The Tea Party is Not Racist

[Lurker]

Fine, as long as you agree that the Micheal Moore's of the world are no better.

Moore can be deceptive in his movies, I grant that.

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

You think the term "colored" is going to attract racists to the NAACP? Anyway, we know they have addressed racism. They condemned the NBP (Ben Jealous), they came out against Sherrod when they thought she was being racist against whites. And that is only in the last couple of weeks. Imgaine what I might find if I looked further? So your claim that they don't condemn reverse racists is false.

So they made the accusation of racism before getting the facts?

 

[A'isha]

So they made the accusation of racism before getting the facts?

That's some pretty epic missing the point, there.

 

[johnny karate]

Anyway, keep the Tea{pot} tempests blowing; 2010 elections approach.

Perhaps you don't follow current events, but it was a conservative (and high-ranking member of the Tea Party) who outed himself as a racist, and another conservative (and prominent media figure) who manufactured a racism scandal to serve as a smokescreen. So you might want to check from which direction those winds are blowing, because it's not the left.

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

That's some pretty epic missing the point, there.

I don't think so. I believe Lurker's point was that the NAACP does indeed call out cases of 'reverse racism'. They certainly seem to have done so in the case of Shirley Sherrod.

 

[A'isha]

I don't think so. I believe Lurker's point was that the NAACP does indeed call out cases of 'reverse racism'. They certainly seem to have done so in the case of Shirley Sherrod.

Yes, and whether or not any particular calling out of "reverse racism" is done before obtaining all the facts of a case (as they did with Sherrod) is totally irrelevant to that point.

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

Yes, and whether or not any particular calling out of "reverse racism" is done before obtaining all the facts of a case (as they did with Sherrod) is totally irrelevant to that point.

Excellent! We are in agreement. The NAACP made an accusation of racism without obtaining all the facts.

 

[Lurker]

I don't think so. I believe Lurker's point was that the NAACP does indeed call out cases of 'reverse racism'. They certainly seem to have done so in the case of Shirley Sherrod.

Exactly. So here I quickly gave TWO examples just from the past week where the NAACP has condemned blacks being racist against whites. I would imagine I could find plenty more if I bothered to look more deeply.

BAC, what say you?

 

[A'isha]

Excellent! We are in agreement. The NAACP made an accusation of racism without obtaining all the facts.

Which, once again, has nothing at all to do with the point Lurker was making.

Do you have a point you're trying to make?

 

[Lurker]

Which, once again, has nothing at all to do with the point Lurker was making.

Do you have a point you're trying to make?

Correct, my point was to demonstrate that the NAACP is willing to condemn their own for racism against whites.

I think GM's point is to show the NAACP acted before the evidence was in, much like the media and the govt did. Somewhat of a nonsequitor.

 

[Juniversal]

Excellent! We are in agreement. The NAACP made an accusation of racism without obtaining all the facts.

No. They condemnded her apparently racist behavior without getting all the facts and retracted their condemnation once the full context of her statement was known.

 

[Lurker]

No. They condemnded her apparently racist behavior without getting all the facts and retracted their condemnation once the full context of her statement was known.

Yes, that is what GM said.

 

[eeyore1954]

Exactly. So here I quickly gave TWO examples just from the past week where the NAACP has condemned blacks being racist against whites. I would imagine I could find plenty more if I bothered to look more deeply.

BAC, what say you?

Are there examples from before the last couple of weeks when this started?
This week they were sort of forced to. I don't doubt that prior examples of them condeming racism in their ranks exist.

 

[Juniversal]

Yes, that is what GM said.

Maybe i'm reading too much into semantics but accusing someone of being racist and condeming racist or discriminatory behavior is not the same thing.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

That's a tough one to swallow.

Because you did not read what preceded that comparison which should have hinted I was referencing the way in which people making the racist charges are reading data:

Questions such as those addressed in both the WISER and the NYtimes polls do more to measure political ideology -- one of the core Tea Party values being self-sufficiency and responsibility -- than they do to establish any kind of "racial resentment".

