Gun smoke - Coeur d'Alene Press: Local News

Gun smoke

NRA exec: 'Protection is in our own hands'

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Saturday, July 16, 2011 12:00 am

STATELINE - Americans can't be gun-shy about defending the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, the executive vice president of the National Rifle Association said on Friday night.

Wayne LaPierre told 545 people attending the first Great Northwest "Clingers" Festival and Second Amendment Rally sponsored by the Tea Party Patriots of North Idaho at Stateline Speedway that our rights are being attacked like never before.

"The elites don't care about us," he said under sunny skies. "Protection is in our own hands."

LaPierre said the country could be one Supreme Court appointment away from breaking the back of the Second Amendment.

"It's important that we stay active every day," he said. "The Second Amendment is about all the good guys have."

LaPierre said government is failing at protecting people, based on national crime statistics, and that is one of the reasons the NRA remains vigilant in its fight.

"We need a complete top-to-bottom scrub of the Department of Justice," he said.

LaPierre called the United Nations "a club of governments" that doesn't care about individual freedoms.

He said America needs to remain unique from the rest of the countries in the U.N.

"We are the only country in that corrupt organization that has a Bill of Rights," LaPierre said. "That's what separates our country from every other in the world.

"If some criminal breaks down your door at night, don't count on the baby blue helmets of the U.N. to help out."

LaPierre said the United States becoming like the United Nations as a whole and settling for less freedoms is a slippery slope.

"That is a critical step of losing our unique American way of life," he said.

LaPierre said the media and "political elites" make the NRA and other defenders of the Second Amendment out to be extremists, but that's not the case.

"We're law-abiding Americans," he said. "We breathe the same free air as our founding fathers. And we will fight because we are Americans."

Another speaker at the rally, held simultaneously with the River City Rod Run in nearby Post Falls, was Marshall Foster, founder of the World History Institute, formerly the Mayflower Institute. Marshall said it's important to know the past before heading into the future.

Foster said the key to the Declaration of Independence is to understand its optimistic tone. He said contains "divine principles" and was the culmination of what Americans believed.

"All the colonies were united and they weren't talking to the king," Marshall said of the covenant. "They were talking to God."

Foster, who will give a free workshop today at 9 a.m. at Candlelight Christian Fellowship in Coeur d'Alene called "Real Hope for Our Time," said it's easy to get skeptical with the way the world is today. But there's still hope.

"That Declaration is still the belief system of the American people," he said. "Covenant keepers win and covenant breakers lose."

More about

More about

More about

  • Discuss

Welcome to the discussion.

39 comments:

  • Humanist posted at 9:19 am on Wed, Jul 20, 2011.

    Humanist Posts: 3038

    JoeIdaho: I am truly interested what the Tea Party's take is on this from a sociology and psychology phenomenon standpoint. I really do not know why anyone cannot or will not answer other than nobody but you and me reading this thread. :)

    You are actually the one who appears to be "stuck" on it by defending your reasons why you won't answer the question. Generally if someone is evading answering a question, they cannot answer it or are trying to hide something.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 10:30 pm on Tue, Jul 19, 2011.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    So; tell us, humanist, why this is SO intriguing to you? Seems you are stuck quite hard on the issue, so pray tell; why does it bother you so much?

    See, people GET defensive when someone TRIES to inflict irritation without cause. You are a liberal, and it is well known, so when you KEEP askign the same question it's a little like me saying that I want to see dramambamas birth certificate, becuase I (do) think the one he showed us is fake.

    Do you have a copy of the real one?

    Please don't get defensive. I really just want to know.

     
  • Humanist posted at 6:07 pm on Mon, Jul 18, 2011.

    Humanist Posts: 3038

    @Lone Wolf: That's an interesting article. I have seen many article from people not in the Tea Party analyzing them and determining that there are some racial biases. But I have tried to find information on how the Tea Party themselves explain their extremely low non-white percentage and that information is difficult to find. Hopefully a non-defensive Tea Party person here will chime in on their groups explanation for that.

