I think it's ironic that the majority of the health care protestors look old enough to be on Medicare but scream bloody murder about government involvment in health care.

I read recently that 40% of republicans weren't aware that Medicare is a government program.

I also don't consider shouting down speaker to be the exercise of free speech.

The only "hate" being expressed is the hatred of watching the perfect stoem of obama, reid, and pelosi trying to rush thru legislation trying to fix a "broken" healthcare system, all the while without telling us exactly what is broken about it and what in 1000 plus pages of legal jargon will fix it. All they will create is another government agency that will employ another 250,000 government lemmings, and somehow this will be cheaper. Please give us details oh enlightened savior. The "hate" is for the charade that is trying to be implemented before being openly detailed and debated. Yes I "hate" the government implementing another social program that will cost 10 times more than originally conceived (see social security, medicare). Fix the current social programs before trying to implement and even bigger and costlier one, and then perhaps you will feel the "love".

> I also don't consider shouting down
> speaker to be the exercise of free speech.

What if all these town halls were being hosted by sincere, compassionate representatives who felt the best way to improve America would be to move all the black people back to Africa? Would you surprised, let alone offended, to see them shouted down?

Of course not.

Listen, the people who are coming to these meetings ready to shout are having their lives threatened by their politicians, and they fucking-well know it. Government takeover of health care is not a gentle suggestion from compassionate, well-intentioned people which we should all discuss with extended pinkies and crossed legs.

I'm really pleased that Amy understands this, i.e.:

> Aren't these protesters just people
> voicing their displeasure at government?

Sit down. Shut up. Die.

Not happening, Mr President, sir. If that's hate, report me, JoJo. The last time I took a civics class, our representatives were supposed to represent us, not cram through something written by lobbyists and unread by human eyes just so some politician could claim victory.

Look, it's really simple.

The media have been in bed with the far-left wing of the progressive Democrats for decades. They finally have the vehicles in place to enact socialism and even communism on a broad scale in the United States.

Anyone who opposes them is either "acting against their own interest" or "acting out because of their hatred of our black president".

I was among the many who warned people — you vote for this man (Obama) and you will be called a racist the instant you disagree with him. He and his followers positioned themselves to frame any dissent from his political positions as a racist reaction to the man himself.

To quote Limbaugh: "See, I told you so."

Or to put it in language the 52% would understand: "How's my ass taste?"

Will they include Cindy Sheehan?

The problem with a lot of the more rowdy protesters is that they're not bringing up points, they are just trying to disrupt things to prevent an actual discussion from happening. Not always, obviously, but it seems that there's large groups of people just chanting the pledge of allegiance of something just to speak over the speaker.

Can we all agree that bringing big ass guns isn't something that encourages free speech? I'm not talking about the small side arms, but the giant semi-automatics strapped across the back. That seems to be purely for the purpose of intimidation. If it's not, then I really see no relation to the healthcare issue. People like me see yelling and giant guns on angry people, that’s where the idea of “all of these hateful protesters” gets started.

Having a couple of reporters talk about racism/race issues doesn't mean that the President of the United States is somehow trying to subjugate or shut up all white people as racists.

I think it's ironic that the majority of the health care protestors look old enough to be on Medicare but scream bloody murder about government involvment in health care.

It's probably true... because that's one of the groups that best knows just how much Medicare sucks. Why do you think it is that there are all these ads for companies selling "Medigap" coverage? Because Medicare is a half-assed program with half-assed coverage. It hardly ever comes close to covering what private insurance covers. And the rules and paperwork are a nightmare for health care providers. Are you aware that most practitioners don't accept Medicare? My dad's on Medicare, and there are only three GP's in town he can go to, and this is in a low cost of living area. As for the paperwork... if you want to see something that's a complete joke, Google "Medicare diagnosis codes".

I read recently that 40% of republicans weren't aware that Medicare is a government program.