Parker, the lead researcher in the WISER poll tried to create a control for ideology by comparing examples of "conservative" Republican Tea Party supporters with "conservative" Republican Tea Party critics. Yet in doing so he assumes that conservative means the same thing for everyone, removing ideological differences. In the WISER case other problems that you run into include the small sample size, and extreme limitation of samples to several states. And to top it off both the NYtimes and WISER's failure to disentangle ideology from racial attitudes is more than enough justification to render the polls indecisive if not to question their validity all together with respect to labeling the tea party racist.

Low sampling, and failure to look at the broader context of answers to those questions, and then making a comparison to something... You'll forgive me if I find that standard of proof a bit lacking.

I don't think asking if the Tea Party has racist elements is even the right question anymore.

No question there are "racist elements" in the movement that want to use the agenda of the tea party to raise their own. Your insinuation that this potentially represents the movement as whole however is lacking seriously on the evidence. You "demonstrated" the widespread tea party racism by posting links to pictures of people holding racist signs, and Obama-hitler posters. I can play that game too; why don't I scrap up every single incident I could find of individuals and leaders within the anti bush crowd promoting violence and hate, and then talk about how this is proof that all democrats have this mentality embedded in their ideology or actions. I'm pretty sure if I decided to go in that direction saying you'd have just a few objections would be an gross understatement. You might of course remain unconvinced that this is in any way comparable to your evidence standards, and continue pointing out to me how all the individuals making clowns of themselves with racially charged content proves the tea party as a whole is potentially racist. But I'm not interested in that game

 

[johnny karate]

No question there are "racist elements" in the movement that want to use the agenda of the tea party to raise their own. Your insinuation that this potentially represents the movement as whole however is lacking seriously on the evidence.

My position on the Tea Party has been made clear. I don't think they are necessarily a racist organization, but they certainly have an open door policy for racists. And I don't think I owe them the benefit of the doubt on this issue. It's not my fault racists keep cropping up in their ranks.

You "demonstrated" the widespread tea party racism by posting links to pictures of people holding racist signs, and Obama-hitler posters.

No, I didn't. What I provided were links to established, high-ranking members of the Tea Party engaging in racist behavior.

I can play that game too; why don't I scrap up every single incident I could find of individuals and leaders within the anti bush crowd promoting violence and hate, and then talk about how this is proof that all democrats have this mentality embedded in their ideology or actions. I'm pretty sure if I decided to go in that direction saying you'd have just a few objections would be an gross understatement.

My first objection would be the obvious one: No established, high-ranking members of the Democratic party engaged in such behavior, so the analogy falls woefully short. (I'm afraid clumsy attempts at jokes don't qualify.)

You might of course remain unconvinced that this is in any way comparable to your evidence standards, and continue pointing out to me how all the individuals making clowns of themselves with racially charged content proves the tea party as a whole is potentially racist. But I'm not interested in that game

Fair enough. But the fact remains that the wing-nuttery of the Left during the Bush administration wasn't nearly as embraced by the mainstream as the wing-nuttery of the Right is now.

 

[BeAChooser]

I would think you would do your research before you post. The NAACP is NOT a "black only" organization. There are white members of the NAACP.

You are correct. My mistake. There are indeed some white NAACP members and there have been since the organization's founding. It's charter does not say *no whites allowed*. But, tell us, what percentage of its' 500,000 plus membership would you say are white or even caucasian? Perhaps we can tell by looking at the Kansas City convention where the Tea Party was condemned? How many of the attendees were white?

There's a picture of the attendees here: http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/07/naacp_convention_considers_res.html , listening to Michelle's Obama's address a large audience. There *might* be a white face or two in that group. Here are a whole bunch of other photos from the convention from the NAACP website: http://www.flickr.com/groups/1432467@N24/pool/show/ . Take a look at the photo taken from the back of the room when Michelle was speaking. Hundreds and hundreds of people in the audience and I frankly don't see more than 2 or 3 whites. I'd hazard that well over 99% of the attendees were black.