     
  • lone wolf posted at 5:33 pm on Mon, Jul 18, 2011.

    lone wolf Posts: 243

    http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/25/are-tea-partiers-racist.html

    Are Tea Partiers Racist?
    A new study shows that the movement's supporters are more likely to be racially resentful.

    Ever since the Tea Party phenomenon gathered steam last spring, it has been plagued by charges of racism. Placards at rallies have depicted President Barack Obama as a witch doctor, denounced his supposed plans for "white slavery," and likened Congress to a slave owner and the taxpayer to a "n----r." Opponents have seized on these examples as proof that Tea Partiers are angry white folks who can't abide having a black president. Supporters, on the other hand, claim that the hateful signs are the work of a small fringe and that they unfairly malign a movement that simply seeks to rein in big government. In the absence of empirical evidence to support either characterization, the debate has essentially deadlocked.

    Until now, that is. A new survey by the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality offers fresh insight into the racial attitudes of Tea Party sympathizers. "The data suggests that people who are Tea Party supporters have a higher probability"—25 percent, to be exact—"of being racially resentful than those who are not Tea Party supporters," says Christopher Parker, who directed the study. "The Tea Party is not just about politics and size of government. The data suggests it may also be about race."

    Surveyers asked respondents in California and a half dozen battleground states (like Michigan and Ohio) a series of questions that political scientists typically use to measure racial hostility. On each one, Tea Party backers expressed more resentment than the rest of the population, even when controlling for partisanship and ideology. When read the statement that "if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites," 73 percent of the movement's supporters agreed, while only 33 percent of people who disapproved of the Tea Party agreed. Asked if blacks should work their way up "without special favors," as the Irish, Italians, and other groups did, 88 percent of supporters agreed, compared to 56 percent of opponents. The study revealed that Tea Party enthusiasts were also more likely to have negative opinions of Latinos and immigrants.

    These results are bolstered by a recent New York Times/CBS News surveyfinding that white Tea Party supporters were more likely to believe that "the Obama administration favors blacks over whites" and that "too much has been made of the problems facing black people." The survey also showed that Tea Party sympathizers are whiter, older, wealthier, and more well-educated than the average American. They're "just as likely to be employed, and more likely to describe their economic situation as very or fairly good," according to a summary of the poll.

    If Tea Party supporters are doing relatively fine, what are they so riled up about? These studies suggest that, at least in part, it's race. The country that the Tea Partiers grew up in is irrevocably changing. Last month, new demographic data showed that minority births are on the verge of outpacing white births. By 2050, Hispanics are expected to account for more than a quarter of the American population. The Tea Partiers "feel a loss … like their status has been diminished," says David Bositis of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, which examines issues of race. "If you listen to [their] language, it's always about 'taking our country back.' But it's really not taking the country back as is. It's taking the country back"—as in time.

    Bositis finds the movement's arguments about reckless federal spending unpersuasive. Why, he asks, weren't they up in arms when President George W. Bush launched two costly wars and created a new unfunded mandate with his Medicare prescription-drug plan? Why didn't they take to the streets when he converted a surplus into a massive deficit? "I don't like to be in a position where I'm characterizing people as being racially biased," says Bositis. "But when the shoe fits, what do you do?" Given modern societal norms, "they know they can't use any overtly racist language," he contends. "So they use coded language"—questioning the patriotism of the president or complaining about "socialist" schemes to redistribute wealth.

    The Tea Partiers bridle at such accusations. "That is so pathetic," says Danita Kilcullen, the founder of Tea Party Fort Lauderdale. "Nobody in the Tea Party movement that I know is a racist." She notes that she attends a church with a black pastor, supports a black candidate (Allen West) in a local congressional race, and backs a Latino candidate (Marco Rubio) for U.S. Senate. When a protestor showed up at one of her group's rallies with a racist sign, she says, she personally kicked him off the corner. "We absolutely don't tolerate anything like that," says Kilcullen. "Nobody uses the N word. Nobody calls Mexicans all those ugly things that people say. Those are lies about us." She concedes that the movement doesn't draw many African-Americans. "But that's because all the black people voted for Obama," she says. "Well, not all—but 90 percent." (It was actually 95 percent.)

