Is The Tea Party Racist?

[WinePusher]

The Tea Party is a protest movement of american citizens to limit the government, government spending and the deficit. Some (Nancy Pelosi, NAACP President, Harry Reid, Practically ALL democrats and liberals) claim the organization is racist?

1) Is there any evidence that the organization is racist?

2) Is this another dishonest ploy by the left to stir up racial contreversy

3) Are organizations such as the Nation of Islam, Black Panthars and NAACP also racist?

[micatala]

Is my comment on what Breitbart might do if a black person were lynched speculative? Yes.

However, they are not purely speculative as they are based on evidence from his past record, and this evidence clearly indicates he is not honest. Even Shep Smith on FOX understands this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/2 ... 55013.html

Shepard Smith is wrong. Fox did not run the video,

FOX did run the video. I saw it. They ran more again when O'Reilly apologized. In the clip you site, they admit they aired the video and seem to think since they did it after she was fired, this makes it OK. It doesn't.

The fact that Sherrod was fired before the video may be true but is not relevant. O'Reilly called for her resignation based on the reports of the video.

You are conflating the firing issue with the honesty issue. FOX played the video without vetting it, knowing Breitbart was dishonest. They called for her resignation, perhaps not knowing she had already resigned.

They were either dishonest or grossly incompetent, and Shep did call out his own network on it.

Not only did they NOT run the video but Sherrod should have been fired. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwNBySVh ... r_embedded

If you can prove FOX played the video BE4 the firing, then I will give you $1000. Good luck with that.

You didn't read my post. See the bolded section above that you quoted but seem not to be aware of.

I allowed FOX played the video after the firing. This does mean the firing did not occur because the video was played on FOX.

However, it is irrelevant to the fact that FOX smeared Sherrod and based their coverage on an edited and deceptive video. They are at least guilty of gross journalistic incompetence. They may be guilty of complicity with Breitbart. They should clearly have known that Breitbart was unreliable and Shep Smith said as much.


I see O'Reilly's apology contains more accusations against Sherrod. He essentially, in trying to defend himself, smears her again. This is getting ridiculous.

On the one hand, he acknowledges the presentation given by Breitbart leaves out that Sherrod is actually describing her repentance from her previously racist attitudes. And yet, he nails her again for supposedly being racist when she repented for it later.


I will allow that if the rules for non-political appointees forbid making political or partisan remarks, and if that is the nature of her position, she may be out of bounds for her comments on Bush and the Republicans. I would want to see what the rules for her position actually are and also what the patter of enforcement has been regarding such rules over time.

[micatala]

Here is a report about what happened on March 20, 2009 (emphasis mine)

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/201003 ... /100329990

Racist epithets fly at tea party health protest

McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — Demonstrators outside the U.S. Capitol, angry over the proposed health-care reform bill, shouted “nigger� today at U.S. Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia congressman and civil rights icon who was nearly beaten to death during an Alabama march in the 1960s.

The protesters also shouted obscenities at other members of the Congressional Black Caucus, lawmakers said.

Capitol Police escorted the members of Congress into the Capitol after the confrontation. At least one demonstrator was reported arrested.

“They were shouting, sort of harassing,� Lewis said. “But, it's OK, I've faced this before. It reminded me of the ‘60s. It was a lot of downright hate and anger and people being downright mean.�

Lewis said he was leaving the Cannon office building across from the Capitol when protesters shouted “Kill the bill, kill the bill,� Lewis said.

“I said ‘I'm for the bill, I support the bill, I'm voting for the bill,' “ Lewis said.

A colleague who was accompanying Lewis said people in the crowd responded by saying “Kill the bill, then the n-word.�

“It surprised me that people are so mean and we can't engage in a civil dialogue and debate,� Lewis said.

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., said he was a few yards behind Lewis and distinctly heard “nigger.�

“It was a chorus,� Cleaver said. “In a way, I feel sorry for those people who are doing this nasty stuff — they're being whipped up. I decided I wouldn't be angry with any of them.�

Cleaver's office said later in a statement that he'd also been spat upon and that Capitol Police had arrested his assailant. The statement praised the police, who Cleaver said escorted the members of Congress into the Capitol past the demonstrators.

“The man who spat on the congressman was arrested, but the congressman has chosen not to press charges,� the statement said.

