I don't understand!?? What the hell, America. You WANT to give up your freedom? You want the government to step on the constitution? I'm just baffled.

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, June 12th, 2013 5:31am PDT - promote requested by deedub81.

Most people just don't get it...there attitude is "I'm not doing anything wrong so why should I care?".

Oh Ron Paul.... You were our only hope...

Also: who the hell are all those people staring into the camera behind Piers Morgan?
EDIT: Ah, nevermind. I see at the end there: trained parrots.

i'm not sure having ron paul publicly on your side is a great thing.
not that he isn't right on many things, he's just been successfully portrayed as a loon.

really, the way to garner support these days is to find good looking actors who sound sincere.

Our government Chairman Mao approves of this.

We need the Tea Party more than ever.

This has been going on since 2001 and probably earlier. The tea party is nothing more than a front for the koch brothers and although they may have some good ideas they don't operate independently. Also, I think the average tea partier gladly gave up these rights during the run up to war.

I don't disagree about the snooping since 2001. As far as the koch brothers and the Tea Party, you don't know what the fuck your talking about.

They just want the Constitution follow or at least print current laws back towards it.

Instead of watching biased Democratic sucking media, go to an actual event .

They are not raciest, or the desire to go back to slavery as the media puts forth. . That's Bullshit. B.W.Y. the slavery shit and the KKK was the Democrat south doing its thing, not Republicans. MLK was Republican.


Today the Republican party is nothing more than a cheap intimation of the Democrat party. They will never win fighting that way. The Tea Party is they way to go.


FYI a little history ... Since you had a public education and hence only learned skewed left leaning revised history...


http://www.humanevents.com/2006/08/16/why-martin-luther-king-was-republican/

"
It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.

During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman’s issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act... And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican.

The Democrats were loosing the slavery battle and civil rights were breaking through and JFK/Johnson the

Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon’s 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation’s fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.

Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans."


Democrats are still in the slavery business. They just use the welfare system to keep the poor poor and use the shallow promise of If you vote Democrat we will keep giving you a little cheese.

The Democrat party has been the most destructive political party to date.

Can't quite believe so many think these exceptions to the 4th was all fine and dandy. Ok, the consitution isnt some sacred truth handed down from God himself but surely this bit is more relevant today than when it was written? America so busy spreadin "freedom" and "democracy" maybe they got none left no more?

Its cliched and all but, you do this and the terrorists win yo.

i know this is rare but im with @bobknight33 in regards to the tea party.

when you understand how power reacts to social movements things become clear.

1.they ignore you
if that is unsuccessful?
2.they ridicule you.
and if creating a narrative that your movement is either a.batshit crazy or b.dumb as a box of rocks they
3.co-opt you

which is what the koch brothers did with americans for prosperity (sorry bob.these two douchebags dont give one fuck about you or your ideals)
and it was quite effective in taking all that frustration,anger and a desire to get the country back on track,and funneling that energy into the political process.
it worked extremely well.

but what many people do not know is that those who were co-opted were not EVERY person who identified as a tea partier,
many of those people saw what was going on and went in another direction.

you do not hear about them often because they do not have a few billionaires bankrolling the media to follow them around.

the occupy movement was treated in the exact same order.but they never got co-opted because they were set up in a much more amorphous and democratic way which made co-opting near impossible.
so the occupy movement made it to step:
4.intimidate,threaten and strong-arm.

a systematic tactical engagement to disperse the occupying people in the major cities where they were protesting.

and it worked.

but occupy is still around as is the tea party.
corporate media is just not covering them.

so this is the point i wish everybody to consider:

do you REALLY think the tea party was stupid,bigoted and a fundamental christian?
or that occupy was populated with unwashed hippies who didnt want to work but wanted the government to supply free food and strippers for all?

or is it more reasonable to assume that maybe a corporate media which is beholden to power created a narrative to set people against one another?

because ill tell ya what.
a tea party person has more in common with an occupy person than a wall street ceo or somebody at the white house.

there will be another movement.
and its gonna go global.
and i fear it will go to some very dark places that will be remembered for a long time in history.

people are waking up and they are not pleased.

nah, the Tea Party loses all credibility when they argue that they're for responsible spending and completely ignore Bush/Cheney's war-mongering.

