To think that something which started from the End the Fed rallies has morphed into something so stupid.

I'm ashamed to call myself a Libertarian if there are millions of these people who watched Fox news and decided that they were Libertarians.

How many of them now about John Stuart Mill, John Locke, or that most of the old white people wanted freedom for themselves from the British Empire, not for their slaves.

These people have been drinking too much of the Faux news water, I think they are very mad.

I true Libertarian would know that having a corporation behind your movement means you are no longer a Libertarian, you are a Plutocrat.

Lets start by making a new party, the Secular Humanist Rational Party For Liberty (Liberty for all, not just who you choose), where you have to think about things before you spout stupid shit.

I thinkknow that the literacy test is unconstitutional because it limits the right of citizens to vote.

Which, I think know violates the 14th ammendment.

Cited here:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

*promote this stupid religious right fox news bullshit of a faux party.

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, February 9th, 2010 4:14am PST - promote requested by NordlichReiter.

i like how they still pronounce his name: barack HUSSEIN YES I SAID HUSSEIN AS IN MUSLIM TERRORIST HUSSEIN obama

Wow. An entire segment about one stupid comment from Tancredo to an ignorant crowd that never knew we had literacy tests and didn't even have time to consider the consequences and are just clapping at anything anyways. Getting weak Maddow, it's starting to get shrill.

The Tea Party movement is the rightwing's latest incarnation of Al Qaeda.

It's another Frankenstein monster of their own making that they've lost control of.

And this time, the monster is domestic.

More history for "tea partiers":

The real Tea Partiers didn't appear in public.

The real Tea Partiers met in secret.

The real Tea Partiers were engaged in an act of defiance, for which they already had been threatened with a military response.

The real Tea Partiers risked their lives and their freedom by committing their daring act of protest while literally surrounded by that threatening military.

The real Tea Partiers were in the midst of a burgeoning rebellion for which unarmed civilians of their town already had been massacred.

The real Tea Partiers were in the midst of a burgeoning rebellion, the initial victim of which, at that massacre, was a black man.

The real Tea Partiers were in the midst of a burgeoning rebellion whose first martyr was a black man.

The real Tea Partiers defied such danger that they performed their act of protest in silence, returned to their homes in silence, and in large part didn't even know each other's names.

The real Tea Partiers weren't merely whining about having come out on the wrong side of an election.

The real Tea Partiers were protesting the imposition of an economic monopoly by an unelected ruler.

The real Tea Partiers didn't enjoy the protection of their government as they whined petty complaints, in public, in peace.

The real Tea Partiers didn't enjoy a fancy celebration, with fawning attention given by their era's mass media.

The real Tea Partiers weren't gathered together by a corporation for the purpose of making a profit.

The real Tea Partiers didn't pay a small fortune to a dolled up nitwit to safely spew lies and concocted complaints from a public stage.

The real Tea Partiers sent their government into emergency meetings.

The real Tea Partiers had their government respond by closing their harbor.

The real Tea Partiers had their government respond by reducing their legal rights.

The real Tea Partiers had their government respond by ordering them placed under military occupation.

The real Tea Partiers had their government respond by replacing their civilian governor with a military commander.

The real Tea Partiers couldn't afford to publicly self-congratulate for acts of sniveling pettiness for which they should have been embarrassed.

The real Tea Partiers took great risks for a real cause for which they are celebrated by history.

If we had a civics/literacy test in order to vote, almost nobody would be able to vote. Especially not many members of the Tea Party Movement, including Sarah Palin and possibly Tom Tancredo.

Side note: If it's true that restrictions on voting (such as literacy tests) are un-Constitutional, why are felons not allowed to vote? Are we not violating their 14th Amendment rights as citizens?

"The Republican Party would be smart to absorb as much of the Tea Party movement as possible"

I think they've done a little more than absorb it.

>>^thinker247:
Side note: If it's true that restrictions on voting (such as literacy tests) are un-Constitutional, why are felons not allowed to vote? Are we not violating their 14th Amendment rights as citizens?


Yes, we are, but apparently nobody cares enough about felons to come to their rescue.

I'm not convinced there was any racial motivation behind Tancredo's comment. Of course his suggestion is unconstitutional, and someone should slap him upside the head for that, but crying racism seems premature to me.

^ Yea, it didn't seem to be about race at all. He was saying something more like "Liberals are too stupid to deserve voting rights". It deserves more face-palm than outrage, but that isn't the narrative Maddow is trying to push.

What really amazes me is how much emphasis these tea party gatherings put on deficit reduction, despite the complete lack of any specific proposals. Let a speaker get up there and start talking about slashing medicare and social security, or the military for that matter. See how much support they get when they start talking about the painful details of balancing budgets.