“This is not the first time the congressman has been called the ‘n' word and certainly not the worst assault he has endured in his years fighting for equal rights for all Americans,� the statement said. “That being said, he is disappointed that in the 21st century our national discourse has devolved to the point of name-calling and spitting.�

Protestors also used a slur as they confronted Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., an openly gay member of Congress. A writer for Huffington Post said the crowd called Frank a “faggot.�

Frank told the Boston Globe that the incident happened as he was walking from the Longworth House office building to the Rayburn House office building, both a short distance from the Capitol. Frank said the crowd consisted of a couple hundred of people and that they referred to him as “homo.�

“I'm disappointed with the unwillingness to be civil,� Frank told the Globe. “I was, I guess, surprised by the rancor. What it means is obviously the health-care bill is proxy for a lot of other sentiments, some of which are perfectly reasonable, but some of which are not.�

“People out there today, on the whole, were really hateful,� Frank said. “The leaders of this movement have a responsibility to speak out more.�

This is the point about the backlash against the tea party. This kind of behavior started in 2008 and just kept escalating, as will happen if no one speaks up. After the damage is done, it's hard to get back to the real message.

To SacredCowBurgers: I also understand your sentiment towards a "victim mentality", however, my experience has been that it is a feeling shared among a few disenfranchised poor people, white, black, and mexican, not just blacks; it is not pervasive. It may be hard not to let that bias overshadow the other, obvious problems with the Tea Party, but we should fight against the urge to go there in light of the direction that it leads us.

That was Lewis' report of the event. The entire trek, though, of Pelosi and gang to the house chambers was videotaped. There is nothing on the video to show anything Lewis said was true.

I agree though that it began escalating in 2008 coinciding with the campaign of Barrack Obama. He himself with the help of Sharpton and Jackson type activists who make a living off of the existence of racism fanned the flames and continue to do so.

WHere is the video of the whole walk? I have seen numerous clips. These clips do not cover the whole walk. I challenge the assertion that the entire trek was videotaped.

Also, even where there are clips, as I have pointed out, there is so much yelling going on that it is very possible Lewis and those to whom the yelling was directed could have heard and identified comments that cannot be made out on the videos. None of the videos I have seen were taken from in front of the crowd, and several are from several rows back in the crowd.

[micatala]

This is a article from a conservative magazine, but it links to the full Sherrod video in its entirety, along with the NAACP actions and website.

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/2 ... tory-false

Apparently Sherrod is also a liar. The story she told in the video was NOT true.

Did you actually read more than the headline??


Here is a portion:

The case, Screws vs. the U.S. Government, as she accurately says in the next two paragraphs, made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Which, with the agreement of all nine Justices of the day -- which is to say May 7, 1945 -- stated the facts of the killing of Bobby Hall this way:

The arrest was made late at night at Hall's home on a warrant charging Hall with theft of a tire. Hall, a young negro about thirty years of age, was handcuffed and taken by car to the courthouse. As Hall alighted from the car at the courthouse square, the three petitioners began beating him with their fists and with a solid-bar blackjack about eight inches long and weighing two pounds. They claimed Hall had reached for a gun and had used insulting language as he alighted from the car. But after Hall, still handcuffed, had been knocked to the ground, they continued to beat him from fifteen to thirty minutes until he was unconscious. Hall was then dragged feet first through the courthouse yard into the jail and thrown upon the floor, dying. An ambulance was called, and Hall was removed to a hospital, where he died within the hour and without regaining consciousness. There was evidence that Screws held a grudge against Hall, and had threatened to "get" him.

How is this not a lynching??

Here is the definition of lynching.

lynch (lnch)
tr.v. lynched, lynch·ing, lynch·es
To punish (a person) without legal process or authority, especially by hanging, for a perceived offense or as an act of bigotry

Was Hall's beating according to legal process or authority??? Most folks reading this description would say no. A guy is beaten to death while hand-cuffed after being arrested for stealing a tire.


And we are supposed to say Sherrod was lying? Maybe you should explain. Are you

A) claiming Bobby Hall was not killed
B) claiming his killing was not a lynching
C) claiming it was incorrect or unfair for Sherrod to implicate Screws in the killing
D) other





Now, I note the Spectator article you cite goes onto say

The very first paragraph of the Supreme Court decision states:

1. Upon review of a judgment affirming the conviction, for violation of § 20 of the Criminal Code and conspiracy thereunto, of local law enforcement officers who arrested a negro citizen for a state offense and wrongfully beat him to death, the judgment is reversed with directions for a new trial.


In other words, the Supreme Court of the United States, with the basic facts of the case agreed to by all nine Justices in Screws vs. the U.S. Government, says not one word about Bobby Hall being lynched. Why? Because it never happened.

Again, I have to ask what definition of lynching are they using??


In addition, I think we can add the Spectator to the list of dishonest organizations. Here is a part of the decision they left out.