Pray tell, where did you read that? DU? Even Kos knows better. Medicare being a government program is precisely the touch point for the Republicans. Imagine Medicare, 1000 times bigger, and with Medigap coverage banned... it's a slam dunk for the opponents. Your life in the hands of a gigantic, national DMV! Hey, what's not to like?

I also don't consider shouting down speaker to be the exercise of free speech.

I'm not crazy abuot that part either, but a lot of the time it's because the meetings were set up to not allow opponents to speak. A public forum where only one side is allowed to speak isn't exactly capiche with the First Amendment either. Don't forget, the whole idea of these so-called town halls is that they are supposed to be glorified campaign appearances, with everything carefully scripted and all questions pre-screened. Having actual citizens ask actual questions was not supposed to be on the agenda. That's why you are now seeing some of these "public" forums being limited to bussed-in union members and party activists pretending to be district citizens.

@Stacy: "Having a couple of reporters talk about racism/race issues doesn't mean that the President of the United States is somehow trying to subjugate or shut up all white people as racists."

No, but it does seem like a clumsy attempt to reframe the debate -- away from what the health care plan may or may not do, to how nasty or evil the people opposing it are. I suspect that if the plan were that terrific, its proponents wouldn't need to do that.

"I think it's ironic that the majority of the health care protestors look old enough to be on Medicare but scream bloody murder about government involvment in health care."

Sometimes I wonder just how dense Obama and his supporters are, and this is a perfect example of why.

The White house proposes paying the Trillion dollar price tag of its reform program by making 500 Billion in cuts to Medicare. The President himself goes on TV and talks about the need to "bend the cost curve down" and how maybe it was a bad idea for Medicare to give his beloved Grandma a hip replacement. And how maybe old people should be given pain meds instead of pace-makers.

Then you people are shocked, shocked, SHOCKED, that elderly people on Medicare show up at town hall meetings and complain furiously that they don't like the President's health care ideas. Don't these racist-insurance-company-dittohead-stooges know Medicare is a government program?

Well, Duh! You're missing the f-ing point. It's a government program Grandma and Grandpa depend on for their very lives. And its a government program that the President has announced must be slashed to the bone to pay for his program to provide insurance coverage for their grandson, the 20-something slacker who spends thousands of dollars per year on I-pod downloads, custom made bongs, internet porn and "Obama/Biden" bumper stickers, but cannot find the money to buy his own damn health insurance.

There are two issues here: the crap of modern journalism, and what is free speech.

The occasional argument or shouting of one citizen at a public forum to another is free speech. The organized shouting down of speakers in attempts to stop their speech is not.

Organizations are free to encourage their members to attend public forums, ask questions, hold signs, engage in debate and public discourse, and should not be relegated to so called "free speech zones." But they should not feel free to engage in tactics intended to intimidate, threaten, or just obstruct speech.

That's true regardless of who the organization is.

Amy, I'm probably wrong on this, but didn't you have various posts about similar attempts to keep Wafa Sultan (or others speakers against Islam) from speaking at US Universities? Did you hold the same views that the people shouting were just exercising their free speech and shouldn't have been removed?

Oh, the crap of modern journalism arises from:

1. Their bogus claim that there is such a thing as unbiased, neutral journalism and the need to then hide any aspect of reporting or the reporter or the process that shows how silly that claim is.

2. Too many reporters aiming to get rich by becoming TV stars or famous journalists.

The only hatred is the hatred the elitist politicians feel for the citizens of this country. The “Celebradent” along with Pelosi, Bird (who was/is a member of the KKK) and the rest of the progressives are stunned that we know they are lying to us. They have gotten away with whatever they wanted for so long they believe that we are beneath them.