Now why would an organization that you appear to be implying *welcomes* whites have so few whites in it? Perhaps because it doesn't exactly welcome them? Because I sure don't think that only 1% or less of whites are racists and wouldn't want to join such a fine cause, do you? Whereas the Tea Party quite publically welcomes blacks and would like to see many more join, and even speak at their events. Because the agenda of the Tea Party, in contrast to that of the NAACP, isn't about race. Race is a distraction to the Tea Party, not the core cause. Making it far more likely that a racist would be attracted to an NAACP meeting than to a Tea Party.

And I certainly wouldn't say the Tea Party has a "significant" number of black members. That's an exaggeration at best.

No, it is not. As I noted in post #104, a poll by CBS (a very leftist media outlet which wouldn't like to see a lot of blacks at Tea Party events) found that 1 percent of the party was black. Now that might not sound like a lot but it would require participation of about 10% of all blacks. Gallup concluded that "demographically, [Tea Party members] are generally representative of the public at large" because they found that 6% of the membership is black. And a CNN poll found that 2% of people who described themselves as "Tea Party Activists" were black. (And 10% were latino.) This doesn't sound at all unreasonable and would represent a far larger percentage of blacks than the percentage who didn't vote of Obama.

And there's still huge disparities between whites and blacks that would warrant an organization like the NAACP to remain in existence.

Are the huge disparities caused by racism, however? I think not. I suggest that the disparities in income, education, etc, are the consequence of blacks subscribing to the victicrat and dependency mentality promoted by democrat leaders and a long string of racebaiting, black leaders the last 4 or 5 decades? The black community was making huge strides economically before the welfare state came along and made unwed babies and welfare a source of livelihood. I suggest the current situation of blacks is also the result of tolerating drugs and gangs in their neighborhoods, and tolerating those who demean blacks who work hard and excel in school. It's a consequence of blowing the current degree of racism out of proportion, of promoting reverse racism, and playing the race card at every turn (to such a degree that employers may now be leery of hiring black workers due the legal and government-related problems it can cause them). Try firing a black employee for cause without charges of racism being raised. It's a consequence of demeaning anyone in the black community who is not a liberal … of labeling successful conservatives like Larry Elder and even Colin Powell as "Uncle Toms". It's a consequence of betting on socialism rather than capitalism. Sorry, Juniversal, but I think that much of the disparity is now self-induced. And that's not a racist statement, just an observation of what appear to be the facts.

And yes that guy giving the speech is an idiot.

And so are the people bringing signs to Tea Party rallies that might be interpreted as racist. But that doesn't make the Tea Party any more racist than the NAACP because of this man. Maybe less so because Tea Party members have shown themselves willing to get in the face of idiots and ask them to leave. I don't see any evidence of NAACP members challenging people who call any successful conservative black or black who does not toe the line with their socialist, leftist agenda an "Uncle Tom" and traitor. Both organizations have idiots. It's just an unavoidable fact of life. So the NAACP has no right pointing fingers. That is totally hypocritical.

Regardless something doesn't sit right with me about the Gladney attack.

Since you appear to want to defend the attackers, let's go over the facts. The following was in the left-leaning Saint Louis Post Dispatch (the article has been scrubbed from their site although they've kept one report of their own reporter getting arrested that evening - http://videos.stltoday.com/p/video?id=5489769 - as if that's more newsworthy) shortly after the incident:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...5420430FDF2036F08625760B00136BBC?OpenDocument

-- Two men were arrested for misdemeanor assault for allegedly punching, pushing and holding a man who was handing out American flags and fliers outside the school.

-- One woman was arrested for misdemeanor assault and destruction of property for allegedly pushing another woman who was recording the events on her cell phone, then grabbing the phone and breaking it.

