April 15, 2010

Tea Party!

Marc Comtois


Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.



Oh, that's right. We DO have representation. No King in England is telling us what to do.

Heck, as Belusi says, we're on a roll. Why stop now?

Posted by: Stuart at April 15, 2010 9:51 AM

Where are the misspelled signs?

Posted by: Swazool at April 15, 2010 10:28 AM

I think both old and modern tea parties have one thing in common - ALL WHITES.

Posted by: Stuart at April 15, 2010 10:57 AM

Stuart-your lame attempt to "channel" bing a "person of color"is laughable.You never walked an inch in their shoes.
You sound like Matt Jerzyk in this regard,although Matt doesn't go out of his way to be obnoxious.

Posted by: joe bernstein at April 15, 2010 11:14 AM

"...Matt doesn't go out of his way to be obnoxious."

But we do know someone over at RIF who'll go way out of his way...

I'm watching teaparty coverage on TV. Washington, Boston, Atlanta... plenty of black people in the crowds.

Posted by: George at April 15, 2010 12:04 PM

Crowley?He revels in it.At least Pat is not an anonymous sneak.

Posted by: joe bernstein at April 15, 2010 1:22 PM

The 1960's dope smoking, America hating, big government Marxist radicals are so threatened by the folks who participate in these gatherings, that all they can do is mock them, spew their lies and BS rhetoric with no facts to back it up. Guess what, you're losing and the people who get it are winning.

Posted by: Defender of Freedom at April 15, 2010 2:06 PM

>dope smoking, America hating, big government

Have to wonder why those of us who protested against the BIG government night and day in the 60's could be accused of being "big government", but heck....whatever a "defender of freedom" big man on the internet says must be true.

No, I'm afraid the difference is that we advocated for Power to the PEOPLE, while Defender advocates for constant war, security spending, removal of civil rights, destruction of ss and medicare and other valuable social programs....as well as "hands off my corporations".

Strange - backwards world.

Posted by: Stuart at April 15, 2010 3:55 PM

Here is a perfect interview from one tea party - this is for real. It expresses the hypocritical nature of many of the participants - at least this ONE figured out that she should not have been there!------

"Some defended being on Social Security while fighting big government by saying that since they had paid into the system, they deserved the benefits.
Others could not explain the contradiction.
“That’s a conundrum, isn’t it?” asked Jodine White, 62, of Rocklin, Calif. “I don’t know what to say. Maybe I don’t want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security.”

She added, “I didn’t look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I’ve changed my mind.”"

Ha Ha........maybe she doesn't want smaller government if that touches HER.

But keep on being vague folks.....just say you want to do away with "waste"...or something general. You know, something that you filled the street for during the Bush years.

Ha Ha.

Posted by: Stuart at April 15, 2010 4:02 PM

Stuart-you sound like you're gonna have a little breakdown-you're SCREECHING-fact is,the problem is not the Federal government-it's the misdirected Federal government.Any Constitutionalist would tell you it's simply about the correct parameters.
BTW I didn't attend the rally-the only thing that will matter will be my vote!!

Posted by: joe bernstein at April 15, 2010 6:49 PM

Defender, you won't be there is I cry like a baby so I don't have to pay my taxes....because there will no money for you.

The most patriotic thing most people can do is pay their way....that is, unless you want wheelchairs and old ladies in your squad romping through the desert.

Last time I heard, humans changed to specialization of labor.....

Tell you what! When they land in Newport, I'll be there on the shore with a rifle - I'm a pretty good marksman, but I do not support foreign wars for cheap oil for the SUV.

But that's just me.

Also, if I did support endless military and security spending, I would see it as totally hypocritical to attend a rally asking to pay LESS.

In my book, that's stealing. You see, I believe in paying my way - not making someone else do so. It's called civic responsibility, the exact opposite of what many of these people are rallying for.

Posted by: Stuart at April 15, 2010 9:05 PM

I believe in paying my way too, Stewie. I am just fed up with paying for the lazy ones too.

