansmen who've traditionally supported Libertarians in the past...

The first step to maybe, I dunno, making non-Nazis feel more welcomed coming to a 99.999% white political movement, might be NOT blanketly proffering statistics about Welfare and Section 8 Housing out-of-the-blue when the subject of race comes up.

If you want to talk welfare or housing I'll talk welfare or housing all day. But you really have to ask YOURSELF what makes YOU bring those things UP as a response to allegations of racism.

Just wow.

Your own silly assertions do not make these allegations factual by any stretch of the imagination. First off, even this THREAD is not "99.999% white," so I'm not sure how on earth you get the notion the political movement has such a demographic. Second, I don't think any of us is really applauding john as the highlight of the forum. Some of us, though, would love it if he could be whatever flavor of bigot (or not) he wants to be... and go live in his magical world of racial purity which will obviously, via free market magic, be a terrific place for the pure of pedigree to live since it will be almost crime-free, be populated by people with high IQs, etc.. I would love it if he were allowed to do that. Get him as far away from me as possible, and put up a huge "pure whitefolks only!" sign in the front yard so I know that it's an area I'd like to avoid.

Since it's such a long list of Klansmen who support Libertarians, I'm sure you're about ready to publish such a bombshell document. Once you do, you might even talk about how relevant such data is. Is that why you're not a Democrat? The association of Klansmen with the Party?

You should take a huge step back and reread your statements, and try to figure out why YOUR first reaction was to talk about how the movement has traditionally been a bunch of neo-nazis and Klansmen, and is 99.999% white. Most of us know where john is coming from, and discount him as a bit of an outlier. Do you want the same fate, or do you want to discuss things rationally?

[BlackTerrel]

I don't recognise that that term points to any discoverable object. It is an ethno-political construct. And it's a polemical term, like Islamist, pinko, or eco-fascist.

That's the most complex answer to the question "are you a racist" I have ever heard. You need to have a hair trigger response to such questions:

"Are you a racist?"

No

"Are you a pedophile?"

No

"Do you like the Twilight movies?"

No

"Do you think Brett Favre looks cute in those Wrangler jeans?"

No

Anyone who doesn't answer these questions in such fashion is suspect. The use of the word "polemical" makes you doubly suspect - no one knows what that means.

[Scipio]

Wasn't your previous post devoted to implying Libertarians are KKK members and other such racist drivel?

I was implying that that is the general perception from non-libertarians. Do we have to play games and pretend we don't know why that is?



If that's his opinion or his thoughts on the matter then who are you (or I) to say he's wrong to bring it up?

Not "wrong", just foolish if he DOESN'T want people thinking he and by extension the Tea Party are racists.

Also, insulting as I pointed out. In all, not politically effective and he was answering a thread about the ENTIRE Tea Party as a movement, not his personal feelings about Welfare.



I don't know if you're a liberty minded individual or just trolling this forum but one of the cornerstones of the movement is that people are entitled to their own thoughts and opinions.

Second time this week I've been accused of being a "troll" because I don't fit in with the herd.

And the issue isn't what he is or is not allowed to think. The issue is how you like the Tea Party to be represented. Also if you want the Tea Party to be an effective movement and you want RON PAUL TO WIN, then you should probably pay a little bit more attention to the majority of Americans who have no conception of who you are or what you're about except for what the NAACP tells them.



Who made you the arbiter of what is or is not a quid pro quo response?

My differing point of view makes me the arbiter. It's obviously not a direct line of reasoning without some form of greater explanation and exegesis.

Assuming that anyone reading his statements will know or share his political connection between Welfare, Section8 and Blacks is the very definition of ignorance.



Regardless of what johngr or myself or ANY Tea Party type says or doesnt say, we will continue to be painted as racist because it's an emotional political ploy. There's multitudes of examples showing a lack of racism in the Tea Party yet people like you and BT hop on the first perceived slight as "evidence", even if the slight is 100% accurate.

No buddy, I just said it's the REASON WHY people think you're racist. You can argue with me til the cow comes home whether or not it's justified. The cold hard fact remains it's how you're going to be painted on the national media and viewed by all the people whose votes your candidates will NEED on election day.



Who needs to ask why? I already know why you think people are racists. It's called projection and deflection.

You know if I wasn't being on my best behavior I might find some form of provocacation in you telling ME what I believe and why I believe it.