-- One woman was arrested for interference and resisting arrest. One officer used pepper spray on the woman, police said, when she did not comply with officers' demands. That woman "just would not leave," when asked by officers to back away from the scuffles, said spokesman Rick Eckhard said. She also passively resisted when an officer tried to handcuff her, he said.

-- One man was arrested for peace disturbance when he entered a circle of people who had gathered near the pepper-sprayed woman and refused to comply with officers' demands to leave

-- Post-Dispatch reporter Jake Wagman also was arrested for allegedly interfering.

... snip ...

Kenneth Gladney, 38, an activist from St. Louis who believes in a no-tax stance, said he was attacked by some of those arrested as he handed out yellow flags with "Don't tread on me" printed on them. He spoke to the Post-Dispatch from the emergency room on Thursday night at St. John's Mercy Medical Center, where he said he was awaiting treatment for injuries to his knee, back, elbow, shoulder and face.

And here's a still image from the beginning of one videos of the incident:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_7NKa1sIQ3kQ/Sn9KTYv4AII/AAAAAAAAAHE/tjjyksomznk/s1600-h/SEIUonground.jpg

Gladney is clearly on the ground at the beginning and trying to get up. Eyewitnesses say the beating took place before that … that the video caught only the tail end of the altercation. The bulk of the witnesses who were there fingered the SEIU members for starting the trouble.

Here's the rest of the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTXBOgPCh9w (warning ... foul language)

The video shows Gladney getting up, and a man in the white shirt rolling Elston McCowan (one of the SEIU thugs) onto his back. The man in the white shirt later told police that McCowan had attacked Gladney. A SEIU thug named Perry Molens then throws Gladney to the ground, before falling down himself, while another woman yells at Molens to get off him. There are several people involved in stopping the action, and they are all witnesses. None of them have come forward to substantiate McCowan's story, nor has anyone else from SEIU, despite there being purple HCAN (SEIU) shirts all over. Many have substantiated Gladney's version of what happened.

Here's more coverage of the incident from another camera:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjzEPcp3r7U&feature=player_embedded

In these videos you can hear Molens yelling at someone, telling him to shut up or come fight him somewhere else. Several tea party protestors ask if that's the union way. There is also an eyewitness calmly telling the officers that McCowan started the fight. You can also hear a man saying, "they were whaling on him." That sounds like it backs up Gladney's story too, since no second person is claimed by McCowan or Molens or anyone to have attacked McCowan. Gladney also repeats the same story he told the next day - that McCowan approached him, accosted, him, slapped, his hands, and then punched his face. The videos clearly supports Gladney and not the SEIU thugs. And by the way, you can also see in the second video that the women holding the camera was attacked by an HCAN/SEIU supporter (which led to one of the arrests noted in the newspaper article above).

And here's the police report with witness statements of the incident:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15739780/GLADNEY-PART-21

While waiting for additional units to make it to my location, I attempted to detain Suspects Molens and McCowen for a further investigation of the incident. I had to tell Suspects Molens and McCowen to remain in front of me several times, as they tried numerous times to get lost in the crowd and get past me.

… snip ...

I then contacted Witness #1, Harris Himes. Witness H. Himes stated that as he was leaving the school gymnasium, he saw Suspect McCowan talking to Victim Gladney. He stated he saw Suspect McCowan reach over the table and punch Victim Gladney in the face. This assault knocked the victim off balance. Suspect Molens then went around the table and pulled Victim Gladney over the table backwards by the back of his shirt collar. He began to punch and kick Victim Gladney. Witness H. Himes added that while Suspect Molens was kicking and punching Victim Gladney, Suspect McCowan then join in on the assault.

Witness #2, Sandra Himes', statement of the incident concurred with Harris' account of the incident. She did add that Victim Gladney did nothing to provoke this assault.

