The really frightening thing about this is the blatant contempt this demonstrates for the Fourth Estate. Say what you will about our press, but “the press” — if you’ll pardon the sweeping generalization in this time of partisan journalism — is our watch dog, our first line of defense.
Politicians are more apt to act in honest and honorable (please don’t laugh) ways with the ever present eye of the press peering over their shoulder.
The press is the average citizen’s window into the wider world. The actions recorded in this video demonstrate, with concrete certainty, that the public no longer has the right to know what goes on at the “People’s House.” Or in this case in front of the People’s House.
There hasn’t been a president to occupy the White House in my entire adult life that hasn’t made me angry over some “this or that,” but NEVER have I feared the man who held the office. I never feared that they didn’t have the best interest of the country at heart, even if they were occasionally “misguided idiots”. Some more often than others to be sure. Tonight, however, as I watched that video, I was… fearful.
The current administration doesn’t give a flying [expletive deleted] about what “we” think, and they don’t give a flying [expletive deleted] that we know they don’t. In fact, one could posit that this was a calculated demonstration: The gloves are off and this is no longer the America “of record.”
After all, as expressed on the video: It’s one thing to chase off “the public,” but it’s something entirely different to chase off the press. In order to do THAT, there has to be a really, really, really extraordinary reason. An extraordinary reason that is generally accepted as being extraordinary and the reasons for the extraordinary nature clearly defined… and stated openly for any and all to hear [or read].
The only thing I’m holding out hope for is that there is an extraordinary reason for the actions documented in this video. It’s not a great deal of hope, but perhaps… just perhaps… there is a valid reason. The rational grown up in me says there isn’t, but the naive idealist says there MUST be. PLEASE LET THERE BE.
How do we process the accusation of “sedition — almost” [my term] tossed out by Joe Klein April 18th?
“I did a little bit of research just before this show – it’s on this little napkin here. I looked up the definition of sedition which is conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of the state. And a lot of these statements, especially the ones coming from people like Glenn Beck and to a certain extent Sarah Palin, rub right up close to being seditious.”
I don’t know about anyone else but I, proud Tea Party Enfant, agree with Mr. Klein on the “rub right up close” bit. At least in a general – “rub right up close” kinda way. And, again, perhaps just me, but I find that particular turn of phrase somewhat – salacious. “Salacious Sedition“… it has a pleasingly concordant ring to it, especially in my symmetry loving, overly fond of alliteration, mind.
But back to my topic:
I’m new to the Tea Party movement, though I’ve been a staunch Libertarian for a couple of decades now. And, I admit, I have a wee bit of the rebellious Anarchist deep down in my soul that peaks out every now and again, usually when my government presumes to be able to disallow me something or otherwise infringes upon my Unalienable Right of my pursuit of happiness.
One of those “pursuits of happiness” I hold precious is my Right of Free Speech, and I tend to get right het up about any — and all — attempts at curbing that constitutionally guaranteed Right. Even speech I find infuriating in all its “wrong-headedness.” That said, I also have a well developed appreciation for that decades old Rushism – “words have meaning.”
Some of the rhetoric being tossed casually about does “rub right up close to being seditious” in my very non-expert opinion. But “rubbing right up close” is not the same thing as being seditious. And until itis seditious, it’s constitutionally guaranteed Free Speech.
To belabor the point: I always cringe internally when I hear or read the phrase “the world can support [insert any of various figures from 500,000 to 2 billion] people.” Turn that phrase around and it means we have X number of excess people for the world to be “healthy.” The reason I cringe internally is because I’ve long worried that one day some environmental nut-job is going to attempt to rid the earth of the “excess” 4 billion+ people.
Does the concern that there might be some environmental nut-job out there mean that we should demand, and legally enforce, that all speech on over population cease? Should we have banned Professor James Lovelock and his beliefs, protecting the fringe nut-jobs from his potentially dangerous beliefs? Let me be presumptuous and answer that: No.
Galileo was once viewed as a danger to the authorities of his day. Gandhi was once viewed as a danger to the authorities of his day. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King was once viewed as a danger to the authorities of his day. I’m not saying that the Tea Party is equal to these great men of history. I’m saying that perspective can be nothing more than a reflection of the needs of the authorities, or those who feel compelled to protect the authorities.
But we, the Grand Collective We, are not here to serve the needs of the authorities, despite what they may think to the contrary. They are here to serve us, despite what they may think to the contrary.
And when the Grand Collective We are unhappy with their service, we are constitutionally protected in our right to passionately express our displeasure and disagreement. Even former First Lady, former Senator, current Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton agrees with me…
Senator Hillary Clinton 2003: “I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, ‘WE ARE AMERICANS AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEBATE AND DISAGREE WITH ANY ADMINISTRATION!’ “ [My thanks to Rush Limbaugh]
American politics can be “a bit raucous” at times, and always has been. Frankly, I wouldn’t have it any other way. Thomas Jefferson once said that lethargy was the forerunner of the death of public liberty. True when Senator Clinton spoke the above words back in 2003 and true today.