When you bitch about spending and ignore the guy who got us in debt in the first place then you're deserving of zero respect

If they had shown up during the beating of the war-drums you might have a leg to stand on, but they didn't, so you don't.

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

― Benjamin Franklin, Memoirs of the life & writings of Benjamin Franklin

@enoch

Ignore Bob, he put soo much stuff BS in that post that it would take me forever to unravel it. For some reason he wants to prove that Democrats are fundamentally wrong and have always been that way. He's choosing his targets wrong, it's not about Democrats or Republicans.

Now on the Tea Party, I more or less agree with this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2zYaKXeyXE

I'm all for occupy, I'm all for the tea party, I just want the Tea Party to educate themselves a bit better because they're being distracted by powerful interests.

@Yogi
exactly my man.

and i agree with you @VoodooV.
ignorant people are ignorant.
my point is that it is not ALL of them.

i can disagree with the politics of the tea party but i will not dismiss them.
at least not the ones co-opted by the koch brothers.
who are obvious when they enter discussions by the very words and terms they use to make their argument.

now THOSE people i dismiss.

@enoch

Watch the video that was the point. We should be helping those in the Tea Party, getting them the right information and bringing them together to protest who's really at fault. A lot of them are being fed BS and that is only going to harm them in the end.

They all have legitimate grievances, those should be addressed. Not the ones about FEMA Concentration camps or Death Panels.

@Yogi
chomsky ftw.
says it so much better than i ever could.

I have to ask, do we really understand what this really means and why. I've found myself quoting this in response to security arguments and never thought to truly wonder it. It reminds me of the old "If you chase two rabbits, you will lose them both" saying. But even that taken too literally can be disproved. Why does giving up liberty in the hopes to gain security result in losing both?

I'm not saying Franklin is wrong, but the reality is that the definitions of liberty and security change over time and.its another example of trying to address a complex subject with a simplistic saying.

The founders were extremely intelligent and wise, but they aren't divine and they certainly can't predict the future.

No Piers, Ron Paul couldn't have won.

But yeah, I love his question to Paul, "If you had been elected, would it be any different" And the answer is, nope, it wouldn't

Did you forget the poll Piers just showed you, the majority are ok with this, Mr. Paul

And again, we have this idiotic binary logic:

Is he a hero or is he a traitor? He's neither!!

Tea Party wants to re-segregate the schools, ban evolution, deny birth control, make woman as subject to his husband, make homosexualism illegal, deny any actions towards cleaner environment, throw illegal aliens from the country, make bible as the law and ban all other religions, not to mention atheists.. They are the most bigoted, hatefilled group of ignoramuses if you wan't to sum it up. It is christian group and has very little to do about making USA a better place for all. It has a LOT to do with making the middle class vanish and re-instating white man as the absolute ruler of earth.

@CreamK thank you so much for making my point for me.
very awesome of you!

Watched the Chomsky video and yeah, I think it sums it up nicely. It's not that that they don't have legitimate complaints. The problem is:

1. Their solution (answer as Chomsky put it) is not grounded in education or reality.
2. Because of their origins, their credibility is almost nil. They pretend they are grass roots but there is evidence of corporate influence to maintain the status quo. So who is really talking here? Angry People with legitimate complaints or their corporate puppetmasters? The timing of their introduction is suspect. They hate gov't spending, but they didn't seem to mind when Bush took us to TWO unnecessary wars and they didn't come on the scene until immediately after the black democrat took office. We get it that they don't like Obama, but when you start complaining and blaming him before the guy even has a chance to get settled into office, it's a little suspicious and makes you look dishonest.