Then again, maybe their plan is to cut taxes until the deficits disappear.

"Then again, maybe their plan is to cut taxes until the deficits disappear."

Just like I plan to pay off my student loan by not having a job

To people who think there isn't race baiting going on, look up who Tom Tancredo is, and sifted clips of other comments from him.

Really, you just have to understand dog whistle politics. The whole point of it is to say something that could sound innocuous and defensible to the majority of people who hear it, but hits a keyword that's understood by the people it's meant for who you normally would publicly disassociate yourself from (e.g. people who pine for the days when black people couldn't vote). Plausible deniability is essentially the name of the game.

That said, even if you ignore the "literacy test" dog whistle, the "in English" part is pretty transparent anti-immigrant language.

I would agree that the dog whistles themselves aren't really shocking, or even the worst part of what he's saying. What he's really saying is that Democrats don't have a legitimate claim to power, even if they win elections, because he doesn't think the kind of people who vote for Democrats are legitimate citizens in the first place.

There's some muddiness about whether that's because he thinks they're ignorant, or because of their skin color (personally, I think it's clear he means for listeners to hear both aspects), but the message that Democrats have seized power through illegitimate means is the real insidious core message.

>> ^thinker247:why are felons not allowed to vote? Are we not violating their 14th Amendment rights as citizens?



All rights, such as freedom of movement/association, or even life, can be revoked through due process of law. Felons losing the right to vote is simply a special case of this general principle.

The fact that convictions are more common for minority citizens than for white folks could be argued to be a literacy test style work around for racial discrimination. But since most people accept the validity of the legal system, and many convicted felon retain, or can regain their right to vote, it does not serve as a blanket ban on an ethnic group, and so does not breach the 14th.

It's unconstitutional as-applied, not facially unconstitutional, to impose a literacy test for voting. What I mean is that the problem was the unequal application of the test, not the mere existence of a test. If all people had to take the exact same test, and the criteria of passing were exactly the same for all people, then it would be fair and constitutional.

However it is not necessary that the test be Exactly the same for everyone. If there were a pool of tests of approximately equal difficulty, and one was selected by a mechanical random number generator for each person, that would also be fair and constitutional.

> ^NetRunner:
To people who think there isn't race baiting going on, look up who Tom Tancredo is, and sifted clips of other comments from him.


Yes, he was being anti-immigrant, but Maddow was trying to imply that the entire convention was supporting overt racism. Honestly, I think they were mostly applauding the Liberal-bashing aspect of it.

I might feel a little differently about the literacy test suggestion if it were a larger part of the convention, but Maddow spent far more time talking about it than they did. It was worth mentioning for the "wtf" effect of it, but an entire segment on it?

Maybe it was balanced out by the rest of her show... she just seemed to be trying really hard to inflate its importance as much as possible.

What I don't understand is why no one in the tea party movement is pretending to be Indian. It's like they're not even trying.

Maddow needs some better writers, she's an extremely good presenter but sometimes she just doesn't seem to have enough focus and direction in her segments, this one could have been covered in about half the time.

:eyeroll: Of course there is no racism here. How ridiculous. This is an effort to stamp out voter fraud, and illegal voting - which is rampant in all states. I applaud any effort to clean up our voting system. The Tea Party wants the right objective, but have chosen a poor methodology. A literacy test isn't a good solution.

There is only one proper solution. All voters must present an approved photo identification in order to fill out a ballot. There simple, elegant, and foolproof. No ID - no vote. I reject all the stupid "ooo but that would intimidate voters" bullcrap. If you need proof of ID to drive then there is no reason why you shouldn't need proof of ID to vote. End of story. So kudos to the Tea Party for being on the right track - but literacy testing is a dumb method by which to attain the objective of eliminating voter fraud and illegal voting.

>> ^Psychologic:
Yes, he was being anti-immigrant, but Maddow was trying to imply that the entire convention was supporting overt racism. Honestly, I think they were mostly applauding the Liberal-bashing aspect of it.

I agree that we can't be sure whether the audience was hearing the literacy test dog-whistle. She wants to make sure that the people in her audience who might not have heard it, hear it, and are concerned about how many people in the room got the message.

Mostly, I think you're trying too hard here to make this into a case of Maddow being unfair to poor little Tom Tancredo and the teabaggers for insinuating that they might have understood the racist undertones in a speech given by a racist at a convention of people who've been saying some somewhat famously racist things.

Then again, what would be more disturbing: that people applauded literacy tests knowing what they represent, or that people applauded it not knowing what they represent?

If anything, I think the latter bothers me more.

Let's just think about this one...

Exibit A: (Tea Bagger Philosophy)

Person A accuses Person B, of not being Person C. Person B, has to show ID, that they are indeed, Person C.

