Sunday, September 13, 2009
Marsha Blackburn Urges Tea-Partiers to "Take Country Back"
Posted by Flyer Staff on Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 9:15 PM
Comments (42)
Showing 1-42 of 42
Take the country back? Back to where? Bushworld, I suppose. Uh, Marsha, baby, don't know if you heard about it not, but there was this thing last November called an election and the majority of Americans decided they had had enough of turning the country back, and back, and farther back. By the time your dudes, Dumbya and Shooter were finished with it, we were all the way back to The Great Depression economically, and pre Magna Carta days without the writ of habeas corpus, Constitutionally. I'll stick with the 21st century, thank you. Does all that Restylane and Botox numb your brain, or are you just naturally dumber than a rock?
like
dislike
That was Howard Dean's line in 2004. Yet another aspect of this Tea Party movement that was cribbed directly from the opposition to Bush.
Neither Bush nor Obama know what the Constitution is. Bush was a disaster and Obama is heading in that direction as well. The Federal Government is supposed to be small and support the individual states. Not the other way around.
"A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government." - Thomas Jefferson
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson
"I believe that every individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor, so far as it in no way interferes with any other men's rights." - Abraham Lincoln
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." - Patrick Henry
"The strength of the Constitution, lies in the will of the people to defend it." - Thomas Edison
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington
Lets see. The government now owns: one huge bank outright and large stakes in many others, one huge insurance company, two car companies. And that is all within the last year. Bush and Obama did that. This is on top of slowly owning just about all of the mortgages (Fan & Fred, FHA, VA), a railroad that looses millions every year, a pension scheme that provides less than 1% return and is insolvent. Oh yeah, they want to fully control health care and also kill whatever college loan market is left by taking it over too. Add that to the 30-somthing "czars" that go though no Senate approval process like cabinet members. The president himself says they are there to direct policy. Can anyone say poliburo???
And you folks wonder what taking our contry back means??? I was no fan of Bush. And Obama is even twice as bad. Do people realize that the government is $12 TRILLION dollars in debt, that number is increasing and not decreasing, and there is no plan to improve things??? The proposals right now will only make it worse. The government cannot create wealth. We cannot continue down this path.
Everyone bashing Bush for the power grab after 9/11 needs to look at the power grab Obama is pushing right now. The two are one in the same. Health care "crisis." Financial "crisis." Education "crisis." Crisis is Obama's favorite word. But all you people blinded by GOP vs. Dem think that is fine.
OK, I'm just a white chick, but I see an obvious and tragic racial aspect when a bunch of White Southerners are rallying to "take this country back" after the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS elected an African-American as president. They want to take us back, alright.
News flash: We're not going back. We're going forward. We are the majority. We want health care. We love our country and we want our president to succeed.
Stop the Bus !!! Getting a politico to front a grassroots movement is wrong on every level. Looks like a campaign stop. Politicians can get in front of the camera (or mic) anytime, let the people speak for themselves.
In the future please refer to this group of nihilist noisemakers by their supposedly self chosen appellation, "Tea Baggers." Not only is the name generally not used in polite company but it shows the level of cynicism that the right wing gang banger lords of 'NO' use with their own shock troops. It seems more than likely that many of the "T-Bag" people are completely unaware of the double-entendre in the moniker "Tea Baggers." Of course, right wing rhetorical architects are entirely too sophisticated not to know the popular slang meaning of the phrase. If they are going to put it out there- then they need to own it. Call them on it when doing stories about "Tea Baggers" from now on.
Lets just go ahead and say it. Marsha and her ilk are racists and their appeal is to her fellow racists. It plays well to the district. She is worthless as a representative.
Remember the guy at the tea party with the rifle over his shoulder??? He was black. I guess he dislikes our president because he has the same skin color? Oh, I guess he is one of those other racialy destructive terms that originates from a Harriet Beecher Stowe novel.
You people claiming racism are exposing the shallowness of your argument. I guess you believed in Herenton's race based politics as well, huh?
Herenton's slime and uses race to divide; that doesn't, however, change even one bit the historical fact that the modern conservative movement was born and raised on white southerners who were reacting to their disgust with moderates and liberals of both parties who supported civil rights and equality for black people. marsha is a logical and natural heir to that great shift. Go read a history book, bwm.
Which history book should I read? Do you want me to read one by Thomas Sowell? Oh, maybe I shouldn't read his books because he is black and I am racist?
Maybe I will try Walter Williams. Oh wait. He is black too. I don't like him.
Wait a second Milton Friedman is a white Jewish man but wasn't from the South. He was from the Northeast. I guess I hate him too???
Friedrick Hayek? Heck he was Austrian! I hate Austrians.