    Some Tea Partiers blame the media for casting them as racists. "It really makes me mad," says Tom Fitzhugh, a Tea party activist in Tampa. "They have tried to portray us as a bunch of radical extremists." He considers Obama an abomination—possibly "the most radical-voting senator that ever was" and someone likely to "take us down the path of destruction." He believes the administration is intent on taking away his guns, trampling on states' rights, and opening the borders with Canada and Mexico. He has serious doubts that Obama was born in the U.S. and suspects that the president is a closet Muslim. (There's no evidence to support any of these accusations.) But his anger has nothing to do with race, he says. The real issue is that Obama is "taking down the Constitution and the way it's governed us for [hundreds of] years." All he wants, in other words, is to take his country back.

     
  • Humanist posted at 3:36 pm on Mon, Jul 18, 2011.

    Humanist Posts: 3038

    Quote JoeIdaho: "It's something that you; as a liberal, are trying to use as a reason to call the Tea Party a racist organization."

    No, it's really not my intent, but you obviously do not believe that. I am genuinely interested in why there is such a low percentage (9% or lower) of non-whites comprising the Tea Party. I am asking how the Tea Party interprets this phenomenon. Perhaps another Tea Party person can chime in with a reasonable answer instead of going on the defense and avoiding the question like JoeIdaho. Thank you.

     
  • The Truth posted at 3:00 pm on Mon, Jul 18, 2011.

    The Truth Posts: 2193

    Just curious. Does it matter to any of you that Wayne L. LaPierre, is paid $823,643 annually?

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 9:09 am on Mon, Jul 18, 2011.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    No; it's not a "fair question". It's something that you; as a liberal, are trying to use as a reason to call the Tea Party a racist organization. Plain & Simple.

    I asked you before what the issue was, and you lied & said that you didn't bering it up; that it was all Mary.

    It is you; and Liberals like you; that perpetuate racism in America. It gives you a "cause" and rallies "victims" to your side, and it's disgusting.

     
  • Humanist posted at 8:58 am on Mon, Jul 18, 2011.

    Humanist Posts: 3038

    @JoeIdaho (or another Tea Party person): I really am wondering what your take is on the question I asked below? It's an entirely fair question.

    I do have to wonder, however, why there is so little diversity in the Tea Party and why non-white folks do not support the same idealogies?

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 10:59 pm on Sun, Jul 17, 2011.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    I thank you lone wolf.
    Some of this explanation makes sense to me; some does not.
    The reailty of the Tea Party is not nearly as complex as the paper itself would suggest; as most people in teh Tea Party aren't nearly as deep as this paper tries to impart.

    I believe that the majority of Tea Pariy people are fairly simple in what they want; smaller government, less taxation, more responsiblity on the part OF the financial aspect of governance, (no huge debts) and protecting the country from illegal immigration. These people, the Tea Partiers, are constantly presented by the left as being racist, because many or most are white. This isn;t true, they;re not racist at all, and just because the majority is white doesn't make them racists or bigoted, as much as the left wing media would like us all to believe.

    What the Tea Party wants is good government for all people, and the left is terrified of them, hence the consistent attacks on thier members, always showing or attempting to show them as ill informed or just malcontents. Neither is true, this is a strong party; one that absolutely had everyting to do with putting Republicans in charge of the house last November, and a party that will have a very dramatic effect on the next election, and our actual chances for righting this ship or watching it sink- slow, or fast.