Exibit B: (US Legal code)

Person A accuses Person B, of murder. Person A, would have to come up with the burdern of proof, to prove (whether by judge or jury), that Person B, was guilty of murder.

If we apply 'Tea Bagger' philosophy, one would have to prove their innocence beyond a shadow of doubt, regardless of what their accusers actually said, or the depth of their accusation. Unfortunately to Tea Baggers, that Exibit A is unconstitutional. Person B, would NOT, have to prove their innonounce, because they are assumed to be Person C. Person A, would have to explain to the legal/enforcement offical(s), that Person B, isn't who they say they are. This would have to include real, concrete evidence, like a photo of the real person in question.

While, yes, showing an ID would be quicker, it would also be unconstitutional. So, if the Tea Baggers are so concern with wasteful spending, why, spend heaps of money, people's time, to get law passed that the ACLU will easily destroy in court?

I know. I know. Southern blacks are just too DUUUUUMB to know the answers to those questions... at least they were in Alabama in 1965 and Georgia in 1958.

It is a bit surprising to me that LBJ, a guy synomis with the JFK murder and Vietnam, did do something as positive as this. Always something to learn, eh

Personally speaking - if I had my druthers I would make voting in city, state, and national elections a lot more difficult. Sufferage is a priveledge. Too many voters are no more than bench-filling stooges of the political establishment. They gin up these large blocs of dummies and sucker them into voting for the same rats over and over again. An informed electorate of intelligent, competent, discriminating voters who focus on performance and accountability would not allow these dynasties. A good voting public produces churn. But party politics don't work when there is churn. It doesn't allow politicians to sit back and make a career out of politics. So politicians like these big blocs of bad voters. They keep the 'good voters' from taking away their power.

If I was king for a day, voting would go like this...

REQUIRED
1. Notarized photo ID card
2. Voter cannot have filed for bankruptcy (business or personal) in the past 5 years
3. Voter cannot have been convicted of a misdemeanor in the past 6 months or a felony in thier lifetime.
4. Voter must pass a mandatory class in United States civics (Federalist papers, enumerated powers, Constitution, Bill of Rights, checks & balances, etc...)
6. Voter must pass a class college level economics class (covers supply & demand, capitalism, debts/deficits, etc).
7. Parents with unpaid family obligations (deadbeat parents) cannot vote.

Citizens must additionally present any FOUR (or more) of the following...
1. Current, valid voter registration card
2. Proof of employment (at least 6 months)
3. Proof of residence (at least 1 year renting or owning in a specific location)
4. Social Security card
5. A credit rating of at least 650
6. Proof of having maintained a positive bank or savings account for at least 6 months
7. A valid birth certificate

I don't care if a person is a Democrat, or a Republican, or a one-eyed-one-horned-flying-purple-spaghetti-unicorn. They can vote however they want, but more should be required to vote than simply the ability to stumble through a door.

Nordlich's posting of the text of the 14th Amendment sparked an interesting set of notions and questions in my head:

1) If I'm reading it correctly, Section 3 specifically prohibits anyone from holding high office, either State or Federal, if they have previously taken an oath of such office, again, either State or Federal, and then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

2) Sarah Palin served as Governor of Alaska (until she quit, anyway), while being married to Todd Palin, who for the better part of seven-odd years was a registered member of the Alaskan Independence Party, which actively seeks to break the State of Alaska away from the Union.

3) The last time States sought to break away from the Union, around, say, 1861 or so, it was pretty definitively classified as an "insurrection or rebellion".

4) I can only assume Sarah Palin would engage in "giving aid and comfort" to her husband, or even go so far as to embrace some of his ideals.

If this series of connections holds up, would that not then mean that, barring a specifically-called two thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress, Sarah Palin is Constitutionally prohibited from becoming even Sub-Under-Flunkie to the Postmaster General, let alone President or Vice President of the United States of America?

>> ^NordlichReiter:
To think that something which started from the End the Fed rallies has morphed into something so stupid.
I'm ashamed to call myself a Libertarian if there are millions of these people who watched Fox news and decided that they were Libertarians.
How many of them now about John Stuart Mill, John Locke, or that most of the old white people wanted freedom for themselves from the British Empire, not for their slaves.
These people have been drinking too much of the Faux news water, I think they are very mad.
I true Libertarian would know that having a corporation behind your movement means you are no longer a Libertarian, you are a Plutocrat.
Lets start by making a new party, the Secular Humanist Rational Party For Liberty (Liberty for all, not just who you choose), where you have to think about things before you spout stupid shit.


