We, The American Tea Party Movement – the Republic’s defenders against injustice, tyranny, and Statism, have had enough. We are ending this phony dialogue on motivations and our identity. We have allowed a year of unwarranted and unprovable attacks on our character, our identity, and our motivations to go unanswered in the vain expectation that our opposition would be rational enough to see that schoolyard taunts are not the same thing as intellectual argument. We expected our opposition to act in their own interest and cease the nonsense when it became apparent to them that no one was buying what they were selling. We assumed that our silence would be understood. On that, we were mistaken. As a result of the NAACP’s ridiculous “vote” on our character and their demand that we apologize for each and every individual within our movement who might hold racist thoughts or opinions, we have been forced to respond.

Our response is this: We are school teachers, firefighters, shopkeepers, elected officials, homemakers, retirees, students, bankers; we are police, business leaders, husbands, wives, small town merchants. We are the voice of every American who believes that his life is his own, and that his neighbor is not responsible for or entitled to either his failures or his successes. We are the voice of every American who believes that he answers to the dictate of his own conscience, not to the demands of the barrel of a gun. It matters not whether that gun is held by the hands of a street thug, or a thug in Washington, our response is the same, a gun is not an argument.

We have been stoic in the face of the intellectual equivalent of the barrel of a gun as an argument. Namely, unprovable smears that racism is the motivation for our opposition to the “fundamental transformation” of America. The fact that this transformation is coming via the hands of a black president does not change the fact that it is a transformation into Statism, which we abhor. We do not care that the vessel for that transformation is a black president, we oppose the change, not the man.

As to the man, we do not withdraw our recognition that he is a radical, regardless of his race. We do not withdraw our assertion that his past and current associations with radicals matter, and should not be ignored, regardless of his race. We do not withdraw our acknowledgment of his accomplishments or his achievements, regardless of his race. We do not believe race and identity are equivalent, though many of our opponents do.

As to our identity, we define it, we do not allow the Alinsky method to define it for us. To that end, it is interesting that we have been painted as ignorant and incompetent on one day, and well coordinated astro-turf the next. It is interesting that we have been portrayed as violent extremists one one day, and passive social security recipients the next. It is interesting that those who comment on our motivations frequently surmise that we must be unemployed layabouts while we are actively opposing policy that would make such a life untenable. It is utterly fascinating that our opponents are unable to use reason and logic. Finally, it is beyond comprehension that they have not yet figured out who we are.

We are the voice of reason in an irrational world, and we will not be silenced or muted into submission by accepting an unearned guilt. We are the choir which is the combined voices of America.

For those who have demanded that we repudiate or apologize for the small fraction of racists who may believe that they are tea party members or that they hold our values,; for those of you who demand that we do the logically impossible and, by default, prove our lack of racism – we say: are you serious? We can not, of course, prove a negative, except by implication. So we call out those who believe without evidence that we are motivated to oppose the radical that has inherited the sixty plus year old Progressive agenda at the peak of that agenda’s success, because that President happens to be black. We will be happy to engage on the merits of that argument, and on the merits of our ideas for the future of our Republic. We will not, however, continue the absurd distraction that is identity politics. We are too busy and have too much to do to engage in such nonsensical distractions.

We are too busy transforming America back to the vision our founders had for her to distract ourselves by engaging with those who wish to alter our identity in the minds of our fellow citizens, when those citizens have not yet met us face to face.

I respect and admire the professed goals of Conservative or Libertarian leaning sites.  Certainly this is the case with NewsReal, at least as reflected in their mission statement, as it shows a respect for ideas and an understanding of their importance. I only wish that that much understanding and respect was reflected in the actual analysis and reporting. We are all engaged in the battle for man’s mind, and we all are fighting for the recognition of man’s right and his need to use it. When political writers are so concrete bound that they are unable or unwilling to see the implications of evading central points or completely miss the most crucial intellectual issues underneath the material they are looking at, those writers are not helping the cause, they are standing in its way or harming it. One cannot fight a battle if one does not know the stakes, the enemy, or the means to fight it.

It has become a near cultural myth that in the battle trenches of WW1, soldiers found that if three of them took turns lighting a cigarette on the same match (commodities such as matches were conserved due to short supply) , that there was enough time and light for the enemy to hone in on their target. Hence the superstition regarding using the same match for more than two smokers at once. In much the same way, when one reads three articles out of three from the same source, and those articles provide little analysis that is appropriate to the subject matter, yet much in the way of hyperbole and standard talking points, it is a sure bet that it would not be likely that one would derive much benefit by sticking around while the enemy, who ought to be easy to disarm, takes easy shots at the straw men those writers created in attempts at avoiding making philosophical arguments.