     
  • lone wolf posted at 9:20 pm on Sun, Jul 17, 2011.

    lone wolf Posts: 243

    Only hard-working Americans need apply
    JUL 8, 2011 10:16 EDT

    inShare
    http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/2011/07/08/only-hard-working-americans-need-apply/

    TEA PARTY | THEDA SKOCPOL
    What does the Tea Party want? As the debt ceiling debate rages in Washington, that should be the central question in U.S. political discourse. After all, it is the rise of the Tea Party that revitalized the Republican Party in 2009 and gave it the muscle to deliver a “shellacking” to the Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections. And it is the radicalism of the Tea Party and the freshman legislators it elected that is often blamed for the uncompromising stance of the Republicans in the current budget negotiations.

    That’s why “The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism,” a recent study of the Tea Party by Theda Skocpol, a Harvard political scientist, and Vanessa Williamson and John Coggin, two graduate students, is so important. An expanded version of the paper, which appeared this spring in the journal Perspectives on Politics, will be published as a book by the Oxford University Press later this year.

    Ms. Skocpol is an unashamed progressive, but what is striking about her team’s work is its respect for the Tea Party and its members. “Commentators have sometimes noted the irony that these same Tea Partiers who oppose ‘government spending’ are themselves recipients of Social Security,” the paper notes. “Don’t they know these are ‘big government’ programs?”

    The usual assumption of the news media elites is that the Tea Party’s worldview is inchoate or just plain uninformed. “I think the pundit class tends to treat popular ideologies as products of ignorance,” Ms. Skocpol told me. But when she and her colleagues delved deeper, including distributing questionnaires to Tea Party activists and interviewing many of them, the scholars found that, “Rather than assume ignorance, we should recognize that what appear to be contradictory or uninformed views of federal government programs make better sense once we understand how Tea Party activists view themselves in relation to other groups in society.”

    When it comes to the central issue in U.S. political life today — the size of government and its proper role — Ms. Skocpol and her colleagues found the Tea Partiers had a clear and coherent point of view, but one that does not fully jibe with the orthodoxies of libertarian ideologues or of elite, ultraconservative, Republican Party doctrine.

    The central tension for the Tea Party grass roots isn’t between the Big Brother state and the freedom-loving individual, or between inefficient government spending and effective free markets. Instead, Ms. Skocpol and her fellow investigators argue that “Tea Partiers judge entitlement programs not in terms of abstract free-market orthodoxy, but according to the perceived deservingness of recipients.” The fundamental distinction for them is not state vs. individual, it is the division of the United States into “workers” vs. “people who don’t work.”

    Some of those “people who don’t work” are the young. Deficit hawks on the think tank circuit like to talk about ballooning government spending on Social Security and Medicare— programs that benefit the elderly — as “generational theft.” But the Tea Party rank and file, 70 percent to 75 percent of whom are over 45, are concerned about a very different generational struggle.

    This is a revolt of the grandparents’ generation — at least the conservative grandparents — and they are worried the feckless youth are taking over the country and emptying the state’s coffers. These young “freeloaders” include the Tea Partiers’ own relatives. “Charles” told the researchers, “My grandson, he’s 14 and he asked, ‘Why should I work, why can’t I just get free money?”’ “Nancy” complained about a nephew who had “been on welfare his whole life.”

    “The conditions for young adults to establish themselves have changed radically,” Ms. Skocpol told me. “It is harder for young adults. They may live at home longer. And that manifests itself in ways that are easy to condemn morally. The older generation is having a little trouble understanding what is happening to their children and especially grandchildren.”

    The other group of government-supported nonworkers the Tea Party fears is illegal immigrants. The Harvard scholars found immigration to be a core, and highly emotive, Tea Party issue, even in Massachusetts, which has relatively low levels of illegal immigration and no foreign borders.

    This impassioned opposition to illegal immigrants is often equated with racism, but Ms. Skocpol and her colleagues take great pains to point out that the Massachusetts Tea Partiers, whom they studied most closely, are vocally and actively opposed to overt racism. A racist poster to their Web site was publicly reprimanded and a plan was made to take down racist signs at a rally (though, in the event, the researchers didn’t spot any that needed removing). For the Tea Partiers, the major intellectual distinction isn’t between black and white — although that is the color of most of them — it is between deserving, hard-working citizen and unauthorized, foreign freeloader.