These are the same people who mocked GW and his administration as often as possible. This is the same press who applauded the guy who threw his shoe at the President (GW) of the United States. Say a word against this administration however, and you’re a racist, typical. The press and the left have been in collusion for so long it’s hard to tell who’s who anymore. The only racism in this country is the racism of class, and party distinction. How on earth the left spin doctors managed to convince an entire population that conservatives are racists is beyond me. It was the Republicans who ended slavery it was also the Republicans who stopped segregation and moved the civil rights bill through the congress and senate. Martin Luther King was a registered Republican. And it is now the Republican members of the congress and senate that are trying to stop this march toward socialism along with the people of the U.S. who are trying to be heard. Why is it when the left protest they are patriots and when the right protest they are racists?

The people of this country are sick and tired of the lying carpetbaggers that are ruining this once great nation. We have had enough! We are angry and we have every right to be. Every single issue we are facing is a direct result of bad policy making in Washington. They are completely responsible for this entire mess. Now that we are finally calling them out, they insult our intelligence, character and patriotism. This is not a battle about ideology this is a battle between the elitist Washington politicians and insiders and the citizens of the United States of America. Whose side are you on?

Personally, I'm *glad* to see people showing up and getting angry. If they hate big government, well GOOD. I didn't think Americans had it in them. But fortunately a few of them still have a spine left. I hope we have a MASSIVE turnover in Congress next year, during the elections. Most of our representatives here in Iowa are absolute crap - there are just a couple I want to keep.

>Too many reporters aiming to get rich by becoming tv stars or famous journalists.

Jerry, I'm with you 100%.

Before Watergate, most journalists were good writers with no formal training. They received on-the-job training as copy boys and would rise through the ranks. Ideology was not in their make up.

After Watergate, students flocked to journalism schools all of them being Woodward and Bernstein wannabes. Newspapers and other media don't just hire good writers any more; with so many "J-School" grads, new hires are just graduated from academia where a leftist mentality is ingrained. They have no interest in beginning employment as copy boys. Their leftist opinions stay with them for life. And, unfortunately, there are more left leaning journalists than right because the media hires mostly from "J-School".

The use of "they are SO angry -- so they must be threatening and scary!" is an effective tactic to shut down dissent. (Try being a man who dares to criticize feminism in public, for instance, and see what happens.)

If something pisses you off -- don't be a pussy, SHOW that you're angry! But be able to say why. Anger does not preclude meaningful exchanges of views, and it does get people's attention.

BTW,

Anyone who says that a journalist is someone who makes sure they are printing the truth is a fool. Any truth, or opinion, that contradicts liberal orthodoxy (real DV statistics, for instance) will never see the light of day in the NY or LA Times.

Right, Amy?

BTW,

Anyone who says that a journalist is someone who makes sure they are printing the truth is a fool. Any truth, or opinion, that contradicts liberal orthodoxy (real DV statistics, for instance) will never see the light of day in the NY or LA Times.

Right, Amy?

Jay, please explain Jonah Goldberg (one example among many.) Journalists are lazy. Corporate media is corporate. It's not at all clear that there is a liberal bias in most of these corporate media conglomerates.

But your statement is so silly and easily rebutted with just one example, that I am sure most of the readers here will be believing you.

"...the 20-something slacker who spends thousands of dollars per year on I-pod downloads, custom made bongs, internet porn and "Obama/Biden" bumper stickers, but cannot find the money to buy his own damn health insurance."

Or rather he doesn't have the money to afford much of a healthcare plan at that age (especially in today's economy) and doesn't really have a need for it. Of course making it a national law that you HAVE to have coverage is really going to help the situation. See Mass' plan and how its going along those lines.

"I also don't consider shouting down speaker to be the exercise of free speech."

Of course it is. It is just a rude one. Sometimes rude is okay. Maybe not here, but then those town hall meetings are actually just political theaters, designed to put the pol and the policy in the best possible light. The pol is expecting docility and a good photo op.

The protestors are essentially tearing up the script they are *supposed* to follow, where they quietly step to the microphone, ask some inane question, which allows the pol to give a canned answer.

Oops! Instead some free citizens say "fuck that!" and proceed to demand real responses when the pol starts in with the canned responses.