Why don't you try reading a friggen history book rantboy. Maybe one that doesnt' come straight from a liberal university professor. How about a little Hayek or Friedman. Of course, I don't expect you to since their names have been drug through the mud by liberals with the desired and successful result of steering people away from something that might open their mind.
It sure did for me. I used to be a Democrat.
"Remember the guy at the tea party with the rifle over his shoulder??? He was black"
yep this is pretty hard to chalk up to racism, despite the fact that that dude might have been the ONLY black guy at any of these protests. what i do know is he is a member of a radical church helmed by a Christian reconstructionist who wishes death on a president who was fairly and popularly elected, and who thinks gays should be killed. so the problem isn't only racism, it's also a virulent strain of proudly ignorant, sanctimonious idealogues who either refuse or are unable to engage in honest debate.
by the by, i'm not a Democrat, and I'm not terribly bowled over by the health care proposals i've seen thus far. just FYI.
bwm, pls show me where I said you hated anyone. I merely said, and this is correct, and I'm not sure what economic theorists have to do with it, that the modern conservative movement was born very much in reaction to the civil rights movement of the 60's. It took adavantage of white backlash reaction to blacks pushing for equal rights (polls back then consistently showed white people thought blacks were moving "too far, too fast," as if basic civil rights should be at all contingent upon the comfort level of a dominant group). Why else did the conservative movement gain such rapid popularity in the SOUTH? Why did Strom change parties exactly when he did? It's in the history books. You can't gloss this over, it's fact. btw, I've read those guys too, hayek, friedman, etc. and I'm not a Democrat. But facts are facts. read history books my friend. Why did Goldwater do so well in deep south states? he opposed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, and the Dems were obviously moving withLBJ, Kennedy (Robert), Humphrey, etc., towards equal rights for blacks. especially LBJ, he was considered a traitor to the South for his apostacy. he singlehandedly drove more white southerners out of longstanding bedrock loyalty to the Democratic party than any one person in history. And it was all because of race. Undeniable. That is not to say all conservatives or republicans are racists, far from it. But that IS the genesis of the modern conservative movement.
veering slightly off-topic here - I don't think Goldwater was necessarily opposed to basic civil rights. as i understand it, he opposed segregation, supported equal treatment, and felt the bill of rights as it stood addressed the situation adequately - that they just needed to be applied in the manner intended. i suspect his vote against the Civil Rights Act hinged more on its perceived superfluousness (in his mind), rather than racism. It's a shame that all his grandstanding did was attract a bunch of racist peckerwoods from Dixie. While I don't think this was his intention, I would venture that this stark divide inspired the GOP machinery to adopt certain unsavory tactics and positions all in the interest of getting middle and lower-middle class folks to vote against their economic interests. And in my opinion it informs much of their appeal to a certain section of the population today.
Or maybe I'm just cutting Barry G. too much slack? he's an interesting figure, and it's a shame the post-60s GOP didn't embrace his more libertarian ideas.
he also supported medical marijuana, spoke out for gays in the military, distrusted aspects of Reagan's foreign policies and couldn't stand the Religious Right. just as anyone who holds liberty dear would.
I don't think he was personally a bigot either. But the upshot of his position on civil rights legislation(and the 14th amendment clearly says congress can pass legislation to effect the provisions of that amendment) was that 1) without those laws, the states of the deep south would have continued to keep blacks as second class citizens b/c the feds would have had very little legal basis to intervene and guarantee black citizens their rights and 2) as you point out, his position attracted whites who believed in white supremacy and segregation who were former Democrats.
The ghost of Tricky Dicky rises again (and again, and again.) The "Southern Strategy" is alive and well and it came to DC last weekend.
BMW,
Well said. You can expect 'rantboy' to display legal and historical ignorance, as I've experienced. Marsha is speaking of taking back the ideas of the Constitutional observance our country had for a short period of time. Here are some of the issues that our present Federal Government violate:
the upcoming 2010 Census long-forms that ask questions related to socialistic planning. Only a head-count is allowed in the Constitution. The federal deficit would be $915 billion in the first six months of the Obama presidency - with a projected annual deficit of $1.75 trillion - triple the $454.8 billion in 2008, for which the previous administration was highly criticized by Obama and his fellow Democrats. That congress would pass Obama's $3.53 trillion federal budget for fiscal 2010. That the projected deficit over the next ten years would be greater than $10 trillion. Obama wants to dismantle conservative talk radio or any opposition of his views through the imposition of a new "Fairness Doctrine." That he wants to curtail the First Amendment rights of those who may disagree with his policies via internet blogs, cable news networks, or advocacy ads. That most major network television and most newspapers will only sing his phrases like state-run media in communist countries. The Obama Justice Department is doing everything it can to limit your Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. . That Obama plans to control the schools, energy production, the environment, health care, and the wealth of every US citizen. The president, the courts, and the federal government have ignored the US Constitution and have seized powers which the founders of our country fought to restrict. Cap and trade will be the largest tax increase in history. It will contribute to unemployment, as companies pay fines for carbon emissions. Obama admitted that one’s electric bill would increase.