At this time I was contacted by the victim, Kenneth E. Gladney. I asked Victim Gladney if he needed medical attention as I tried to determine if he was okay. Victim Gladney appeared shaken and his clothes were in disarray. Victim Gladney stated that he would convey himself to the hospital at a later time to be evaluated. I then asked Victim Gladney what happened during the assault.

Gladney stated that he was handing out pens and buttons outside the gym. He stated that is when Suspects Molens and McCowan, along with a third suspect who is unidentified at this time, walked by his table. Suspect McCowan picked up one of the buttons from Gladney's table and said, "Who's selling this (BAC - a four letter word which I fear JREF censors might not like)?" Victim Gladney stated, "I'm not selling anything, It's free." At this time Suspect McCowan said "What kind of (BAC - the N-word) are you?" Suspect McCowan then reached across the table and punched Victim Gladney in the face. Victim Gladney added that Suspect Molens grabbed him from behind, at which time he was struck several times and taken to the ground. At this time he was struck several more times. He doesn't know how many people struck him or how many times exactly he was struck after he was on the ground.

I observed no facial injury, although Victim Gladney was holding his left elbow complaining that it was hurting. Victim Gladney added that his elbow was hurt after he was thrown to the ground.

I was then contacted by Witness #3, [blanked out name] gave a similar account of the original assault. I would like to add that when I originally walked up to the crowd, Witness [blanked out] was one of the individuals being yelled at by Suspect Molens.

It should be noted that while I was gathering the information from this assault, several additional assaults and unlawful behaviors occurred.

The police report and witness statements clearly corroborate Gladney's version of things, not your partisan motivated rendition or the claims of those SEIU thugs.

And I supppose you didn't know who was standing next to the NAACP member you identified as an idiot for calling Gladney an Uncle Tom? None other than Elston McCowan. You want to hear him speak at that meeting? Here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCAYipcuTAI "Elston McCowan, NAACP, others laugh at calling Kenneth Gladney the N word"

And here is some more video from that event which apparently was set up by the NAACP (since they are all standing behind a NAACP podium to speak) to defend and applaud the two SEIU thugs who attacked Gladney:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEAX1dHVeqo&feature=related "Elston McCowan & Perry Molens Press Release 5.5.10 Part 2"

What is said behind that NAACP podium is nothing but lies. McCowan and Molens aren't the weak victims they are made out to be. The real story about McCowan and Molens is this. The are lying union THUGS with a long history.

Do you know that McCowan originally told the St. Louis Post Dispatch (“Two sides blame each other in fracas at forum”, August 8, 2009, by Patrick M. O’Connell) that he was walking to his car and was jumped out of nowhere:

“Out of nowhere, the guy just assaults me,” said McCowan, 47, of St. Louis."

Then, a week later, his story changed.

http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/17...arted-it-and-now-you-dont-like-it/#more-32226

On August 13th, a full week after the attack, in an interview with Don Fitz of the St Louis Gateway Greens (BAC - “United States: Industry-backed opponents of healthcare reform react with racism, violence”, LINKS International Journal of Socialist Renewal, August 14, 2009, by Don Fitz), McCowan relates what he claims is the real story behind the attack:

“When I pointed at the button, Gladney slapped my hand. So I told him not to hit me and pointed at it again and repeated my question. He smacked my hand even harder, hit me several times and pushed me down. As I went down, I grabbed him by reflex to break my fall. I hit my shoulder and something popped. I lost consciousness for a moment but soon realised that Gladney continued to hit me.

“Another SEIU guy, Perry Molens, came over and told Gladney, ‘He’s a minister and won’t fight back. He can’t see out of one eye. Stop hitting him!’. When Gladney kept on, Perry tried to get him off of me and threw a punch in the process.

Seems, like most liars, that he couldn't keep his story straight.

Because it's an absolutely ridiculous tale. That a 130 pound diabetic and leukemia survivor attacked a 6 foot, 220 lb "minister" and beat him till he was lost consciousness, while his sweet 6 foot 5 inch tall companion , Perry Molens, begged Gladney to stop.