Good for them. Angry is okay when people are treating you like a schmuck.

John McCain is having a townhall next week in the middle of Phoenix. Anyone want to attend?

John McCain was the reason I left the republican party and went independent. The minutes a supposed conservative advocates amnesty for illegal aliens, he should be forced to switch parties to the socialists er democrats

Here's an interesting column from John Stossel from sometime before 2005 on why the insurance industry is NOT a good way to pay for medical treatments.

It's interesting in both how right he is, as well as how wrong he is. But it addresses what seems to be a common sentiment here, which is that young people are somehow wrong or unethical or immoral to decide not to purchase health insurance.

I don't see how we can condemn young people for not getting health insurance and not just say we want a mandated health insurance and from their go to saying, why use "insurance" (shared risk and gambling) as the model for payments for medical treatments.

Link got eaten, let's try again.

Here's an interesting column from John Stossel from sometime before 2005 on why the insurance industry is NOT a good way to pay for medical treatments.

Amy, you are right. I should have made reference to anything which contradicts EITHER liberal or conservative orthodoxy. (Of course, the relentlessly liberal LA Times hardly achieves neutrality or balance by running Goldberg's stuff. In the big picture, he is a token.)

Either way, the Lace Curtain remains virtually inviolate. So self-aggrandizing references to universal "truth seeking" on the part of journalists are specious. I am not willing to just chalk it up to laziness, as you seem willing to do.

"I'm not talking about the small side arms, but the giant semi-automatics strapped across the back."

You have a gun phobia, and do not know anything about them. Consider this - you will probably be passed several times in town by someone who is actually carrying a pistol. It must be concealed; part of the reason is to keep you from flipping out.

Even though a man or woman who is obviously armed and who is behaving themselves - actually, "behaving themselves" represents the overwhelming majority of gun owners in the USA - is exercising a basic Constitutional right.

If you fear them, I suggest it is because you recognize that your voice and your vote are simply not enough - that they can be subverted by any of a dozen workarounds.

Your father or grandfather held automatic weapons, having pledged to defend the country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. That does not magically vanish; that obligation is not magically someone else's job when no uniform is present. Your duties as a citizen don't go away, either, just because someone else has pledged to wear a uniform and put themselves in harm's way on your behalf.

Think about that guy at the rally. You wouldn't do that - carry an AR clone in public. He did. That means he's guilty of something, doesn't it?

No. Make A Choice.

And while you're reading, remember that your government put itself in the hands of you, the people, to rule. Just how logical could you possibly be as a ruler to forbid yourself - or even discourage - your right to arms?

I guarantee that those who know themselves to be in charge of things reserve the possession of weapons for themselves. That's because they are better than you are, as demonstrated by their position. Right?

This is just more liberal hype put up by the so-called "journalists" in the mainstream media outlets, like Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN.

All of these propaganda-processing outlets are (or are owned by) gigantic multi-billion-dollar corporations.

Gigantic multi-billion-dollar corporations, as we all know, are run by socialist hippies who hate America.

Damned hippies.

If you want to understand why the few sheeple in this discussion will NEVER criticize their Messiah, no matter WHAT he does, you've got to understand the propaganda that has deeply infected their brain.

A perfect example of this is a Newsweek podcast that is beautifully dissected by Hugh Hewitt and Mark Steyn here. I couldn't stop laughing as Steyn pointed out time after time after time how deeply distorted the Newsweek "journalists" alter the facts!

Gun phobia = probably yes. I grew up in the barrio. The first time I had a gun pointed at me I was 8. However, I have lots of friends in the armed forces, several are gun collectors and gun modifiers, and I have no personal problem with guns or legal ownership of them. I will admit to being nervous around them, and I don't see why that is something to be held against me.

