[Peace-discuss] DN: NAACP Report Ties Tea Party to Militia and Racist Groups

Fri Oct 22 13:45:33 CDT 2010

What a GREAT post, Corey!! Another thing re Tea Baggers is that many are members of the Christian Right, meaning that that elephant-in-the-room represents not only some kind of Republicanism, but also the belief that The Second Coming (aka The End Time) won't happen until the Palestinians (and other enemies of Israel) have been driven out of the area... And then, the belief continues, "Israel will recognize Jesus as their Messiah (Zechariah 12:10). Israel will be regenerated, restored, and regathered (Jeremiah 33:8; Ezekiel 11:17; Romans 11:26)." Pretty scary stuff along w/ all the rest of it. --Jenifer
--- On Thu, 10/21/10, Corey Mattson <coreymattson at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Corey Mattson <coreymattson at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] DN: NAACP Report Ties Tea Party to Militia and Racist Groups
To: 
Cc: ""Peace-discuss List" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Date: Thursday, October 21, 2010, 5:12 PM

I have to disagree with Carl's assessment. I believe that there are more anti-war, rank-and-file Democrats than anti-war Libertarians, and while the Libertarians are part of the Tea Party movement, they have no influence in that movement on the issue of the war.

While the liberal/left antiwar movement has declined, especially around the time of the 2008 election, the left/liberal antiwar movement is considerably larger than anything produced by the right-wing. 1,500 people marched in Chicago last Saturday, and even with these relatively low numbers, this march is larger than what the Libertarians could produce in the Midwest. The Libertarians were ENTIRELY absent from this march, probably because they saw it as organized by the left and also because it included the demand that our federal dollars should be used for human needs. Where have the Libertarians brought significant numbers of people in the street around an anti-war demand?

Here in Bloomington-Normal, we have a very organized Young Americans for Liberty branch at Illinois State, the successor organization to Students for Ron Paul. They are Libertarians active in the Tea Party movement and have attended, even spoke at, tea party rallies here that brought 500 people (very large for Blo-No standards). But all they bring to our monthly BNCPJ anti-war protests, which they do attend, are themselves - around 3 or 4 people out of a total of 20 to 30. At least here in Bloomington-Normal, in terms of who shows up in the street, the rank-and-file Democrats DO outnumber the Libertarians. I expect that this is the same elsewhere. The Libertarians are well-organized and well-funded, for a small group of individuals nationally. They definitely know how to use the Internet. But their numbers are small and their influence, on the issue fo the war, is relatively nil in the Tea Party movement. I don't have stats to back myself
 up, but I would venture to guess the vast majority of Teabaggers are very pro-military and pro-war. That's why the Libertarians can't produce any of them in the street.

I'll be honest. I'll work with right-wingers on an individual basis, I get along with them as individuals, and would never think of turning them away from actions and coalition meetings. So far, Libertarians haven't come to our BNCPJ meetings, and given our differences, I don't think we would last very long in the same organization. But I don't think we should be seeking out a coalition with a group of reactionaries who don't have the numbers themselves, have no anti-war mass constituency, and wish to construct a world even worse than 18th century, dog-eat-dog, Laissez-faire capitalism. Even if many of the Obama supporters have been AWOL from the anti-war movement, we have much more in common with the vast majority of them than we do with neo-fascists and anti-tax protesters.

--- Corey
Bloomington-Normal

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Laurie Solomon <ls1000 at live.com> wrote:

>Make a list of anti-war Democrats - ones who are willing to vote against funding the current war, for example - not just those who say "I'm against war."  (Everyone is for peace - on their own terms.)

While the point about those who merely say that they are something are often only so in their own minds and on their own terms is a valid point to an extent, I might point out that the same thing can be said for your assertion that you are an (actual) socialist.

Having said that, I also will not that you have just changed the nature and terms of your original assertion that there are more anti-war tea-partiers than there are anti-war Democrats to one that restricts the populations of each heading to specific sub=populations that were never specified before.  You have restricted those that are considered for the purpose of  your challenge to not only members of a formally organized group (e.g., the Democratic Party) but to elected officials who are members of that political party  and not just the ordinary membership of that political party or those who identify as Democrats but are not formally members or participants in the formal organization (e.g., ordinary voters who identify as Democrats but have not direct affiliation with the party and its machinery except to contribut money to it and vote in elections for its candidates).  Similarly you have extended your population of  tea-partiers to those who
 are informally or loosely associated with the loosely defined tea-party movement , for want of a better term, as well as those who are formally members of formally organized and established tea-party organizations.  Moreover, you have arbitrarily assigned several formally organized groups that may have members who are part of or support the tea-party movement and its members but which themselves do not claim to be tea-party organizations or that all their members are tea-partiers.  Futhermore, none of the formally associated people identified as formal members of an established and organized tea-party organization is an elected official who has actually voted against funding the current war as opposed to merely saying that they are willing to or would if elected and placed in a position where they were given the choice.  As far as I know, neither Ron Paul or Tim Johnson claim to be tea-partiers or formally belong to a organized tea-party political
 party or established tea-party organization.  They are both Republicans, as far as I know, and may have organized groups of people who are their followers or they may associate or affiliate with certain formal journals.

None of this was specified in your original assertion but only now are being specified.  Somehow, you have confirmed what Mort said you would do - changed the nature of the assertion you made

From: C. G. Estabrook 
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 3:18 PM
To: Brussel 

Cc: Peace-discuss List 
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] DN: NAACP Report Ties Tea Party to Militia and Racist Groups

Mort--

Make a list of anti-war Democrats - ones who are willing to vote against funding the current war, for example - not just those who say "I'm against war."  (Everyone is for peace - on their own terms.)

Send me your list, and I'll send you a longer one - beginning with Ron Paul's and Justin Raimondo's people - of those associated with the teapartiers who are against this war. 

I remember, from a math class long ago, that this was a way to prove the existence of multiple infinities, by a process of iteration...

Neither group is infinite, but they do differ in magnitude.  

Furthermore, the ones I refer to are organized - into Paul's R3VOLution, the Libertarian party, the paleoconservatives around several journals - while there is no organized Democratic party opposition to the Democratic president and administration.

Those of us with memories of a generation ago want to believe that there is an anti-war movement on the left wing of the Democratic party.

Unfortunately, no one's home.  It's been Obama's great contribution to the war effort to make that so.  --CGE 

On 10/21/10 2:38 PM, Brussel wrote: 
Karen, 

Ask Carl where he gets his data (re. his first line below). Ask where most of the funding, who are the biggest contributors, and where most of the PR for the Tea party comes from. And so what conclusion may one draw?

Don't be surprised if he switches the subject, refuses to answer, or cannot answer, because he doesn't have reliable sources. 

--mkb

On Oct 21, 2010, at 10:18 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

Come on, Karen. There are more anti-war teapartiers than anti-war Democrats.

Obama's co-option of the anti-war movement meant that there is no parallel among the Democrats to Ron Paul's movement of principled opposition to the war, nor to that of libertarians and paleoconservatives around the website Antiwar.com or the journal The American Conservative. 

As an (actual) socialist, I deplore that fact. 

On 10/21/10 9:30 AM, Karen Medina wrote: 
I did notice that there were very few "constitutionalists" around
before the scare tactic of "they are going to give health care to
undocumented immigrants" became popular.

Very few of the tea-partiers are in the anti-war movement.

All I am saying is that it is easy to count the ones that are consistent.

With the ones that are inconsistent, it is harder to count them, but
it is easy to tell if they have read the constitution.

-karen medina
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20101022/84369d4d/attachment-0001.html>