In How to Make Sure the Flight of the Intellectuals does not Become the Flight of the Conservatives, Obama Health Care Czar’s Motto? Rationing for Thee, but not for Me. And Has Obama (of all Presidents) Finally Silenced the Rap Industry?,, the writers took such a superficial approach that it allows a less than fully engaged reader to miss or to ignore the fundamental issues each article ought to address.

As an illustration of my point, in Ron Radosh’s five paragraph letter of July 17, 2010, ostensibly written to discuss the threat of Islamafascism, he spends four of them worrying about a concrete; the wishiwashiness of other Conservatives when it comes to prosecuting the war and the threat such fence sitting creates for Republicans in future elections. Seriously? Where is the discussion of the nature of religious thinking, and the mystic and statist view of reality and man, which by definition must be held by those who approach to politics via religious fundamentalism? What about the refusal of our government to assert its right to self defense? Why not face head on the specific views within Islam that lead to direct attacks on freedom and, ultimately, enslavement? Electoral concerns are treated as the most crucial thing in a letter that begins by showing sincere concern about “the very real threat posed by radical Islam” as well as worries about conservatives who “either ignore or deny that such a threat exists, or believe that it is not a dire one, and that we can pursue a modern policy that comes close to appeasement”.

If Conservatives continue in this vein and evade the crucial issues, not only are we guilty of appeasement, but we will be surrendering any claim we would have as defenders of Americanism and America. All this in a piece which announces that it will offer a way to avoid “the flight of the Conservatives” following the flight of the intellectuals. If this be the nature of today’s Conservatives, it is appropriate that intellectuals fled already.

Greg Victor’s post on July 17, 2010 ought to have charged headlong into the most pertinent criticisms possible about the nature of rap and it’s effect on those who are it’s intended targets. It could have looked at the nature of the artists who create such trash; how they show disdain for the interests of their minotity fans by presenting such horrendous attitudes in regards to women, education, responsibility, and family and the role these things play in black success. It could have decried the de-volution of the music; an art which once celebrated black individualism and creativity and placed upon an alter the notion of success in the face of adversity. Instead of focusing directly on the major complaints which black men and women themselves have about rap; that it is the modern equivalent of a minstrel show and that it reinforces the worst racial assumptions of its target and largest audience – 15-25 year old suburban white males, Victor assumes it will be far more effective in the quest to promote conservative values to take pot shots at the intellectual vigor (or lack of it)of two bit artists and their non-abandonment of a black president.

If this is the state of cultural analysis in America, it is no surprise that our culture has gotten to such a state.

Finally, in David Catron’s work on the appointment of President Obama’s “health care” czar, who is an advocate for rationing, there is no mention of the rights of the doctor to practice medicine with his mind free from coercion, no mention of the danger presented to patients by doctors willing to work under such a system, and not a hint of criticism of the prior crown jewels of socialized medicine, Medicare and Medicaid, which most Republicans and Democrats support. Despite their failure to perform, their outrageous costs, and the implied premise smuggled into the programs – that we as individuals owe another human being health care simply because they don’t have any, Conservatives remain fans of Johnson and Roosevelt’s little children. Medicare and Medicaid (as well as Social Security) are still that pesky third rail, even for the alleged defenders of Capitalism and individualism. In a third showing in three articles, the ability or willingness of the writers to “say something original that isn’t just conservative boilerplate”; consists of avoiding the mere mention of the methods by which Conservatives could fight socialized medicine, if they genuinely desired to, and the writer focuses instead on a range of the moment weak jab against rationing and a backhanded slap at Barack Obama. If we Libertarians and Conservatives fight against Obamapelosi care in this manner, we deserve to have our healthcare rationed.

That would be three on that one match of fellow conservatives and libertarians. As an atheist, I hold no superstitions, but as committed to reason as I am, I understand that this will most likely earn the ire of potential allies, but with friends of liberty such as these, or at least with the non-message message these friends bring to the table, who needs liberals?

As a closing point, in emphasis of the three articles above, I offer three quotes by America’s philosopher.

Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone.

The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see.

Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps, down new roads, armed with nothing but their own vision.