That doesn't mean that bringing large guns has anything to do with the health debate. I already said to discount the small firearms, my grandfather had one on him at all times. However, it seems to me that the only reason to wear such a large weapon across your back to a public hearing that has nothing to do with gun rights is intimidation, please give me another option if you feel there is one. I never said that the two who wore them were guilty of anything. I did insinuate that those images are what some people are responding to when the use the words "hateful protesters".

"However, it seems to me that the only reason to wear such a large weapon across your back to a public hearing that has nothing to do with gun rights is intimidation, please give me another option if you feel there is one."

The US Government regularly drives its ships into the International waters off of North Korea to demonstrate that the waters are international in nature. Russia has been seen lately driving its submarines in the International waters off the east coast for similar reasons.

I can believe a 2nd Amendment Bill of Rights Libertarian would believe that taking the legal action of displaying a legal action at a public forum is not for intimidation but a demonstration of our rights.

HTH

I haven't read every single comment word for word.

Now here is a question for all of you: When you hit 65, what other options other than going medicare do you have?

Did you know that if you don't take medicare -- you can't get Social Security?

This is the same program that $## bilions in the hole.

Just a thought.

> I haven't read every single
> comment word for word.

WHATTT!!???!?!

The *nerve*! The AUDACITY!

Amy, did you know that this goes on?

How dare you. How dare you.

Yippie! In 1976, I was a protester at the Republican National Convention. We were criticized for being an unruly mob that dressed funny. Sound familiar? Yelling at Congressmen and Senators? Civil disobedience? What's next? Sit ins? Maybe Bill Ayers can teach a course on how to protest politely.

"However, it seems to me that the only reason to wear such a large weapon across your back to a public hearing that has nothing to do with gun rights is intimidation, please give me another option if you feel there is one."

Ok!

How about lowering the risk that a bunch of union thugs, or similar cowards, will try to give you a beatdown for being a black man running free off the standard leftist narrative plantation?

How about that one? Does that work for you? Does the name Kenneth Gladney ring a bell?

When I was growing up, journalists were supposed to be neutral to the point that they wouldn't even disclose their political affiliation. Btw, I'm only 41 so we're not talking the Dark Ages. At least that was what I was taught. Now there seems to be flavored news. It seems that there is no such thing as a newscaster anymore. They are all doing Op-Ed. Some are more blatant than others, but for the most part, they all do it. You can pretty much pick any topic and the story reported will have a different slant depending on if you are watching, FOX, MSNBC, or CNN. Even the local news is guilty.

As far as protesting, I have an older friend who was arrested back in the day when people were against the Vietnam war. I have another friend who always hated protesting no matter what the cause. She is wealthy, white, and Republican. She will be protesting the healthcare situation in DC in a few weeks. I smile and tell her welcome to the club. I have always loved a good protest although I detest the anti-war protesters outside Walter Reed Medical Center. Sorry, had to throw that one in there.

Just because I've been absent today, let me throw in one more thing. Governor Patterson, our darling governor here in NY who replaced the vindictive and hypocritical hooker frequenting Gov. Spitzer is now claiming that his low public opinion polls are due to racism. He is claiming that our President is also the victim of racism. This insults our intelligence for many reasons. First, Patterson was hailed as a hero when he first came into office for being legally blind and the talk was how strong and adept he was for overcoming this obstacle. Then when it was discovered that he had cheated on his wife, that was excused and he was practically cheered because he was honest about it whent he reality was he had little choice. I'd have to go back and re-check, but if my memory is correct, there were even allegations that I believe he admitted to that he improperly used funds to pay for hotel rooms for his mistress. The press kissed his ass in the most unbelievable way. No politician has ever gotten the free press ride that this man got. He is a joke as governor and to blame it on racism is an insult to all New Yorkers. Obama is not a moron. He was well aware of what he would face with his healthcare plans. To claim that it is racism that is causing all of these people to protest is another insult and Patterson is fanning those flames.

