Tag: tea klan

So that’s what we want is a secure and sovereign nation and, you know, I don’t know that all of you are Latino. Some of you look a little more Asian to me. I don’t know that. What we know, what we know about ourselves is that we are a melting pot in this country. My grandchildren are evidence of that. I’m evidence of that. I’ve been called the first Asian legislator in our Nevada State Assembly.

Sharon Angle, Republican candidate for Senate from Nevada, addresses the Hispanic Student Union. You can see why she’s proving to be such a dynamic candidate.

Like Alcoholism and Some Other Things

David Gregory: “In a debate last month, you expressed your support for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell [and] you alluded to ‘lifestyle choices.’ Do you believe being gay [is a] choice?”
Ken Buck (R candidate for Senate, CO): “I do.”
Gregory: “Based on what?”
Ken Buck (R): “I guess you can choose who your partner is.”
Gregory: “You don’t think it’s something that’s determined at birth?”
Ken Buck (R): “I think that birth has an influence over it, like alcoholism and some other things, but I think that basically you have a choice.”

It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.

Sam Adams, clearly winning the “founding father most ahead of his time” award…
Edited in case you don’t click through:

The quotation is not only inaccurate, but it misrepresents Adams’s political situation. He usually led the majority in Boston’s town meeting and in the Massachusetts legislature. He rarely needed to win the majority over to his principles; rather, his challenge was convincing people to follow his plans for action. Therefore, he called over and over for unity, resolve, and mutual sacrifice from the majority, not “an irate, tireless minority" keen to set fires.

The Good Guys of the SS

Rich Iott: [5th SS Wiking Panzer Division] were doing what they thought was right for their country. And they were going out and fighting what they thought was a bigger, you know, a bigger evil […] this particular unit was one that was never charged with war crimes
Anderson Cooper: [Actually, members have been charged with with the murder of 58 Jews]
Rich Iott: The war on the eastern front was extremely brutal on both sides. Nobody was lily-white, that’s for sure. Horrible things that happened on both sides.

“I’ve always been fascinated by the fact that here was a relatively small country that from a strictly military point of view accomplished incredible things. I mean, they took over most of Europe and Russia, and it really took the combined effort of the free world to defeat them. From a purely historical military point of view, that’s incredible.”

–Rich Iott (second from right), Tea Party and Republican nominee for Congress from Ohio’s 9th District, who likes to dress up in Waffen SS uniform and do Nazi re-enactments. Not just any re-enactments, but of one specific division, the 5th SS Panzer Division Wiking. Wonder if they re-enact this thrilling adventure of the 5th Panzers:

Members of the […] column, led by Obersturmführer Braunnagel and Untersturmführer Kochalty, assisted Einsatzgruppe A in rounding up Ukrainian Jews. Witnesses report that the Jewish victims were forced to run a gauntlet formed by soldiers who would beat them as they passed, and when they reached the end of the gauntlet, Einsatzgruppen officers murdered them and their bodies were pushed into a bomb crater.

Bound to be one of the more popular ones. But then, as we’re so frequently told, it’s irresponsible to associate the Tea Klanners with racism. Wouldn’t want to get shrill. This is just a grown man that likes to dress up like a Nazi and play war (crimes). Is that so wrong? Have the PC police finally come for the Nazis?

Source: The Atlantic

Consider the rationale driving these who object to real trials: it’s vital that the Government be able to use information that it obtained by torturing people. It’s equally vital that the Government be absolutely assured that it will obtain a conviction against anyone it accuses of being a Terrorist. Because this is a “war,” we can waive our usual rules of justice. Any proceeding which imposes limits on the Government’s ability to profit from its torture, or which introduces any uncertainty as to the verdict, is proven to be both inappropriate and dangerous. We can and should simply imprison whomever we want in the War on Terror without the need for any charges, but if we do charge and try them, it should only be in newly invented tribunals (i.e., military commissions) where traditional due process is severely reduced and the rules are designed to ensure a guilty verdict, even it means allowing torture-obtained evidence.

People who think this way, by definition, simply do not believe in the rule of law. A system that guarantees guilty verdicts is not one that operates under the rule of law. Those are called “show trials” — at least they used to be when other countries did that. And the demand that torture-obtained evidence be admissible not only removes one from adherence to the rule of law, but from the civilized world as well. The whole point of a “justice system” is that there are rules that are well-established and which apply equally to everyone. Although the requirement that the Government adhere to those rules will inevitably mean that some very, very bad people are acquitted — including mass murderers, child rapists, and even Terrorists — that’s the price we’ve always been willing to pay to live under what we call “the rule of law” and a “justice system.” Those pointing to Judge Kaplan’s ruling as proof that Terrorists should not be tried in a real court — all because he applied centuries-old legal principles to the Government — believe in none of that, by definition.