You're right, this IS projection, you're projecting your strawman liberal on me so you can utter the talking points on how you're NOT a racist. Am I Right?


It is you that sees all things in racial terms and finds racism in everything. Maybe even a hint of "victim complex". Note your previous post was the only post (along with BT's) that contained overt racist statements.

Now you're psychoanaylsing me with a "victim's complex" wow.

And of course you lie and say I and BT made racist comments, the only ones, when we were BOTH responding to the introduction of the ONLY racist comments in this whole thread in which JOHNGR said that "whites were the least racist"



That I can generally agree with. Class warfare is an effective tool of the elites. Having said that, did you watch the youtube video earlier in this thread of Glenn Beck vs. Al Sharpton and the Black Panthers? The racists are obvious and I don't see how you can expect people that are NOT racist to just sit idly by while they are insulted and attacked for political reasons.

Pick your battles amigo. Seriously. This is my entire point. You'll LOSE. You'll LOSE every election EVER held in this country if you're on the "Woe-Is-White-People" bandwagon.

It's NOT politically effective...and it's because a lot of ppl, (myself included) don't take it one bit seriously.

I'm VERY Pro-Prisoner Rights, it's a hot button issue with me. But I keep it separate from all of my other politics, why? Becuase it's a lethal political hot button. NO candidate in this climate can win being "Pro-Prisoner" so I pick my battles.



Sometimes being right is all that ultimately matters. That's a topic for its own thread though. So you're suggesting to start censoring oneself and become a dumbed-down PC sissy just to appease others and avoid a phantom racist label that doesn't even apply? No thanks. That would make me just another part of the problem.

Well you "be right" and the entire Tea Party will get torn apart because you couldn't keep on message.

Is that what you want? You want to let the Bankers win because you have SUCH AN EGO that you can't state four simple words, "I'm not a racist" without some long explanation?

Well have fun. You Tea Partiers have my support only as much as you're effective. The second you cease being effective I'll ditch you to your try-cornered-hats.

Cause you might wanna be "right" but I just want my country back. We can fight over race later on when we have the country back.

[Scipio]

Just wow.

Your own silly assertions do not make these allegations factual by any stretch of the imagination. First off, even this THREAD is not "99.999% white," so I'm not sure how on earth you get the notion the political movement has such a demographic.

You've seen the rallies. You've seen the forums. Let's be honest, blacks make up a little less than 20% of our country, that's 1 in 5 Americans....do you see those numbers represented? Why quibble about this? It's not a bad thing to bring up in the right context.



Second, I don't think any of us is really applauding john as the highlight of the forum. Some of us, though, would love it if he could be whatever flavor of bigot (or not) he wants to be... and go live in his magical world of racial purity which will obviously, via free market magic, be a terrific place for the pure of pedigree to live since it will be almost crime-free, be populated by people with high IQs, etc.. I would love it if he were allowed to do that. Get him as far away from me as possible, and put up a huge "pure whitefolks only!" sign in the front yard so I know that it's an area I'd like to avoid.
I don't have a problem with the guy, or any of the ultimate conclusions he's drawn shockingly enough. I just think that bringing up welfare when someone says "racism" is....antiethical to making a case AGAINST racism...especially a political case meant to reach 300 million Americans.



Since it's such a long list of Klansmen who support Libertarians, I'm sure you're about ready to publish such a bombshell document. Once you do, you might even talk about how relevant such data is. Is that why you're not a Democrat? The association of Klansmen with the Party?

Yes it is a big reason why I'm not a Democrat. I'm WELL aware of the history of "Dixiecrats" and Robert Byrd.
But let's be honest. Who has opposed affirmative action, renewing civil rights, gay rights and workplace discrimination laws?

When a Neo-Nazi or Klansman supports a candidate, what type of candidate has it usually been in the last 20-25 years?

Sure WE know why that is, socialism creeps in under the mask of social welfare, and Libertarians are the biggest enemies of socialism and totalitarianism. And you guys are RIGHT, I applaud you, I really do.....but it has come at a cost.

You've been painted to most of bovine America as bigots and Ruby-Ridge types.



You should take a huge step back and reread your statements, and try to figure out why YOUR first reaction was to talk about how the movement has traditionally been a bunch of neo-nazis and Klansmen, and is 99.999% white. Most of us know where john is coming from, and discount him as a bit of an outlier. Do you want the same fate, or do you want to discuss things rationally?