Most people I know that are crazy over the healthcare proposals don't even know who their local politicians are. They scream and scream but never get involved until it is something big. I say that the two party system is a joke. It may sound cynical, but I don't see any politician getting very far without selling his/her soul. It just seems to be the way the system is set up. Our country is in trouble. It isn't just because the Democrat won because while maybe it wouldn't be healthcare, if it was a Republican president, it would be something else.I don't claim to know all of the answers. In fact, I'm sure I don't have them. I just know that things don't seem to be working on many levels.

My final thought for the evening....Brett Favre is the most disgusting piece of trash for putting on a Vikings uniform. I did not allow myself to believe it until I saw him play tonight. I wanted to throw up seeing him in that purple jersey and I have to admit that I hoped someone on the opposing team would break his friggin arm, but that is the NY in me talking. I am begging Amy to post a blog regarding loyalty and sports fans. Please please please!

For newer visitors, here's Amy's finest sports post.... Pitch-perfect.

Kristen writes: "I say that the two party system is a joke. It may sound cynical, but I don't see any politician getting very far without selling his/her soul."

That's exactly right. With the two-party winner-take-all system, no outside viewpoint or third party has any chance of breaking in. The parties may squabble over minor seats, but basically run a game of "divide the spoils".

Who was it that wrote that the concentration of economic and political power in the same hands is the mark of tyranny? That's what we effectively have: the upper ranks of business and the top politicians of both parties come from same small inner circle.

I hate Republicans and Democrats, but let's not blame the system, let's blame the voters. They (we) don't want to deal with extremists.

This may be a source of strength in our country. Ross Perot is regarded as a comical footnote. (My first presidential vote was for John Anderson. It did not get me laid on campus. "Whaddya mean, he wants a dollar a gallon gas tax?")

Brian Writes.......>>>The media have been in bed with the far-left wing of the progressive Democrats for decades. They finally have the vehicles in place to enact socialism and even communism on a broad scale in the United States.

Anyone who opposes them is either "acting against their own interest" or "acting out because of their hatred of our black president".

I was among the many who warned people — you vote for this man (Obama) and you will be called a racist the instant you disagree with him. He and his followers positioned themselves to frame any dissent from his political positions as a racist reaction to the man himself.

That's it exactly. It was used pre-election. It's being used post election. It should be expected that it will be used pre-relection. That good old MSM motivational tool known as
'the threat of being called a racist'.

While I agree that the MSM has been significantly left leaning, how egregious it became this election cycle is something I have never seen before.

Lastly, I find it amusing to watch parts of the MSM clutch onto anything to preserve the power of the race card. They could never let a Black man being elected to the highest, most prestigious, most powerful office in the land (and, likely, in the world), and allow a positive change in thought on race. No way are those parts of the MSM, and the ultra liberal ideology, going to let the race card abate without using any innocuous event to go "see! this country is racist!!". Personally, I'm left wondering what single event could happen beyond the election of Obama that signals something pretty good about the USA regarding race?

Personally, I'm left wondering what single event could happen beyond the election of Obama that signals something pretty good about the USA regarding race?

If they put all the non-liberal white people on a boat and sent them back to England, I think the libs would regard that as a good start.

As I read more news this morning with Governor Patterson claiming that his problems are now caused by a white-dominated media it makes me want to know why he was not complaining about this media when he first came into office, when the media coverage was all warm and fuzzy and the press was in love with him.

Shouldn't the race card be saved for cases where blacks are actually facing racial discrimination? Those cases where they are not getting fair trials or where they are subjected to police brutality? Or maybe when they are being directed by realtors from white areas to areas a little more "comfortable" for them.

I guess those are just crazy thoughts. I mean after all, if you are a fuck-up as a governor and you have no real plan to fix the problems in your state then I guess it is the fault of a racist and white-dominated media because we know from all of the wonderful things originally written about him that it can't possibly be him.

No worries though. I'm sure that we'll have a police shooting or a white on black crime soon enough and Al Sharpton will come back from whatever vacation he is on and begin some form of protest or civil disobedience that will take the front pages back from healthcare reform and take the heat off of our elected officials. Then maybe Governor Patterson can rest easy and make nice with the press again.

