Tea Party Nation Prez is attacking the Constitution

1. 59

   William R. Wilsonposted 13 years ago

   He wants to gut the 14th amendment, and get rid of the 16th, 17th, and 26th.
   
   He also discussed taking away voting rights for non property owners. 
   
   They keep showing their stripes: racists, working for the rich. 
   
   They make it so obvious - how people can continue to support them is beyond me.
   
   http://teapartynationalism.com/index.ph … Itemid=104

   replyreport
   1. 57

      C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      This site is deceptive. It leads one to believe it's a "Tea Party" site and it's not. It's just the opposite I believe.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         William R. Wilsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I don't see how it's deceptive at all.  Nationalism is not a good thing, so any site named blahblahnationalism.com is probably going to be critical of blahblah.

         replyreport
      2. 59

         Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         What's 'deceptive' is how fascists in costumes wave the American flag and purport to defend American values, while in fact  they undermine Social Security and Medicare and the entire concept of equal access to a quality education.  If one  ignores the innocent fools who have been shilled into the movement, the GOALS of the Tea Party movement are to promote the power of the wealthy.

         replyreport
         1. 57

            C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Funny, let's strip away all the rhetoric and lay it all out there.
            
            They don't think like you, so they are bad people who wish to destroy America.
            
            At some point Doug we are all going to have to be able to put all these ideas on the table and sort the good from the bad. The practicle and impracticle.

            replyreport
         2. 74

            Reality Bytesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Fascism  : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
            
            
            I never heard of a Tea Party member voice their support for a centralized autocratic government.
            
            I think you have it backwards!

            replyreport
            1. 72

               Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               "exalts nation and often race above the individual"
               You mean like the Tea Party exalts English-speaking Evangelical Christianity above the individual?
               
               "stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader"
               No, they prefer their unelected charismatic leader(s).
               
               "severe economic and social regimentation"
               The wealthy not only get to keep their money, but get to do whatever they want to do to get yours, without any oversight.
               
               "forcible suppression of opposition "
               Which tree do they want to water, and what do they mean to water it with?

               replyreport
               1. 74

                  Reality Bytesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  I forgot to post the link.
                  
                  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
                  
                  Sry!

                  replyreport
         3. 80

            Seafarer Mamaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I think  you have summed up the antics of the Tea Party, Doug Hughes...and  I think it is hard to have a reasonable conversation when the leaders of each prominent political use rhetoric that just throws smoke screens out and cannot give straight answers as to their plans. They say one thing so that we will vote for them and then do something entirely different when they are in office.
            
            The rich get to take our money because return policies on purchased items that one may want to return because they realize they have made a mistake in purchasing it is smaller and smaller, especially the biggest ticketed items.  There will be more of that with less rights for the average consumer!
            
            Our taxes should be protecting our rights, and our land, and the ecosystems that support our planet, but the planet is being stripped and those who want to protect it beg for money for doing the work our taxes should be doing. Where is that tax money going?

            replyreport
   2. 65

      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      These guys used to be crazy, fringe characters. They're still crazy.

      replyreport
   3. 62

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      At the very least, I can agree with repealing the 16th and 17th amendments.
      
      I'm surprised at such hatred towards "legally changing the constitution" vs the acceptance of "illegally changing the constitution".
      
      I suppose that's how Statists work! - contradictions left and right!

      replyreport
   4. 61

      dutchman1951posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      This site is a front for an organization that is anti-tea party, you would do beter to forget the tea party and Start looking at the Progressive Republicans and Democrats and what they are voting for.
      
      The Congress and Senate can do all of us the Most Dammage, The President is just a figure-head that proposes legislation or a plan he wants.
      
      It starts in the Congress, and those are the most dangerous to us as a people in the United States, reguardless of their Party. Thats where dammage starts, and we as a nation need to realise that first.

      replyreport
2. 75

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   It doesn't matter who sponsors the site. It matters what he's proposing.
   Well, this idea of only property owners having the right to vote is laughable (sort of). Of course he will also want to rescind voting rights of women and Blacks, as those were not explicitly spelled out in the original Constitution, either.
   In the meantime, this proposal wipes out the entire city (all 5 boroughs) of New York, as well as Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles ... I could go on and on.
   Does anyone REALLY think that all the people who live in urban APARTMENTS are going to sit back and let some hick take their right to vote away? Not gonna happen.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      On this I totally agree. To do this would be taxation without representation. However we have that now. The fourteenth ammendment allowed for the disenfranchisement of felons. This was a set up to disenfranchise African Americans. While I agree that some convicts give up their right to participate in society, not all convicted felons should fall under this category. The Fourteenth Ammendment was created for political expediency, not for social justice.