2. Section 20 of the Criminal Code, so far as it penalizes acts which "willfully" deprive a person of any right secured to him by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, is to be construed as requiring a specific intent to deprive of a right which has been made specific by the express terms of the Constitution or laws of the United States or by decisions interpreting them; and, as so construed, the section is not unconstitutional as lacking an ascertainable standard of guilt. P. 325 U. S. 101.

3. The trial court erred in not instructing the jury that, in order to convict, they must find that the defendants had the purpose to deprive the prisoner of a constitutional right. In determining whether that requisite bad purpose was present, the jury would be entitled to consider all the attendant circumstances -- the malice of the defendants, the weapons used in the assault, the character and duration of the assault, the provocation, if any, and the like. P. 325 U. S. 106.

4. Although no exception was taken to the trial court's charge, the error was so fundamental -- failure to submit to the jury the essential elements of the only offense on which the conviction could rest -- that this Court takes note of it sua sponte. P. 325 U. S. 107.

5. In making the arrest and in assaulting the prisoner, the defendants acted "under color of law," within the meaning of § 20 of the Criminal Code. P. 325 U. S. 107.

Defendants were officers of the law who had made an arrest, and it was their duty under the law of the State to make the arrest
effective. By their own admissions, they made the assault in order to protect themselves and to keep the prisoner from escaping.

In other words, the court is saying since the original conviction did not establish the specific intent of the beaters to violate a constitutional right like the 14th amendment, that the law had not been appropriately applied and there needed to be a retrial. The judgment was overturned essentially on a legal technicality.

The court, to be fair, is giving the benefit of the doubt to the law officers involved in saying they were performing their duties. However, it is clearly not unfair to describe this as a lynching. The facts themselves as described clearly show that the force applied was not necessary and went say overboard what would ordinarily be required in such a situation. Hall's death was certainly not legally sanctioned by the state or federal government.



And we need to keep in mind this is all in the context of a racist society and a tainted law enforcement system in the south.


How on earth do we get from this that Sherrod's "story never happened" or that "she was a liar?"


No honest evaluation of the evidence would merit such an accusation against Sherrod.

[BwhoUR]

Here is a report about what happened on March 20, 2009 (emphasis mine)

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/201003 ... /100329990

Racist epithets fly at tea party health protest
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — <article clipped to save space>

This is the point about the backlash against the tea party. This kind of behavior started in 2008 and just kept escalating, as will happen if no one speaks up. After the damage is done, it's hard to get back to the real message.

To SacredCowBurgers: I also understand your sentiment towards a "victim mentality", however, my experience has been that it is a feeling shared among a few disenfranchised poor people, white, black, and mexican, not just blacks; it is not pervasive. It may be hard not to let that bias overshadow the other, obvious problems with the Tea Party, but we should fight against the urge to go there in light of the direction that it leads us.

That was Lewis' report of the event. The entire trek, though, of Pelosi and gang to the house chambers was videotaped. There is nothing on the video to show anything Lewis said was true.

I agree though that it began escalating in 2008 coinciding with the campaign of Barrack Obama. He himself with the help of Sharpton and Jackson type activists who make a living off of the existence of racism fanned the flames and continue to do so.

Please provide evidence during the campaign, that Obama said the tea party or the republican party was "racist".

After things got waaay out of hand, the straw that broke the camel's back was when, after an elderly woman said Obama was an "Arab" who couldn't be trusted, republican nominee John McCain came forward said that Obama was a good guy and he respected him and there was nothing to fear. There was a small turn around in the hate rhetoric by the republican party after that. Here's Obama's response:

On Friday, Obama said the "barrage of nasty insinuations and attacks" was a result of the Republican nominee's failed economic ideas.

"They can run misleading ads, they can pursue the politics of anything goes. It will not work. Not this time. I think that folks are looking for something different this time. It's easy to rile up a crowd, nothing's easier than riling up a crowd by stoking anger and division. But that's not what we need right now in the United States. The times are too serious," Obama said at a rally in Chillicothe, Ohio.

Here's the entire article.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10 ... index.html

I challenge you to show that Obama ("He himself" like you said) cried "racism" during his campaign. Or that he claimed to be a "victim" of of racism because of what the republicans or the tea party were doing.

[BwhoUR]

That was Lewis' report of the event. doing.

I challenge you to show that Mr. Lewis is lying about his first-hand account, which he commented on shortly after it happened.

[East of Eden]

It is 99.9% white. Racist placards abound and are not removed at "rallies." Have they repudiated racism, or just denied it? All of us on this forum have endured the "Lynch all Muslim" anti-Arab racism of a few, so why should it surprise anyone that Jim Crow still lives?