You have been brainwashed to believe that a firearm in the hands of a citizen is a danger, and that only the police, military and goverment should have arms.

Citizens at some point may have to take to arms to stop the corruption, and the citizens don't take up arms on a whim but when finally pushed to the limits of endurance. Two such incidents (there may be more) occurred after World War II. You may have never heard about either, and I'd be surprised if any of you have, but the first of two I'll cite was called "The Battle of Athens" . . .

"The Battle of Athens (sometimes called the McMinn County War) was a rebellion led by citizens in Athens and Etowah, Tennessee, United States, against the local government in August 1946. The citizens, including some World War II veterans, accused the local officials of political corruption and voter intimidation. The event is sometimes cited by firearms ownership advocates as an example of the value of the Second Amendment to bring fair elections"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

Eleanor Roosevelt had this to say about "The Battle of Athens" . . .

"SOURCE: /The Daily Post-Athenian/, Athens, Tenn., August 7, 1946

McMinn A Warning — By Eleanor Roosevelt

Editor’s Note — Our attention has been called to Mrs. Roosevelt’s column upon McMinn. She seems to have grasped the facts and significance better than any other outside writer:"

"NEW YORK, Monday — After any war, the use of force throughout the world is almost taken for granted. Men involved in the war have been trained to use force and they have discovered that, when you want something, you can take it. The return to peacetime methods governed by law and persuasion is usually difficult.

We in the U.S.A., who have long boasted that, in our political life, freedom in the use of the secret ballot made it possible for us to register the will of the people without the use of force, have had a rude awakening as we read of conditions in McMinn county, Tenn., which brought about the use of force in the recent primary. If a political machine doe snot allow the people free expressions, then freedom-loving people lose their faith in the machinery under which their government functions.

In this particular case, a group of young veterans organized to oust the local machine and elect their own slate in the primary. We may deplore the use of force but we must also recognize the lesson which this incident points for us all. When the majority of the people know what they want, they will obtain it.

Any local, state or national government, or any political machine, in order to live, must give the people assurance that they can express their will freely and that their votes will be counted. The most powerful machine cannot exist without the support of the people. Political bosses and political machinery can be good, but the minute they cease to express the will of the people, their days are numbered.

This is a lesson which wise political leaders learn young and you may be pretty sure that, when a boss stays in power, he gives the majority of the people what they think they want. If he is bad and indulges in practices which are dishonest, or if he acts for his own interests alone, the people are unwilling to condone these practices.

When the people decide that conditions in their town, county, state or country must change, they will change them, If the leadership has been wise, they will be able to do it peacefully through a secret ballot which is honestly counted, but if the leader has become inflated and too sure of his own importance, he may bring about the kind of action which was taken in Tennessee.

If we want to continue to be a mature people who, at home and abroad, settle our difficulties peacefully and not through the use of force, then we will take to heart this lesson and we will jealously guard our rights. What goes on before and elections, the threats or persuasion by political leaders, may be bad but it cannot prevent the people from really registering their will if they wish to.

The decisive action which has just occurred in our midst is a warning, and one which we cannot afford to overlook."

Eleanor Roosevelt's article excerpted from . . .

http://www.nashvilleistalking.com/2009/06/tennessees-warning-to-corrupt-politicians/

This is another example . . .

“Negroes with Guns”

Dr. Michael S. Brown

Dec. 28, 2001

The year was 1957. Monroe, N.C., was a rigidly segregated town where all levels of white society and government were dedicated to preserving the racial status quo. Blacks who dared to speak out were subject to brutal, sadistic violence.

It was common practice for convoys of Ku Klux Klan members to drive through black neighborhoods shooting in all directions. A black physician who owned a nice brick house on a main road was a frequent target of racist anger.