      replyreport
3. 76

   Uninvited Writerposted 13 years ago

   It's good when these people voice exactly what they want to propose so we know what their true aims are. Who in their right mind (no pun intended) would support him in this?

   replyreport
4. 60

   mikelongposted 13 years ago

   This site never claims to be a part of the Tea Party farcical bandwagon....

   replyreport
5. 57

   C.J. Wrightposted 13 years ago

   It was just a statement for clarification sake. There are people in the Tea Party movement that are for repealing the 14th Amendment. That desire has to do with the Citizenship Clause.
   
   The Fourteenth Amendment was primarily created to force states to recognize former slaves as US Citizens. It was done because the Federal Government was afraid the Supreme Court might rule the 1866 Civil Rights law unconstitutional.
   
   Now, I think we can all see that we are beyond that issue. So fast forward to today where we have people entering this Country "illegally" and having children. These children are citizens of the U.S. and are being used as "anchor babies". Some would argue that those children should not be citizens. Some would say that the 14th Amendment has served it's purpose and is no longer needed to protect those it was created for. In fact it may be hurting the country.

   replyreport
6. 75

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   Yes. And at the risk of being shot, I could state the same thing about the Second Amendment!

   replyreport
   1. 57

      C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      huh?

      replyreport
7. 75

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   To clarify, my last comment was in response to the idea that the 14th Amendment may no longer be needed and may be hurting this country.
   I'm saying ff we start unratifying one amendment, who gets to choose which one and then why not just get rid of all of them?

   replyreport
   1. 57

      C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks, but I see no comparison.

      replyreport
   2. 62

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      isn't that... like...
      
      ... y'know, outlined IN the constitution: the ratification process?

      replyreport
      1. 72

         Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Indeed. It's, like, really really hard to amend the Constitution. On purpose. So we can't, y'know, go amending it willy-nilly on the spur of the moment. A Constitutional Amendment is a big friggin' deal, and it should be.
         
         Though I find it funny that a guy backed by a movement that practically worships the Constitution as Holy Writ is agitating for changing the document around, even a little bit.

         replyreport
         1. 57

            C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Holy writ, anything after the original ten is suspect. Thats their view. Especially if written after the Civil War, but before Reconstruction.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Historically, much of the Constitution was written and being voted on before what we call the first 10 Amendments were written. They were added when the debate got heated and to procure ratification. So, the first 10, weren't really the first 10.

               replyreport
               1. 57

                  C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  The whole point is to understand the views of others. NOT JUST LABLE THEM AS EVIL, LIARS or IGNORANT.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     I thought the point was to understand the argument, its background and the validity of the points within. You can have a view that Smurfs are ruining the country. Why do I need to understand why you think Smurfs are bad. Smurfs don't exist. Just because someone has an opinion, doesn't make that opinion worth anything. However, the facts of the argument always are.

                     replyreport
         2. 62

            Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            No, it shouldn't be so strange that  person who respects the constitution would want to change it... IF he wants to do it through the processes outlined IN the constitution. This would still be "following" the constitution!!
            
            I would be more shocked if he amended the Constitution in the same way that it has been amended in the past 150 years or so - through judges over-stretching their authority; through federal legislation that makes a joke out of the 10th amendment; through executive orders that simply fly in the face of everything that the document stands for; or through the current submissive nature of the states.
            
            For example, the Health care bill that was passed was unconstitutional. But 1)the judges won't care, 2) the states don't seem to care 3) the president still signed the bill, and 4) the legislature obviously cares not for the 10th amendment. --- they amended the Constitution through unconstitutional means.
            
            If the tea partier in question were to suggest that these were the paths to amendment, then he should be shot in the face for hypocrisy.

            replyreport
8. 60

   mikelongposted 13 years ago

   "Anchor baby" has already been debunked...
   
   It is important not to forget (or to find out for the first time perhaps) that the 14th Ammendment also enabled Mexican Americans to gain the right to serve on a jury...the right to gain the same recognition that former slaves did...
   