So, while I actually do agree with Mr. Klein’s general point, it’s a point we freedom loving, constitutionally protected, Americans live with. The fact that dissent is sometimes dangerous is nothing new. If we took the coward’s way out in an attempt to protect us from the potential of inflaming the nut-jobs we would just repeal the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
It was the “taking the coward’s way out” that our Founding Fathers specifically and purposely unambiguously protected against in the First Amendment. It is also probably not a casual happenstance that freedom of speech is within the First Amendment. They knew that free speech can be a dangerous thing and all too tempting a thing for a government [in the hazy future of all those years ago] to want to disallow.
Of course, there is always the Jaded Snark in me who is quietly wondering if this is simply a tactic change up because the “Racist, homophobic, misogynist, ignorant, hate-filled” tactic has been so roundly demonstrated as false. I pat that internal Jaded Snark within on the head and remind her, gently, that I too invoked [elsewhere on the net] the memory of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building bombing in my defense of the FBI’s raid on the Hutaree the day after it occurred, long before President Clinton made the public connection.
“By all means keep fighting, by all means, keep arguing,” he [President Clinton] said. “But remember, words have consequences as much as actions do, and what we advocate, commensurate with our position and responsibility, we have to take responsibility for. We owe that to Oklahoma City.”
Unlike some who stand in opposition to the current Democratic agenda and the direction President Obama is taking this country, I believe it’s a valid and natural connection… and reminder. But what do I know… I also believe Professor Lovelock’s statements should come with a “Nut-job disclaimer.”
When I was a young teenager I attended a small Southern church with Pentecostal leanings, my “little experiment” with Christianity. My best friend at the time happened to be a Catholic and one weekend that she was spending with me I suggested we attend the church.
Not having been raised in any sort of religion, and not having any real experience with the differences between Christian denominations and the sometimes strong feelings of disapproval for “the others,” I was completely taken aback when told that she was not allowed to attend a church of a different denomination. I may have been taken aback by the “not allowed” but I was stunned and bewildered to learn that it would be a “sin” for her to do so.
[...]Jason Levin, creator of http://www.crashtheteaparty.org, said Monday the group has 65 leaders in major cities across the country who are trying to recruit members to infiltrate tea party events for April 15—tax filing day, when tea party groups across the country are planning to gather and protest high taxes.
“Every time we have someone on camera saying that Barack Obama isn’t an American citizen, we want someone sitting next to him saying, ‘That’s right, he’s an alien from outer space!’” Levin said.
[...]Levin says they want to exaggerate the group’s least appealing qualities, further distance the tea party from mainstream America and damage the public’s opinion of them. [Emphasis added]
How very like the Catholic church of my long ago best friend. Mustn’t allow the exposure of “the flock” to a message that might be counter to approved dogma. Not only is hearing a message from “the other” to be discouraged, it must be demonized. “The Flock” must be convinced that the “teachings of the other” is a vile and defiling thing to be shunned for fear of “infection.”
Mr. Levin’s own little Grand Inquisition. He has determined the “truth” and he wishes to do his part to make sure anyone who doesn’t believe the same “truth” is viewed as heretical — even if he has to manufacture the “evidence.” Also not unlike the Catholic Church of old in its pursuit of heretical thinkers. All in the name of “protecting” those deemed too stupid to be trusted to judge the truth for themselves… or come to it upon fair and informed consideration.
If I were a Democrat or Liberal I would be highly insulted by Mr. Levin’s assumptions. By his actions and planned actions he is saying to all the world that Democrats and Liberals are too stupid to risk being exposed to what he views as heresy. He doesn’t want any of the flock lost. A “good shepherd” protects the flock…or the sheeple…
… just ask the Catholic church.
Ultimately, Mr. Levin is doing the Tea Party a favor. You see, there are a few that have been drawn to the Tea Party that are a liability to its image when it comes to building a movement large enough to be the force that shapes the political future over the next few years. Now, with Mr. Levin and his “leaders”… eh… fellow sheeple shepherds…. it will be all the easier to dismiss and distance that small element, because now we will always be able to say: It’s not the Tea Party [and, it really isn't] it’s Mr. Levin and gang if or when someone’s political passions are displayed in anything other than 100% political correctness.
Honestly, I didn’t give the crash the tea party website any credence when I first came upon it. I figured it was actually a Tea Partier showing a bit of pro-active imagination by laying the groundwork for a convenient place to point a finger. It’s kinda funny when you think about it: a Tea Partier pretending to be an activist pretending to be a Tea Partier.
It’s going to be very interesting in the political arena the next two years.