In the summer of 1957, a Klan motorcade sent to attack the house was met by a disciplined volley of rifle fire from a group of black veterans and NRA members led by civil rights activist Robert F. Williams.

Using military-surplus rifles from behind sandbag fortifications, the small band of freedom fighters drove off the larger force of Klansmen with no casualties reported on either side.

Williams, a former Marine who volunteered to lead the Monroe chapter of the NAACP and founded a 60-member NRA-chartered rifle club, described the battle in his 1962 book, "Negroes With Guns," which was reprinted in 1998 by Wayne State University Press.

According to Williams, the Monroe group owed its survival in the face of vicious violence to the fact that they were armed. In several cases, police officials who normally ignored or encouraged Klan violence took steps to prevent whites from attacking armed blacks. In other cases, fanatical racists suddenly turned into cowards when they realized their intended victims were armed.

Oddly, it appears that the organized armed blacks of Monroe never shot any of their tormentors. The simple existence of guns in the hands of men who were willing to use them prevented greater violence.

It is important to note that the guns were not used offensively. They were part of an overall strategy that relied primarily on peaceful protest like picketing or entering whites-only establishments. Williams demonstrated that the dignified and responsible use of firearms for self-defense was an important method to achieve justice for those denied fair treatment by all institutions of government.

The civil rights movement was deeply divided between those who espoused a pacifist, non-violent approach and those who believed that human beings had a right and a duty to use force in self-defense. Williams was the most influential leader of the self-defense wing of the movement.

His effort to provide guns and training to African-American civil rights supporters was alarming to white politicians. Most state gun control laws, not just in the South, were blatantly designed to keep guns out of the hands of blacks and other minorities. Those with racist beliefs were not pleased when blacks claimed the right to keep and bear arms that is guaranteed to all Americans.

The connection with the NRA might surprise some people who portray the organization as a haven for racist rednecks. Former NRA Executive Director Tanya Metaksa spoke with Williams before his death. She recalls, "He was very proud of being an NRA member and that the NRA sanctioned his club without question."

The civil rights organizations of today bear little resemblance to the deadly serious armed activists of Monroe. African-American leaders generally support the liberal white line that guns are evil and have no place in modern society.

On the other hand, small numbers of responsible black gun owners continue to honor their heritage by practicing their marksmanship and joining gun rights organizations. The tradition of the black gun club still lives on in the Tenth Cavalry Gun club, led by Ken Blanchard in Prince Georges County, Md."

http://www.jacksonville.com/interact/blog/stanley_scott/2009-07-17/%E2%80%9Cnegroes_with_guns%E2%80%9D_america_dark_history_of_brutal_sadistic_v

My note: The reason the NRA had to sanction the gun club was that then allowed the club to receive surplus arms and ammunition from the U.S. goverment cheap and/or free. Many of you endorse making firearms and ammuntion expensive via taxes and other sanctions, but you only hurt the poor's ability to excercise their last recourse to fight injustice.

good post, Jay.

I've been watching with alarm while various 'sources' try to link the townhall protesters to ever more frightening groups. First, they were just "astroturf." Then they were "ignorant rednecks." Then they were "ignorant, racist rednecks." Then they were 'gun-toting racist rednecks.' Now they've become the gun-toting vanguard of a 'revived militia movement' that (according to Howard Dean), dreams of killing the president.
I really fear something terrible could happen. Some people seem determined to make these protesters seem like a public menace just as threatening as the Weather Underground.
I hope I'm wrong.

In a botched false flag operation, Kos tries to kill the president but blows his foot off instead.

The media report that he was "programmed" by the right-wing hate machine to try to assassinate the president, but his innate goodness won out and the evil right-wingers were foiled.

Joe Biden is found wondering why it's taking so long for the Congress to swear him in as president.

"I hope I'm wrong."

Good god, I'd love to see a link to those quotes. What journalist or politician alive would go on record as calling anyone an "ignorant, racist redneck"? I've got to see this!