The tea party was not an all white event. I did a 5 minute count and saw at least 14 Afican Americans, including two Viet Nam veterans. Two Indian men, one being my son-in-law, a variety of Asians, and some Hispanic families that were to the right side as you were facing the building. There were men and women of all races, colors, and creed speaking or just attending, because they are tired of being ripped off too. They came here because they wanted freedom, and now are worried about our freedoms being eroded.

Posted by: kathy at April 16, 2010 2:36 PM

>>are worried about our freedoms being eroded

sounds like a slogan.
Being as most all Americans paid less this year in Fed. taxes, it doesn't make much sense.

I don't care if the rally was 50% minorities - populist anger can certainly cross color barriers, and minorities are suffering as much or more than others from the Bush policies.

Again, I don't understand what you mean by freedoms. I see the suspension of Habeus Corpus, the Supreme Court deciding that Corporations are people and can finance pols without end, the Supreme Court appointing a President, the President going to War without declaring or financing it, the first Patriot Act with no checks on the breaking of the Constitution and dozens of other actions taken by the Bush regime as loss of freedom!

What are your exact issues? Again, we all paid less in taxes this year and worked less days of the year to pay them.....that is a fact. So where were you protesting when Daddy Bush was making you work MORE days for the Federal Government?

I think the answer is nowhere. I think most of the Tea Party were somewhere championing "Supporting the Troops" and the tax cuts while GW borrowed billions to pay for them.

Sure, there are exceptions, but I would say the above pertains to the vast majority of those who suddenly found religion.

I don't doubt the movement. What I claim, however, is that it is populist anger and non-specific, and in that sense the Tea Party doesn't care if their taxes went down....they will call it up.

Posted by: Stuart at April 17, 2010 11:03 AM


You are continuing to spread misinformation, because it's the only way you can make your odd views of the world seem remotely sane. Start with your repeated assertion that there was a suspension of habeas corpus. There was one case, in the immediate aftermath of September 11, the Jose Padilla case, where the President declared a U.S. citizen iwithin the U.S. an "enemy combatant". There was no "suspension" of habeas corpus that extended beyond that, and the law was changed (with President Bush's signature) to make it clear that this couldn't happen again.

Are you really saying that one case of something like this de-legitimizes a Presidency?

Posted by: Andrew at April 17, 2010 11:44 AM

Andrew, get back to me when you do some reading on Habeus.

Here are ten things you should know. Please note #3 and #4.

It has nothing at all to do with American citizens - whether one or one hundred. As with TORTURE and RENDITION...it has to do with basic human rights. I


1. Habeas corpus is a cornerstone of American law.

2. Post 9/11 legislation creates unprecedented restrictions on habeas rights.

3. Habeas protections extend to foreign nationals.

4. The Supreme Court has made it clear that habeas extends to alleged "enemy combatants."

5. Habeas protections are more—not less—essential during the kind of indeterminate conflict in which we are now engaged.

6. Habeas petitions are not frivolous prisoner conditions suits.

7. Habeas corpus strengthens national security by giving legitimacy to the fight against terrorism.

8. The federal courts can handle classified evidentiary issues in habeas cases.

9. Congress has not created an adequate substitute for habeas corpus.

10. Congressional action is the most effective way to restore habeas corpus.

Oh, Andrew, read this - the rest of the history is too long to explain to you, but suffice it to be said that Habeus was given to the English before 1700, and is the single most important right of a people.

"Americans might feel comforted by the fact that the president and the Congress limited the removal of habeas corpus to foreign citizens and did not apply it to Americans. If so, they know little about the history of government oppression. Once people accede to the cancellation of judicial protections for “other people” — a grave wrong in and of itself — it is just a matter of time before the cancellation is extended to include them. After all, American officials would argue at the height of a new crisis, what is the difference between a foreign terrorist and an American terrorist? Shouldn’t they be treated the same? Aren’t they equally dangerous? Of course the suspension of habeas corpus should be extended to American terrorists, the argument would go. After all, aren’t American terrorists also traitors?"

Once again, Andrew, it is clear to me that your views are part of the problem - that being that you and your ilk accept the removal of our freedoms, while all the while telling the government they are taking our freedoms away for taxing us less? Does not compute. Sorry.