No need for shame, NR, the teabagger movement has nothing to do with libertarianism. It was founded by old skool conservative republican, Dick Armey - which is apropos for a movement basically comprised of an army of angry, ignorant dicks. While conservatives use some of the same rhetoric as libertarians and share various economic views, the Tea Party thing is strictly a conservative movement.

Would that not then mean that ... Sarah Palin is Constitutionally prohibited from becoming ... President or Vice President of the United States of America?

Well - if you want to play the rhetorical game of strict denotative definitions - then "insurrection" would mean Barak Obama should be tossed out today. An insurrection is simply "resistance against civil authority or an established government", right? As a civil rights activist Obama as resisted the government. The entire Democrat resisted an established government during GWB. The Republicans are doing it right now under Obama. You know what? The more I think about it, the more I like this goofball textpert interpretation. It essentially means that NOBODY is allowed to run for political office. Throw them all out. Good riddance.

The teabagger movement ... was founded by old skool conservative republican, Dick Armey

It would be more accurate to say that Dick Armey supported the already existent Tea Party in the same way Democrats supported the anti-war movement. Under GWB, a grassroots movement got going that was opposed to the way the Iraq war was handled. This true representation of the national mood was aided and abetted by Democrats. Democrats "astroturfed" the bejeezus out of the anti-war movement. It was politically exigent, as well as a philosophical position they agreed with.

Republicans are trying to do the same thing with the Tea Party. The Tea Party is grassroots. It is filled with citizens who hate debt and deficits - who want balanced budgets & fiscal restraint at the federal level. It is Republicans, Independants, and even Democrats for whom sound fiscal policy is a critical issue. But Republicans for years flapped thier lips about fiscal conservatism (even though they don't practice it much). Of course the GOP is going to foster & foment a movement that they politically sympathize with.

The Tea Party movement is about fiscal conservatism. They want balanced budgets, reduced spending, and limited federal power. In that sense they agree with some libertarian principles, but aren't interested in the social policies that make the libertarian party such a collection of oddballs. Neither are they interested in the "Republican party" except as a vehicle to slam the brakes on Obama & Democrats. If the GOP thinks they can just use the Tea Party like a wet-wipe and then go on to be a bunch of fiscal idiots like Bush, then they will find the TP to be an unreliable ally.

Obama has never been a civil rights activist. He was a community organizer. He worked with local churches to revitalize chicago neighborhoods after local steel mills closed. Hardly an insurrection.

A political party that seeks independence of a state is not insurrection or rebellion. Insurrection or rebellion requires actually taking up arms. There is nothing you can possibly vote for that would count as an insurrection or rebellion. By voting, you're just exercising your rights under a democratic government.

I oppose felony disenfranchisement, especially when the felony is based on an unjust law, like marajuana traffic or an 18 year old going out with a 17 year old.

I don't think I'm too far off base to assert that the vast majority of folks, probably including a court of law, would find a large difference between:

1) an activist, who might even go so far as to march in the streets, against the order of civil authority, to protest laws perceived as unjust, hoping to persuade the nation to get said law removed or changed, but still remaining part of the nation that produced said law, and

2) a secessionist, who has decided that they and their whole State should simply be allowed to quit and leave the nation, no matter what the rest of that nation thinks about it.

One seeks to change the nation of which they're a part, and the other seeks to quit that nation, and take a significant chunk of that nation with it.

Also - indeed, merely seeking a vote might not necessarily be in and of itself an act of insurrection or rebellion, but the act of secession itself would, assuming of course that the rest of the nation wasn't inclined to go along. So, then, where does the difference lie? If 14, 49, 51, or even 99 percent of Alaskans voted to secede, and Congress and the rest of the nation wasn't inclined to go along, and if the Alaskans then pressed their case with force of arms (or even civil disobedience in that particular case), they'd pretty definitively be guilty of insurrection and/or rebellion. Trying to get a vote on an act of rebellion doesn't make it not rebellion. Even the original American Revolution was an out-and-out rebellion. We just happened to win, which I don't think Alaska would be able to pull off against the rest of the US.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, if the Palins and a tenth of a percent of Alaska want to go, let 'em. Maybe China will give 'em a state-sponsored home. The "secession" of a single family, whether it be the Palins, the Bushes, the Rockefellers, or the Kennedys, makes me no never mind in the grand scheme. Also, as far as I'm concerned, there are far more serious reasons to avoid having Sarah Palin in any high office.

However, if Alaska successfully left and took the Palins with them, that would then mean Palin was no longer a US Citizen, and thus again Constitutionally barred from most high offices, either State or Federal.

I'd pay money to see her try to re-immigrate though - she'd have to pass the Citizenship test, and I'll just bet they don't allow notes on your palm for that one.

Characterizing radical political advocacy as insurgency is exclusively characteristic of fascist and totalitarian governments.