© 2010 by carl cervini

“Slavery is freedom. Colorblindness is racism. Smears are political arguments. Thugs are freedom fighters”. Orwellian projection regarding our descent into a statist utopia is a bit trite and obvious. Media narratives regarding the “racism” of the Right have become more so. Conservatives, Libertarians, and sundry Tea Partiers now dive into the muddied waters of the Left’s latest game of “marginalize political opponents with invective and secret coding.” Ominous foreboding for the November elections.

The lines are drawn in the ideological battle for America’s soul. Intimations of Racial Jihad stir the air when the likes of Minister King Samir Shabazz of the criminally insane New Black Panther Party (NBPP) screams ‘kill some of their{cracka’s} babies.”

During the early decades of our Republic Liberalism was understood to be defined by its commitment to individual
rights.

The notion of “collective rights” or group rights was
foreign to political thinkers.  Groups, as such, had no
rights.  The concept of rights belonged to the individual.
individual rights.

Notice, therefore, that the modern “liberal” has no such
commitment.  They claim to be dedicated to protecting
“rights”, but their notion of rights does not extend beyond
groups-be they various sexual or ethnic minorities,
economic pressure groups, or organizations whose only
apparent motive seems to be promoting animosity
between competing factions-the individual–you–has been
left out of the equation (unless you self-identify or profess
allegiance to the various groups which the “liberals” work
to “protect”).  What is notoriously absent is the central
element which separates one individual from all
others-his ideas.

Philosophy, the study of ideas, belongs to no group; only
individuals-by their own conscious effort-can define a
philosophy, and it is this key element which is
deliberately obscured by all “liberals”.

Modern Liberalism has no philosophy, it has only a
grab-bag collection of Statist, collectivist programs
which: A: discount the efficacy of the individual as
non-existent or irrelevant; B: promote “group” rights as a
given (implying, therefore, that those who do not belong
to said group do not enjoy those rights); and C: maintains
that any opposition to such principles is rooted in a
repudiation of “rights” as a whole (ignoring the fact that
by proposing “collective rights” they have, in fact, made
any assertion of one’s own, individual rights, impossible).

Liberalism has turned its back on its own history;  at first
by default, accepting the underlying premises and
assumptions of socialist thinkers like Marx and Engels;
now, by intent, by obscuring the historical definition of
Liberalism and highjacking the once noble lable.  Modern “Liberalism” has sold its soul to its ethical antagonist and has lost all claim to the word “liberal”.

So the sky will fall, our dollar will collapse, inflation will spiral out of control while Britney
Spears becomes minister of the car police (or
whatever Barack decides to call that ridiculous
car czar), right?  Lest you think that I am all nay
saying and finger pointing, let me point out that
pessimism is not the same as fatalism.

I believe that good will come out of  the latest
fiascoes, if we recognize that change-not “is
coming”, ala Mr. Obama, but must come.
Fortunately for all of us B. Hussein Obama was
only elected to a four year term.   I suspect that
calmer heads will  prevail in 2012, when Mr.
Obama’s term is up.

America has the most productive, straight
thinking and goal oriented people on Earth.   We
have some goal to achieve:  Nothing less than
the complete top to bottom restructuring of our
government, our economy, and the means by
which we relate to the world.  That is some tall
order, and I doubt the Republicrats are suited to
the task.  If the Libertarian party doesn’t refine
its public persona away from the “legalize
drugs-taxes are bad-the media sucks” platform
that most Americans believe that party is about
(and  is the platform most quasi-libertarians have
run on), then surely some other party will pick
up the slack.  Hell, I can be an optimist when
the time calls for it.

Wall Street Journal writer  Peggy Noonan  sums up our
decidedly “optimistic” culture.  Ms. Noonan
said  of the then President-elect:  ”people are angry
but don’t have a plan, and they’ll give {Obama}
unprecedented latitude and sympathy”.  I hardly
believe that his  Lordness is the man suited to
the times we are about to experience,  but I
believe someone out there must be.  Heaven
help us if we one day fall into the kind of trap Hitler laid
out for the German Republic in the 1920s/30s.

This is where pessimism comes in.  We must not
fall for the mind numbing, “there’s a gold mine
in the sky”, “don’t stop thinking’ about
tomorrow” rhetoric that is sure to come from
the next crop of king of the hill wanabes in four
years.  That is not optimism.  It’s fantasy speak
for “trust me, I know what I’m doing-just don’t look too closely”.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Peggy Noonan On The SOTU: A Contradictory Heart (cehwiedel.com)