Posted by: Stuart at April 17, 2010 1:05 PM

Well Stuart, since the Obama administration has recently authorized the assassination of an American citizen, you need to include the current President as part of the problem, for implementing a policy (by your standards) of targeted assassinations against Americans. Or does your belief that it's racist to oppose anything done by President Obama apply here too?

Someone as consistently ignorant as you are about history and current events should drop the condescending tone.

Posted by: Andrew at April 17, 2010 1:21 PM

Hah, Andrew, I don't read the WND or Townhall, so was not aware of the Obama assassination plans.

You are a funny guy, though. Any tone used to "debate" your humor is probably not relevant.

As to the "war on terror" which GW lost, I'm sure you know that ANY assassination was and is against the rules and customs of civilized nations. Everything from Executive Order 12333 to international law and treaties forbid ANY such actions.

However, Bush/Cheney not only tried to do these hundreds of times, they bragged about it out loud. Of course, you know Obama did not think this one up!
"After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said," the Post reported. "The evidence has to meet a certain, defined threshold. The person, for instance, has to pose 'a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests,' said one former intelligence official."

Of course, this is beside the hundreds of illegal attempts to kill Saddam...again, a crime under most rules of war and conflict.

Still, whatever your and my opinion on all that, it differs VERY much from searching the library records of common citizens, full time data mining on every phone call and email, and detention of THOUSANDS without due process - otherwise known as Habeus.

And, of course, this is not a guess. Many courts, including the Supremes (their own fellow conservatives) , have voted against the Bush Regime.

Again, Andrew, you are Far Right off the charts. We get the idea. Fortunately, the rest of the folks here are not, by and large, of your ilk.

Posted by: Stuart at April 17, 2010 3:08 PM

You are not aware of the Obama administration assassination order because you block out information that conflicts with your ideology, then insult others who present a more complete picture.

But it's been reported in the New York Times. In case you have trouble finding the relevant section, try the 1st sentence of the 1st paragraph.

As always, the information you've presented runs the gamut from unreliable to irrelevant.

Posted by: Andrew at April 17, 2010 3:52 PM


Needn't go so far for links. I mentioned the assassination policy a week ago today.

Posted by: Justin Katz at April 18, 2010 7:51 AM

Once again, you guys forget to give your opinion. So let me make some assumptions and see if you agree.

We are talking about a radical cleric, who spurred on Hassan to kill a bunch of soldiers in cold blood. He also told many others to enter into violent jihad.

We are talking about a guy described as:
"Mr. Awlaki, a radical cleric andthe son of a former agriculture minister and university president in Yemen"

So, is it your position that you are concerned because the CIA wants permission to hit him with a predator, etc?

And are you telling us that you think this guy, who lives and preaches overseas and admits 100% as to what he does (jihad, etc.) is equiv. to the thousands of people picked up in Afghanistan who only were in captivity because their Afghan captors got paid by US for each head they captured? Or that this guy is the equiv. of a Pizza Delivery Dude?

Only by making YOUR position clear can I suss out what you are trying to say.

If your query is as to my position, I have 100% advocated for covert and intelligence work from day ONE instead of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. So, yeah, I could care less if this dude was smoked. At the same time, I would have concerns if he was a "real" American in any way and if he were picked up here. I would have concerns if he was just one of hundreds picked up in a grand sweep for a certain number of dollars per head.

This guy, though, is Bin Laden the third. I would probably pull the switch myself, even though I am generally against the death penalty. There are exceptions to every rule, including habeus corpus, and my concerns were more of the general policies who allowed hundreds or thousands to be denied. Even more specifically, it allowed hundres of INNOCENTS to be rounded up without charges...many on our own soil.

Posted by: Stuart at April 18, 2010 6:19 PM

Two Stuart comments ago, one questionable executive overstep regarding habeas corpus was too many, but now supporting assassination is OK, so long as the executive branch declares you a bad person. That's the inconsistency that Stuart's mixture of rank partisanship with moral vanity will lead you to.

(But the best bit is Stuart telling us he's against the death penalty -- unless a Democratic President wants you taken out!)

Posted by: Andrew at April 18, 2010 9:10 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.