The Tenth Amendment is very clear:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Now here’s the “general welfare” provision in Article I, section 8:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; We are to believe that the Founders at the direction of the states gave unlimited power to the Federal government when the states were suspicious and reluctant to give even a little authority to a national governing body. In addition to the body of enumerated powers in the body of the Constitution, the states insisted on an added Bill of Rights that included the Tenth Amendment that defined the limited authority of the Federal government. Plainly, the intention of the Tenth Amendment was to restrict the Federal government—to hold it within the strict boundaries of the delegated powers. Obama's administration is leading us more closely aligned with the government of Hugo Chavez than the United States Constitution. A careful reader will note that “general welfare” did not mean aid to some at the expense of others, as James Madison was quick to point out in Federalist 41: “But what color can the objection have [that the phrase ‘general welfare’ is not specified by particulars], when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? . . . Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. The modern concept of general welfare is most often defined in terms of wealth redistribution where some members of society (“the rich”) are taxed heavily in order to benefit the “welfare” of others (“the poor”). General welfare, according to the Constitution, means welfare that benefits everybody more or less equally. This can be clearly seen in providing “for the common Defense.” Taxes collected to defend the nation benefit everybody generally. Taxing some people so other people can have decent housing or an education or healthcare is not general welfare; it’s particular welfare.
When we consider the type of folks Obama has surrounded himself with over his lifetime, i.e. Ayers, Wright, Jones, Chicago 'thugs', union cartels, tax cheats, etc., we can see what Marsha is talking about when she says to 'take the country back'. It needs to be taken back further than even Roosevelt.
CHG. So Common Defense benefits everyone, but common public healthcare doesn't? So public education doesn't generally benefit everyone?
CHG, You can blather on about the Constitution all you want. The bottom line is in your last paragraph.
CHG--Let's play your game. Let's put Social Security and Medicare funding to an up/down vote. Today. The VA, too. Put up or shut up. ALL the old angry, white haired, pissed off tea-baggers will get their wet dream...They will LOSE the two(or three)government programs that are keeping them alive. Think they'll go for it?? Tell ya what.....we'll give them their money back. They can have what they put in.
So when they get their...(let's be generous)..$50K check in the mail, they will have $50K and that is what they will have to live on and pay for their healthcare bills for the rest of their lives. No Medicare. No Social Security. $50K. That's what will be available for all medical, mortgage, future purchases, everything. Let's play Truth or Dare. Are you in?
I'm ready. Tell me how many Repugs will vote YES to DISSOLVE Medicare and Social Security and ELIMINATE all future funding. Give me a number.
whoa, rantboy, you just called the rightwing bluff. they won't go for it, but they still want to bitch.
I have reached the point where I am shutting off the noise from the Right, "conservatives", Fox News, Tea Baggers, pre-programmed town hall robots, and religious zealots of ANY stripe, color, or "faith". I say it is time to IGNORE such blather because it is neither informative nor productive. I advocated the same for Herenton, by the way... and look? HE WENT AWAY!
Come on Rantboy, you know that's not fair. These guys have been paying into that system for years, against their will, and could not otherwise invest their money where they wanted. Or some such argument like that...
chg, do have that diatribe saved on your computer somewhere and simply cut and paste it each day? It would be refreshing if you offered a solution or an idea every so often instead of the same old "it's unconstitutional" argument. I mean how many more times do we have to hear "Article I, section 8"?
38103,
Common public healthcare is not allowed in the Constitution, whether pragmatic or not. Public health care hurts all in the long run with higher taxes, non-personal advise on health issues via beaurocracy and rationing. Public education does not benefit everyone, as humanistic indoctrination has shown with the allegiance to big government, distortion of history and the outworking of the doctrine of social Darwinism. It is not ‘general welfare’ by definition, as not all need it. Private schools and home-school (with tutors as extensions) is the alternative; which show higher scores on mostly all government mandated testing. The DOE isn’t listed as one of the duties under Art.1, Sec.8. How did the US make it without both of those government agencies in the past?
CHG. Riding his homebuilt buggy along his privately owned roads, protected by his privately owned military, camping in his privately owned forest, raising his home schooled kids. Getting house calls from his privately educated personal physician. Sitting on the veranda bitching about his servants lack of motivation. All the while publicly educated healthy kids from Japan are launching satellites into space and riding a 200mph train to work.