I choose Outlier, everytime. I don't want John silenced. I welcome his point of view, don't get me wrong, I ACTUALLY agree with the guy.

But my posts are an admonission to YOU. People who want the Liberty Movement to succeed. Your biggest hurdle in getting ppl like me on board...is to doff your best clothes, put on your best smile and help people understand you're NOT the monsters ppl like Mort Downey Jr have tried to paint you as.

As much as you guys hate it, your independent streaks run wide...but to win elections you're going to have to open the tent and be a little more welcoming.

[devil21]

Pick your battles amigo. Seriously. This is my entire point. You'll LOSE. You'll LOSE every election EVER held in this country if you're on the "Woe-Is-White-People" bandwagon.


Some of us aren't very concerned with appeasing people that see racism in everything. That victory becomes very hollow because suddenly you're just another one of the idiots that say anything to win, ignore your principles, and eventually become just another co-opted and weak political movement defined by a fear of pissing anyone off so you stand for nothing.

Winning is important....but you know what? I'd rather win on being right through intelligence and helping people understand why the "racist under every bed" mindset is wrong. It's really no different than the "terrorist under every bed" mindset that we see from lots of white people too! Do you see the parallels? I'd rather win that way than winning through dumbing myself down to the lowest common denominator and living in a PC fear based world. Sure, I can say "Im not racist". Does it really matter? No. Those minds are made up and only those with open minds to hear the "but" that comes after (that you apparently don't like) will be able to understand the "why".

Maybe it's why the country is ultimately doomed and Im researching Costa Rican properties.

[Peace&Freedom]

That's just it. The Tea Party was and is an open tent, and is more welcoming. Just not willing (at least at first) to have the statist, pro-bankster, and pro-government establishment dictate the terms as to how to "properly" be those things. The pols and media wing of that establishment then did what they previously have done, or tried to do, to every non-aligned, independent movement in America---infiltrate it from within to co-opt it back into the two party puppet show, while smearing it as extremist or racist from without, to scare off Democrats who might have joined. The result becomes one where those involved either roll back into the Dem or GOP camp, or are marginalized if they don't fall in line. Throw in a few planted provocateurs here and there to help out the slander, and in no time flat another revolt gets neutralized.

What the TP did, or has not done internally has basically nothing to do with the smear job. The MSM does this to such movements intentionally, by design, be they independently left or right leaning, or otherwise non-conforming. In order for the Liberty movement to succeed, it must stop caring about the pro-statist media, and displace it with a new one that will work with liberty. Yes, let's put on our best clothes etc, but AS WE DEFINE THEM, not the enemy. The attacks on the movement have but one focus, which is to inject a false issue of race so as to divert us from a discussion of reforms regarding the Fed, the waste of Empire, federal debt, et al issues that the two party paradigm is designed to perpetually distract us from. The national coverage then dwells on race, and not the spending or banksters.

If we servilely comply with the diversion, and seek to 'purge' this or that phantom of the media's creation from our midst, we validate and FEED the slandering beast instead of starving it. I say we starve the current establishment by paying it no mind, as this approach has contributed to eroding its credibility as a consensus-building or information source. The TP is neither racist or extremist, or imagined to be so by the mass public. That is a propaganda effort of the enemy, which we capitulate to if we engage in "image control." If you don't beat your wife, don't attend anger management classes as if you do.

[johngr]

That's the most complex answer to the question "are you a racist" I have ever heard. You need to have a hair trigger response to such questions:

"Are you a racist?"

No

"Are you a pedophile?"

No

"Do you like the Twilight movies?"

No

"Do you think Brett Favre looks cute in those Wrangler jeans?"

No

Anyone who doesn't answer these questions in such fashion is suspect. The use of the word "polemical" makes you doubly suspect - no one knows what that means.

"Racist" is more like "asshole" (figurative) as opposed to "paedophile" or "Twilight fan", both of which point to something real and discoverable. If you called me an asshole, I might ask you what specifically you mean by that word.

But it's more than a mere pejorative. It's a witch-hunt charge. Denying or defending oneself against them empowers those making such ridiculous charges. I believe it's a better strategy to call into question their legitimacy and deconstruct the language of such charges and ridicule who those are making them. They have nothing else other than what used to be a trump card but isn't any more.