   Hernandez v. Texas...
   
   It enabled Mexican Americans to gain voting protections....

   replyreport
   1. 57

      C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Anchor Babies debunked?
      
      In regards to Hernandez Vs Texas, that was simply clarifiying the "Equal Protection" Clause.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         "This is generally a false assumption, as immigration law does not allow a US citizen child to sponsor his/her parents until he/she turns 21. Once the child turns 18, immigration law also allows a US citizen child to sponsor his/her own siblings with a 15 to 23 year quota delay."
         
         Debunked.

         replyreport
         1. 57

            C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            way off base, the case was setting presidence. That Equal protection was extended to ethnic groups, not just race. It clarified that issue. I has NOTHING to do with "anchor babies"

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Tea Party members attack anchor babies, not Hernandez vs Texas. The thread is about anchor babies, as it began with the statement: Anchor babiy has already been debunked.". I was quoting from the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, not your precedent case. Anchor babies are a false argument. You don't get to sponsor your family until you turn 18, and have tons of provisions in order to make it work, like making 125% above the poverty threshold. So, nobody is rushing to America to have a kid so they can stay. That is a false argument, either a misrepresentation or again, like most others, people who don't understand making claims that they, again, don't understand.

               replyreport
9. 57

   C.J. Wrightposted 13 years ago

   While I don't think we need to repeal the 14th Ammendment. I do think it could be ammended to remove the loophole regarding immigration.

   replyreport
10. 60

    mikelongposted 13 years ago

    I understand....
    
    And yes...debunked...
    
    The anchor-baby concept believes that women intend to come to the U.S. illegally and have children..its part of a plan to "anchor" themselves in this nation....
    
    This phenomena is unfounded....and I have seen it researched..
    
    Instead of perpetuating tripe, how about going to the heart of the matter....
    
    Why don't we understand the forces bringing undocumented populations in...
    
    -Women are brought in from Thailand to live in a southern California suburban prisons, forced to make clothing later to be sold in Target stores, at J.C. Pennies and Macys with "Made in China" or "Made in Thailand" tags....
    
    In many cases recruiters go out to different nations promising jobs, not talking about criminality, and people are unaware of what is to come....
    
    -Women smuggled in for prostitution........and what of their "anchor-babies"?
    
    How about discussing an important issue like immigration reform with actual thought....using real information and imagery...instead of propogating the same old ridiculous characterizations and stereotypes....
    
    Either its the "anchor baby" or the "mule".....in each case the undocumented (which are almost always characterized as the ambiguous "Mexican") are always carrying something to "be afraid" (be very afwaid) of....
    
    -Marijuana...right (although the U.S. is the world's largest producer)
    
    -Anchorbabies
    
    -"Mexican Flu"
    
    -Drug Violence (while ignoring that the same things we are seeing now in Mexico and the U.S. are the same things that Prohibition caused in the early 20th century)..also ignoring that it is Americans who are profiting on both ends...(research the history of the Zeta, Sinaloa, and other cartels...where did they get their training and motivation?)
    
    What will the "fear" be of next?
    
    How about looking at the corporate/governmental forces that are driving immigration?

    replyreport
    1. 57

       C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       I simply offered real arguments for wanting the 14th Amendment repealed or ammended. Instead you seem to be making me the poster child for a movement I'm not even a part of. Strange. It's important to UNDERSTAND, not just lable.

       replyreport
    2. 57

       C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Besides, all of what you are mentioning is against US and  International Law, regarding "Traficing in Persons", even Bush supported this.

       replyreport
11. 74

    Reality Bytesposted 13 years ago

    Perhaps it is time to hold a Constitutional Convention?

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       It would never work now days. The size of the population and the 24 new media prevent it. The first time, and the second...it was in secret, where the majority of the country wasn't even aware it was going on. Try that today. It would never work. Plus, you have the conservatives who want all or nothing. No chance.

       replyreport
12. 60

    mikelongposted 13 years ago

    It is only illegal if someone is paying attention....
    
    And then, the only one "illegal" is the one who is criminalized...
    
    I hear anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric all the time, but nothing (from these same sources) going after Walmart, J.C. Pennies, or the numerous other businesses that knowingly use undocumented labor....
    