Greenwald (via jonathan-cunningham)

Agree completely, but would add that the key part here that always seems to slide by in this discussion is that the rules are set out in advance and we, as a society, agree to live by them (or, alternatively, agitate through similarly agreed upon channels to change the rules instead of merely ignoring them when it suits us and summarily declaring that incident a state secret). It is only through this unspoken covenant that the governors and the governed can coexist. As soon as it becomes allowable (and even expected in “serious” circles) that the rules can be changed by fiat, or for the convenience of one or the other of these two parties, or because of the relative wealth or perceived “importance” of one party, or by a President (or other high official) who is inexplicably deemed intrinsically incapable of breaking any laws, then a democratic society collapses. Thus is the first link of the chains forged.
And I’d say we’re already several links in. But nobody seems to care. Thus dies our Republic while the Tea Klan hollers about whether or not we should all have to pay for fire departments even if our own house is not actively on fire. I mean, that sort of socialistic fire extinguishing arrangement inevitably helps a lot of immigrants who burn their houses down all the time to cover up the rampant decapitations going on in there in accordance with sharia law. Am I right?

The Narrative Is the Narrative

Assuming big Republican gains this November, the media narrative will claim Democrats overreached and governed too liberally. Yet actual progressive policies polled well and continue to poll well. If anything, it’s been failure to act on popular legislation that helped put them in this hole.

–Markos “The Orange Menace” Moulitsas

Not sure how many times we’re going to have to cover this one, but let’s have at it again:

  1. GOP landslide, Senate and House change hands: Democrats overreached and governed too liberally. The only solution is a far-right governing philosophy. Obama is a seat-warmer for the next GOP president, nothing more, nothing less. He is not even entitled to his Constitutionally mandated veto power and the GOP exhibits this by shutting down the government every time he uses it and investigating the composting patterns of the WH garden when he’s not.
  2. GOP gains, Senate Democratic, House barely or even marginally GOP-held: Democrats overreached and governed too liberally. The only solution is a far-right governing philosophy. Obama is a seat-warmer for the next GOP president, nothing more, nothing less. He is not even entitled to his Constitutionally mandated veto power; Democratic Senate pressured to cooperate with whatever inane policy the GOP House wants in name of “bipartisanship,” this pressure is then extended against Obama: “why won’t he work across the aisle??!?!” Obama vetoes said bill: The Democrat just can’t govern/circular firing squad! Signs it: Another Democrat failure that is destroying the country. This, by the way, would be the best possible outcome for the GOP (as it is currently figured) heading into 2012. Just sayin’.
  3. GOP nets some gains, but The Democrat holds House and Senate: Democrats overreached and governed too liberally. Their gradually diminishing majority clearly shows that the only solution is a far-right governing philosophy. Obama is a seat-warmer for the next GOP president, nothing more, nothing less. He is not even entitled to his Constitutionally mandated veto power; clearly the fact that the Democrat held historic majorities and has essentially “won” the last four Congressional elections (in terms of the majority either switching or staying) is beside the point. America demands a far-right governing philosophy and will get it just as soon as ACORN stops stealing elections.
  4. Democrats win every seat, hotly contested or otherwise: Democrats overreached and governed too liberally. The only solution is a far-right governing philosophy. Obama is a seat-warmer for the next GOP president, nothing more, nothing less. He is not even entitled to his Constitutionally mandated veto power. The rise of the Tea Klan proves this; it just hasn’t shown up at the electoral polls yet, so we should ignore the electorate and govern far-right. Likewise the failure of the TARP, which I’m pretty sure was a dismal failure, right? Also: Hitler.

We’re talking about a militant terrorist situation, which I believe isn’t a widespread thing, but it is enough that we need to address, and we have been addressing it. Dearborn, Michigan, and Frankford, Texas are on American soil, and under Constitutional law. Not Sharia law. And I don’t know how that happened in the United States. It seems to me there is something fundamentally wrong with allowing a foreign system of law to even take hold in any municipality or government situation in our United States.

Sharon Angle has the courage to speak about Sharia law and how it’s taking over various cities conveniently located in states she’s not running in.
Apart from this statement being utter gibberish (I mean, seriously, what is she even saying? That the northern reaches of the Dallas | Fort Worth metroplex are now anwering to the edicts of a mullah?), she’s also previously established her overriding concern that The Democrat is setting itself up as a god to be worshiped, in clear violation of The First Commandment. Christian God, after all, is the only Lord God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God that this country should be worshiping. And you sir, don’t seem to be worshiping quite hard enough. Don’t let it happen again.