Listen. I know some of you looooove Obama. And think he can do no wrong. And that's fine. But do you not realize that eventually a Republican will win the Presidential seat, whenever that may be.
And when he does. He will be in charge of Nationalized Health Care, The Banks, The Mortgage Giants, and the armies. Are you really wanting everything that deals with your money and your health to be in "George Bush III" hands????
You do realize that Obama can't be president forever right?
Many of you liberals complained that Bush and Cheney had too much power. Well Obama is nearly doubling the size of the national government (based on cost) and has much more power (with his czars) than Bush ever did. The "next Bush" and his czars will have THAT much more power than GW ever had. And you guys seem to think that's A.O.K.
Gee wicket, you're saying exactly what we said for eight long years. Eight long f-ing years. Guess now you wish somebody had listened.
wicketr,
Excellent post. And the answer is no, they don't realize it. They think the government can solve social ills, despite the devastating results of so many government solutions. That is why they are liberals. I know. I used to be one too.
B,
For some reason you think I'm a Republican. I am not. I'm a Libertarian. The Bush administration was one of the worst ever. They doubled the size of the government. Reduced our liberties. Took us to war with a bunch of AK-47 carried middle easterners that don't have legitimate weapons to harm the Continental US besides hijacking planes. It's stupid and so are the people that voted for him a second time. The Republicans that are whining about increased government are hypocrites.
You realize that if we went back to the size of the national government in 2000 when Bush took office that we could abolish the Income Tax and the government would make the same amount of money? Instead we are STILL going in the wrong direction.
But that is not an excuse for you and your liberal buddies to go and do nearly the same thing with the government. Just because Bush did it (wrong of him), doesn't mean the next guy should do the exact same equally stupid thing by doubling the size of the government once again with new programs and a larger executive office with these "czars".
Does wicketr realize that George W. Bush was president for the last eight years?
one point, wickr: I'm not really worried that there might be a GOP potus one day; there WILL be one at some point. Doesn't matter, the GOP presidents and congresses never undid much of the progressive legislation (except for the financial markets regulation. look how that worked out) passed by FDR, LBJ, etc. Social Security, medicare, etc., it's all still around and they wouldn't dare get rid of it. Their old white people base would turn on them and devour them if they did.
Federal Government Health care is not a right and is not constitutional, the Republican Congress in 2003 that decided to subsidize private health insurers under Medicaid
Advantage, which costs taxpayers an average of 13 percent more per beneficiary than the government-run program. The same Republican Congress passed the
prescription drug benefit add-on to Medicare that President George W. Bush so enthusiastically championed, creating the largest expansion of the welfare state since
LBJ’s “Great Society.”
And now the Republicans have announced from the Republican National Committee, a brand new “Health Care Bill of Rights for Seniors.”
Will it ever end.
That is a valid point rat. I do have to agree with wickr some though. The fed gvt is simply out of control. There are numerous ways to reduce the size of the fed gvt without impacting our daily lives, except for the better. Also, as important an issue as health care reform is, a bill should not be just thrown together in a short time and with the help of the insurance companies. It should be well thought out and address as many of the problems with the system as possible before being presented.
What does Marsha Blackburn know about the constitution?
Marsha Blackburn Voted FOR:
Omnibus Appropriations, Special Education, Global AIDS Initiative, Job Training, Unemployment Benefits, Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations, Agriculture Appropriations, U.S.-Singapore Trade, U.S.-Chile Trade, Supplemental Spending for Iraq & Afghanistan, Prescription Drug Benefit, Child Nutrition Programs, Surface Transportation, Job Training and Worker Services, Agriculture Appropriations, Foreign Aid, Vocational/Technical Training, Supplemental Appropriations, UN “Reforms.” Patriot Act Reauthorization, CAFTA, Katrina Hurricane-relief Appropriations, Head Start Funding, Line-item Rescission, Oman Trade Agreement, Military Tribunals, Electronic Surveillance, Head Start Funding, COPS Funding, Funding the REAL ID Act (National ID), Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, Thought Crimes “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, Peru Free Trade Agreement, Economic Stimulus, Farm Bill (Veto Override), Warrantless Searches, Employee Verification Program, Body Imaging Screening.
Marsha Blackburn Voted AGAINST:
Ban on UN Contributions, eliminate Millennium Challenge Account, WTO Withdrawal, UN Dues Decrease, Defunding the NAIS, Iran Military Operations defunding, Iraq Troop Withdrawal, congress authorization of Iran Military Operations.
Marsha Blackburn is my Congressman.
See her unconstitutional votes at :
http://tinyurl.com/qhayna
Mickey
THIS WEEK'S ISSUE