Oh and any time someone says they want "strict adherence to X" Regardless of the X, including the Constitution, that usually means they're afraid of critical thinking.

The constitution is a living changing document....and the founders wanted it that way. It's why they included those pesky things called amendments

Ambassador Wooooolsey....Towing the party-line of "Create the problem, provide the solution." Some people simply need to be kicked in the face with their own bullshit...

Fuck Morgan, he demands his guests answer his bullshit questions and recoils from the same courtesy in every interview he orchestrates. The only way to deal with a choad like this is to over-shout him and disrupt his program....Like Alex Jones does so well-Someone needs to shut this errand-boy's shit down-I know, how about everyone stop watching CNN (or all television altogether)...only way to kill this pieces of shit like this-IGNORE them with your time and money.

Bobknight's post is a great example of missing the point.

In that entire historical diatribe about how the Democratic Party is bad because of it's history he manages to completely ignore the ideas that formed the basis of the parties.

Hey Bob, if you read this let me ask you something. Do you really think the label "Democratic Party" has any meaning in the historical context you're so painfully trying to cite?

Do you think that the old south was full of liberals, or do you think the old south was conservative as ever and just the LABELS of what the party means changed?

Here's a history lesson for you, pal. The Democratic Party was started in the south as a conservative anti-federal, anti-government party. Sounds just like the south today. Sounds a lot like the republican party doesn't it?

Everything you criticize and ascribe to the "Democratic Party" you're laying the blame on the conservatives.

The democrats were the conservatives. Understand what that means?

The south didn't change, only the label of the party did. The republicans of the 19th century? They were the legacy of Hamilton's federalists, the industrialists, the northern bankers, supporters of strong central government, just the type of people you hate.

So when you condemn the democratic party history, you sound like an idiot coming from a conservative anti-federal government point of view. You're condemning the ancestors to your own movement.

You could call it the green party, or the birthday party for all it matters, it's the IDEAS that count.

The democrats were wrong in 1860 not because they were democrats, but because they were backward thinking, rural, anti-union, state rights supporters who plunged the whole country into a bloody war because they couldn't wake up and smell the 20th century coming.

Sounds like you'd get along with them famously! Doesn't it?

The problem with the Tea Party isn't who buys their bus rides, it's that, like you, they don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

If anyone every utters the phrase "if I'm doing nothing wrong, I have nothing to hide" ask them how much they earn.

Then ask them when was the last time they had sex, with whom, what position, did their partner achieve orgasm and what's their favourite dirty sex secret.

They have nothing to hide. They're bound to tell you.

Famous Ronald Reagan quote (who was once a Democrat) " "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me".

They're stuck on this romantic idea that they are in the same party as Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was a Republican, So they're a Republican. Lincoln was arguably the greatest president we ever had, so obviously if they're in the same party as Lincoln, they're great too...right? right?

Doesn't matter that if Lincoln were alive today, he'd align more with Democrats. He certainly couldn't win an election as a Republican today. Same thing with Reagan.

I know a guy at work just like him. It just simply doesn't seem to matter how many despicable things current Republicans do that he admits he disagrees with. He admits Romney, Palin, and Bachmann and etc are idiots. He's just been completely indoctrinated to believe that Republicans are always the good guys and Democrats are always the bad guys. You can just tell how frustrated he is because of how he can't reconcile the conflict.

He's a closet Democrat (or at the very least an independent), but he's just so completely stuck on the "Reps good, Dems bad" indoctrination. It was how he was raised. Too afraid of pissing off his parents and just never questioned authority.

It's truthiness at its worst. He's clinging to an idea that doesn't exist anymore.

The names are irrelevant. Good ideas always eventually rise to the top and bad ideas eventually fall. May take forever and have lots of setbacks on the way. Fast forward another couple hundred years and even if the names "Democrat" and "Republican" still exist as parties, you're an idiot if you think they'll mean exactly the same thing as they do now.