I'm not buying this righteous, noble act. Not from McCowan, Molens or the NAACP. The NAACP is a racist, violent, highly-partisan organization because they knowingly support racist, violent SEIU thugs like these two and even allow them to speak at NAACP sponsored events, where NAACP audiences clearly support what is the obvious racism they are displaying.

As for Gladney walking around after the assault, he was probably in a state of shock at being accosted by men twice his size in the manner described above. His glasses were knocked off. He was hit in the face. He's holding his elbow in pain. Any more serious injuries (like internal ones) likely were only noticed once the adrenaline began to wear off. By the way, the hospital report is going to help convict those SEIU thugs too.

And do you want to know how the SEIU media spokesperson reported this incident initially? With lies, of course. Here:

http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/17...arted-it-and-now-you-dont-like-it/#more-32226

When reports first came out of violence at the Russ Carnahan TownHall in Missouri, SEIU flacks jumped into their media spin machine and got to work. Tim Targaris, the SEIU new media spokesman started the party with a Tweet declaring:

Seven teabaggers arrested at Missouri town-hall event today. One SEIU staffer sent to hospital (shoulder) and will be ok. 9:01 p.m. August 6th.

But of course, you now know that it was five HCAN (a health care front group for SEIU) thugs who were arrested, not seven Tea Party members. And the other two who were arrested were members of a somewhat left-leaning news organization who got in the way. No Tea Party members were arrested. Gladney wasn't arrested. The SEIU just spouted lies expecting fools to believe them. Is that what you are, Juniversal?

And despite the obvious lies in the SEIU's statement, Tagaris is still the New Media Director for the SEIU? Aren't you the least offended by this, Juniversal? Or do you wish to defend them doing that too?

And guess what a democrat prosecutor did regarding this case … after first waiting three months before filing any charges against SEIU members (perhaps hoping it would just go away?)?

http://thedanashow.wordpress.com/20...utors-never-checked-gladney-hospital-records/

St. Louis County Prosecutors watered-down the charges in the Kenneth Gladney case from a misdemeanor to an ordinance violation without so much as even calling St. John’s Hospital, where Gladney received treatment for his injuries, and checking Gladney’s hospital record or speaking with care providers on site.

And now every effort is being made to delay the trial until after the November election because a conviction might not look good for democrats. And the leftist portions of the media continue to just ignore what was quite obviously thuggery and a hate crime. Against a black man. That seems racist to me. Yes, it most certainly does.

In fact, here is the way Keith Olbermann finally reported the Gladney incident in January … after charges had finally been filed (see 1:46 into the following video):

http://storyballoon.org/videos/keit...es-lay-in-on-james-okeefes-landrieu-incident/

and just as it would seem as health care opponents lied about the summer time confrontation when witnesses claimed a teabagger was brutally beaten despite video tape that really shows him not being brutally beaten

And you apparently bought Olberman's lie, Juniversal. Or are trying to promote your own batch of lies. Either way, it's disgusting. Can leftists get any more despicable or obvious in their dishonesty than in this case?

And with all that evidence in hand, what does the NAACP do? Why take the side of the SEIU thugs', of course. What sort of idiots do they take us to be? And if you want to continue to defend their decision to do that, you go right ahead. Because I think that your doing that will only tell ANY rational, or even slightly rational, person reading this thread where your head is now stuck.

 

[BeAChooser]

Quote:
Before you act all high and mighty, Mumbles, will you call the NAACP racist for the way they treated Mr Gladney? Did you look at that video?

I think Juniversal covered that.

I direct your attention to post #337. Because your head might be stuck in the same place as Juniveral's.

 

[BeAChooser]

I have no sympathy for Gladney. He's a mediocre actor at best.

... deleted ...

 

[pipelineaudio]

Not long ago people in this forum were calling the hispanics in the Arizona Minutemen racists...against mexicans.

Forgive me if I wait and see how this plays out