[MelissaWV]

You've seen the rallies. You've seen the forums. Let's be honest, blacks make up a little less than 20% of our country, that's 1 in 5 Americans....do you see those numbers represented? Why quibble about this? It's not a bad thing to bring up in the right context.

Ah... so it's either Klansmen or "black people." There is no room for people of other colors, backgrounds, or --- heaven forbid! --- "white people" like the Pauls who are champions of freedom, but I suppose they're not the popular color?

Give me a break.

"People like me" do put on good clothes, and aren't as "white" as you want to pretend. Your posts show a whole lot of ignorance and not a lot of forethought. That's a shame.

The idea of the rEVOLution having been populated by a lot of "white" folks is no more shocking than the fact it was mostly populated by men, or that some of the more active people out there were younger. Considering the percentage of the population made up of Baby Boomers, and that some still hold to the ideals of their youth, the actual campaigning did not see a groundswell of support from those avenues. The seeds of that movement, which has blended into this new blob one could describe as the "Freedom" movement, were planted on the internet. The internet's general population on political forums has been of a certain demographic for at least a decade or so. There will always be some people who use the internet less, or who use it purely for social media purposes. Those who got involved were often younger, paler, and maler than the average countryman.

The notion being batted around for the 1000th (or more) time is that the Movement should pander to a certain "group" to then be able to point to them and say "You see?!? Black folks like us too!" or something equally ridiculous. If the ideas have merit, educate and move forward as possible. Talk to your friends, your family, and people with whom political conversation is feasible and prudent.

Both in your PM's and in your public posts, you seem to believe you are the only new member and the entire future hinges upon members making you feel like royalty. Poppycock.

As for my personal experiences with meetups, the GOP Convention, speeches, and other such events, the "racial disparity" simply was not there. The age and gender disparities were far more obvious. They still are, but those don't really make the news with as much gusto as painting Libertarians, Tea Parties, and Conservatives in general with the "racist Klansman" brush. All the better to drown out the message with.

Do you what other disparity was really, really obvious? To a man/woman, no one I encountered at those events was hoping for more programs to waste their money, or to vote for someone who wanted to "stay the course" in Iraq/Afghanistan, or any expansion of Government. That is obviously not the majority of voters in this country (or we wouldn't have the Government we have). Where's the report regarding that blatant discrimination?

Everyone in this Movement is a minority by default. If we're going to pick on the coloration of individuals within it, what's the point?

[Anti Federalist]

Racist organization releases racist report denouncing racism by other racists.

http://officeforward.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/thats_racist.gif

Yawn, next...

[devil21]

Everyone in this Movement is a minority by default. If we're going to pick on the coloration of individuals within it, what's the point?

That's such an amazing statement because it's so true. We really are all minorities in this fight while the establishment clearly has the majority, regardless of skin colors. Excellent point and one I will remember.

[RM918]

And let's be honest: Suppose we miraculously rehabilitated everyone like john, every 'truther' and conspiracy nut, put them in suits, took off their tin foil hats and shaved off their beards and had them all speaking as nimbly as Bill Clinton himself.

Who really thinks they'd stop calling us nuts and racists? The label has been planted by the statists and they love using it far too much to ever be rid of it for silly little things like logic or reality. I used to get pissed off so much every single time when Paul's made a great showing or our supporters did something admirable, that the only thing the media ever paid attention to was the guy with the sign in the back saying '9/11 was an Inside Job'. I'd get so pissed off at those bastards for ruining everything.

"If only they weren't there, then they'd actually take us seriously!" I thought, but then I realized how fucking stupid that was. It wasn't the fault of the truthers, the media were the ones honing in with laser-guided precision on anything that was REMOTELY off-kilter about the whole thing. If they can't find racists, they look for truthers. If they can't find truthers, they just give up and call us racist anyway because there's too many white people and people are stupid enough to fall for it.

There's no point in worrying about 'cleansing' the movement, because 1. It is not possible to do without losing our souls and 2. They'd just find something else to stigmatize us for or just fucking make shit up. The media are desperately looking for ways to dismiss us as racists and cranks, and their reporting shows it.

Libertarians are against welfare, they're racist. What? They want to end a drug policy that disproportionately imprisons a wide swath of the black population and leads to gang violence that kills scores of young black males? Still racist.