    And of course....those Meg Whitman types....I have known a few myself...
    
    Don't take my tripe comment personally... I am speaking towards those who perpetuate the myth...if you don't then you are not the target..

    replyreport
13. 65

    Ralph Deedsposted 13 years ago

    Mike Lee, the new Tea Party Senator from Utah, who defeated longtime GOP Senator Bob Bennett wants to
    
    -dismantle the Education and HUD departments as unconstitutional
    -phase out Social Security
    -repeal the 16th Amendment (authorized the progressive income tax)
    -repeal the 17th Amendment (provides for direct election of senators rather than by state legislatures)
    -end federal "occupation" of state land (wilderness areas)
    -allow states to "nullify" federal statutes with which they disagree, e.g., health care reform
    -tear down the wall separating church and state
    
    Fellow Mormon, W. Cleon Skousen, whose 1981 book inspired Glenn Beck, contributed to Mike Lee's political beliefs. "Skousen was a vocal supporter of the John Birch Society who argued that a dynastic cabal, including international bankers like the Rockefellers and J.P. Morgan, conspired to manipulate both communism and Fascism to promote a one-world government."
    
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/magaz … f=magazine

    replyreport
    1. 74

       Reality Bytesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       
       
       Did he forget the Rothschilds?

       replyreport
       1. 65

          Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          I'm sure he didn't.

          replyreport
          1. 74

             Reality Bytesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             It sounds like the truth to me then!

             replyreport
             1. 65

                Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Spoken like a true Bircher or follower of Lyndon LaRouche.

                replyreport
                1. 74

                   Tim_511posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   Its kind of hard to be both a committed follower of a capitalist and a communist at the same time!

                   replyreport
                   1. 65

                      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      I haven't studied them but my impression is that LaRouche and the Birchers had quite a bit in common.

                      replyreport
    2. 57

       C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       I'm all for this one:
       dismantle the Education and HUD departments as unconstitutional
       
       This one too: phase out Social Security
       
       This is a bad idea: repeal the 16th Amendment (authorized the progressive income tax)
       
       Again a bad idea: repeal the 17th Amendment (provides for direct election of senators rather than by state legislatures)
       
       All for this one as well:
       end federal "occupation" of state land (wilderness areas)
       
       This one would take carefull planning:
       allow states to "nullify" federal statutes with which they disagree, e.g., health care reform
       
       What wall?. tear down the wall separating church and state

       replyreport
       1. 0

          Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          So we eliminate public education? Yeah. Great idea. Then again, I suppose you would have to have an ignorant populace to agree with the rest of the ideas. I see your motivation.

          replyreport
          1. 57

             C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             I'm all for doing away with public education as it exist today. If the public is going to pay for education. Ideas like "No Child Left Behind" or "Every Child, Every Day, College Bound" simply are impracticle and WASTEFULL. If we want socialized education, then lets adopt full european style public education.

             replyreport
    3. 62

       Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       I can agree with this man! Wish I could vote for Mike Lee!

       replyreport
       1. 60

          Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Is there a voting shack in your neck 'o the woods?

          replyreport
14. 60

    S Leretsehposted 13 years ago

    The 14th and the 15th Amendments are both technically illegal, achieved only because republicans expelled the democrats, and dissolved the southern states.  The  republicans then forced submission to both Amendments before allowing the southern states to reentry into the Union.
    
    Today, the 14th is a lawsuit bonanza. No amendment has been mined more than that one.
    
    
    The problem you spoiled Americans have is RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU LOOK:
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 … udget.html 
    
    When u click on "mandatory Spending" you can see there is NO WAY OUT for you.  You crazy Americans used the 14th Amendment to create forced integration(1964) and then forced multi culturalism (1965), feel-good social engineering experiments.  You then bankrolled it with cradle-to-grave socialism - more feel-good laws - based on a tax base that did not, and does not today, exist.  Hence the BORROWING...
    
    Revolutions have always been launched and won by a determined few.  The Tea Party seems to be very determined bunch.
    
    The American system is completely broke - both a verb and an adjective. How long do you spoiled Americans think you can bully people, domestically and internationally, into accepting your worthless fiat paper?!
    