Tea Party: ‘What? Us Racist?!’
July 12th, 2010 by John Grooms in Boomer with an Attitude

http://blogs.creativeloafing.com/theclo ... s-racist/

The NAACP is holding its national convention this week, where the group will propose a resolution “condemning racism within the Tea Party movement.� I honestly don’t know how much pull the NAACP has anymore, but this resolution is a good thing. The Tea Partiers are a diverse group, and not all of the movement’s followers are racists, but the obvious truth is that a substantial number of the TP-ers are. And I mean full-tilt, flat out, too-stupid-to-breathe racist.

The big problem is that TP leaders have done precious little to rid their movement of racists. What’s worse, they deny there’s even a problem, and they call the NAACP proposal “unfair.� As Brendan Steinhauser, director of campaigns for FreedomWorks, which organizes some tea parties, told ThinkProgress, “I just don’t see racism in the tea party movement.� That’s an astounding statement on its own, but Steinhauser compounded it by noting that, in her opinion, “… the tea party movement has a lot in common with the civil rights movement.�

Right, Brenda. A grassroots movement of people whose ancestors suffered 300 hundred years of slavery, and then were treated like so many dogs after their “freedom� was granted, has a lot in common with a collection of entitled whites who are mad because the world is moving under them and they want to feel like they’re boss of the country again. Yeah, there’s a lot in common there — especially considering that a July 4 Tea Party rally in Lexington, Ky., featured tea partiers selling “Yup, I’m a racist� shirts. Oh, not to mention some of the lovely folks and signs shown below. No, not racist at all.

Funny how the same leftists who denigrate the Tea Party movement because of a few crackpots are outraged when Islam is judged by it's multitude of crackpots.

[Wyvern]

Funny how the same leftists who denigrate the Tea Party movement because of a few crackpots are outraged when Islam is judged by it's multitude of crackpots.

The problem for the Tea party movement is that many of its founders have gone on record as being racist. If it were just a few crackpots they could easily be dismissed but when the leaders and founders of a movement show themselves to be racist it gives a lot of credence to the idea that the organization they founded very well may also be racist. Just as with Islam if some leaders become radicalized we may judge that the followers of that leader may also be radicals. To be a member of an organization means you agree with the founders ideals in regards to the organization whether it is Al Qaida or the Tea Party.

[Flail]

The Tea Party is a protest movement of american citizens to limit the government, government spending and the deficit. Some (Nancy Pelosi, NAACP President, Harry Reid, Practically ALL democrats and liberals) claim the organization is racist?

1) Is there any evidence that the organization is racist?

2) Is this another dishonest ploy by the left to stir up racial contreversy

3) Are organizations such as the Nation of Islam, Black Panthars and NAACP also racist?

I don't think organizations should be labeled racist unless their founding documents indicate such. Some people within these organizations may be racist, but that should not cause us to label the organization itself. The NAACP and Black Panther's are therefore by definition racist, as is a President who bills himself as the first 'black' President.

[East of Eden]

The problem for the Tea party movement is that many of its founders have gone on record as being racist.

Cite? To paraphrase the famous saying 'Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel', the charge of racism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

To be a member of an organization means you agree with the founders ideals in regards to the organization whether it is Al Qaida or the Tea Party.

Exactly what we tried to warn people about Obama attending a radical church for 20 years that was buddies with the racist Jew-hater Farrakhan, even giving him awards. And then there's his association with the unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers.

Here's a sample of the Rev.Wright's friend Farrakhan hate towards many groups:

http://www.adl.org/special_reports/farr ... n_jews.asp

Here are a couple:

White people are potential humans…they haven’t evolved yet."

Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/18/00

According to a journalist's account, "Farrakhan called 'the white man' the 'anti-Christ' to rousing applause."

Jackson, MS, 9/19/97, Clarion-Ledger, 9/21/97


Where are the Tea Party equivalents of this hate?

You said: "To be a member of an organization means you agree with the founders ideals in regards to the organization whether it is Al Qaida or the Tea Party." Doesn't this make Obama a racist for attending this radical church for 20 years? I know he claimed he never heard this stuff, but he would have to be lying or stupid to do so.

[East of Eden]

That was Lewis' report of the event. doing.

I challenge you to show that Mr. Lewis is lying about his first-hand account, which he commented on shortly after it happened.

Breitbart has offered a $100,000 reward for evidence of this charge of Mr. Lewis, and all we hear in response are crickets, despite the presence of lots of recording media that day.