    My advice to U Americans is to start fattening up.  You're going to need that girth when your food distribution system collapses.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       ...coming from the racist. I suggest everyone read this cat's statement page upon every entry he places. So where are you from then? You sound like a basic American racist from Kentucky. I had figured you were. So, where is it? Germany?

       replyreport
       1. 60

          S Leretsehposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Now, now tex, you must be peeved  becuz I inferred you were a little on the simple side in your two Keith-Olbermann -wannabe- Hubs (I actually expected U to delete them. U sure U want people here reading them?).  RELAX.  You’ve only produced FOUR hubs.  You must have writer’s block dude. C’mon, focus.  Here’s a thought.  It’s coming up upon Christmas time.  Surely you can find something about those of the Christian  faith to mock, ridicule or scorn.
          
          As for me tex, I have never said, inferred or implied any one racial  or ethnic group is superior to that of another.  Ergo, I am no racist.  I regard one male group demanding integration rights into another male (black into white), something never witnessed before in human history  - as  I stated on my profile page - to be the 8th wonder of the world.  I believe it deserves to be explained - without guilt or condemnation to the group on the receiving end.  I think anyone who reads my hubs can see there is nothing divisive.  I am writing the evolution of integration in a different way then they’re accustomed to reading. 
          
          Finally, I regard civil rights laws to be a ‘states rights’ prerogative.  Anyone capable of reading and comprehending the American Constitution can see my perspective is the correct one.

          replyreport
       2. 59

          Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Tex - I took you up on the suggestion. Here's a quote from S Lereseh -
          
          "I am referring to the plea, which ultimately became a demand, on the part of the black race in America from 1865 to 1968  to "integrate" with the white race. All of human history suggests a male group (males racially, linguistically and religiously similar) always desires separation when forced under the hegemony of another male group, so as to establish, or maintain, their own identity, and also empowerment over the lives of their people (e.g. Amish, Mormon, American Indians).  Again, this was a norm established throughout human history. In America, however, this did not happen with the black race. My Hubs related to integration (and almost all will be related to integration)..."
          
          BTW, I am not sure if I had  a grand total of ONE follower after 8 months and 15 hubs,  I would throw stones at anyone with a HS 20 points higher... Tex - a suggestion - some people are only worth ignoring - certainly none of your friends ( it's to your credit  no  racists are not among them) wants to see you pull down a ban - even a 3-day ban in an argument with someone even the teabaggers (mostly) would reject.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             S Leretsehposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Doug, I am an Ideologue.  I won't apologize for that. I’m also NOT interested in “followers”.  I state that in fact in my profile (right there at the top - can‘t miss it).
             
             BTW, I found your FIVE hubs illuminating.  Keep up the good work. And yeah, the Tea Party would mostly likely reject my interpretation of America’s great “experiment”.

             replyreport
          2. 0

             Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             You are probably correct. Anyone who wants to re-integrate the races in America, basically gets a "bad person" title from me. You can't listen to a tax policy position from a guy wearing a white hood; it just doesn't matter what they think. Anyone from that perspective negates their points with their fundamental intent.
             Leretseh- you've never answered where you are from. Here, I am from Dallas, TX. What about you?

             replyreport
             1. 0

                Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Sorry, I wrote that incorrectly. "Anyone who wants to segregate the races in America, basically gets a "bad person" title from me.

                replyreport
15. 86

    I am DB Cooperposted 13 years ago

    I regularly participate in discussions on my local newspapers website, and the anti-non-landowners sentiment seems to be common among tea partiers. They are constantly trying to argue that people who rent in the city shouldn't be allowed to vote on things like school budgets because they don't pay school taxes because they don't own property. It's such an absurd argument because tax rates will affect rent prices, so everybody pays when the tax goes up. Their lack of a basic understanding of economic principles can be infuriating, because they are trying to use a point-of-view that is based on ignorance of the issue to limit the rights of others.

    replyreport
    1. 72

       Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Their rent will almost certainly not go down when the taxes go away.

       replyreport
16. 60

    mikelongposted 13 years ago

    Wow...I suppose Leretseh is presuming that the U.S. was better off when racism was an institution.....when the fraud of "separate but equal" was "doing a great job"? Right?
    
    Those darn "feel good" laws...Civil Rights.....
    
    Lunacy runs amok......

    replyreport
    1. 57

       C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Think he was talking about how the law can be exploited for monetary gain?

       replyreport
    2. 65

       Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       I don't think he's playing with a full deck.

       replyreport