    The Harvard scholars’ careful parsing of the thinking of the Tea Party has some important political implications. The first is that there is a latent but potentially vast divide between the grass roots and the conservative elite on the United States’ most important fiscal issue — the twin entitlements of Social Security and Medicare. Cutting these programs is a core tenet of faith for the party’s funders and its intellectuals. But the Tea Party’s rank and file views them as earned benefits that belong to hard-working Americans as surely as do their homes and private savings.

    What makes this conclusion particularly persuasive is its timing — Ms. Skocpol and her team reached this view months before Kathy Hochul’s surprise victory in the May special election in New York State, an upset largely driven by the conservative base’s fears that the Republicans in Washington wanted to partially privatize Medicare.

    The second take-away is for the Democrats, particularly the technocrats among them. It has become conventional wisdom, including on the left, that the way to make social welfare programs affordable is to direct them at the people who really need them. If politics were a math exercise, that view would make a lot of sense.

    But Ms. Skocpol and her colleagues’ study of the Tea Party suggests that the government spending programs that earn widespread, long-term public support, including among people with strongly conservative views, are those that are perceived to be both universal and deserved. Helping the poor is well and good, but when times get tough the institutions we are willing to pay for are those that assist virtuous, hard-working people — in other words, ourselves.

     
  • Humanist posted at 7:00 pm on Sun, Jul 17, 2011.

    Humanist Posts: 3038

    Quote JoeIdaho: "So; it seems like diversity is the primary issue of the tea Party, to you; huh? "

    No, it's not. Again, I didn't bring it up. Mary Souza did in her post below Mary Souza posted at 1:31 pm on Sat, Jul 16, 2011.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 6:28 pm on Sun, Jul 17, 2011.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    So; it seems like diversity is the primary issue of the tea Party, to you; huh?

    And at the same time you say that you "didn't bring up race"?

    So you have to correct her in the race issue, when the REAL issue is the situation we are in as a country?

    Let me explain a little to you, since you insist on playing dumb.
    The Democratic Party has done more to disenfranchose minorities & the poor than any political party in the history of the USA, by a mile.
    What they did is victimize minorities, always keeping their status as "vistim" clear & well defined, thereby ensuring their own positions of authority & at the same time guaranteeing themselves votes from people that they helped to destroy.
    "Southern Democrat".
    Know what that means?
    White politicians from the south that stayed on the side of the Klan until it became unpopular & decided to switch sides, for the VOTES.
    Who freed the slaves, humanist? Who RAN the underground railway, Humanist? Who DIED so that slavery would be ABOLISHED, humanist?
    REPUBLICANS.

    This is not to say that I'm in love with them, but be honest; Democrats are FOR the poor, and that means that they'd like to have MORE POOR, because it means MORE VOTES. They use class warfare consistently, and demonize business, from corporate to small business, all the while making their positions stronger each day by collecting more taxes.

    If you REALLY want to help minorities & the downtrodden be they white, orange or pineapple; give them a strong economy & jobs. if you want to get reelected as a Democrat, wreck the economy and blame it on republicans while taking working people's money to give to the poor, ensuring another minority vote.

    Race isn;t the issue, and you're trying to make it the issue. instead of trying to HELP minorities in the most helpful way, folks like you denigrate the poor minorities in keeping their "vistim" status alive & well.
    If you think I'm wrong, ask Bill Cosby. he's got a lot of experience in this, he's black & wrote a book that I read that is EXCELLENT called:
    "Come on, People: On the Path from Victims to Victors"

     
  • Humanist posted at 4:35 pm on Sun, Jul 17, 2011.

    Humanist Posts: 3038

    Quote JoeIdaho: "What's your point? Is it to constantly attempt to pit race against race; to be a bigot like you all call me constantly? "

    I didn't bring up race. Mary Souza did. I was simply pointing out her being mistaken in the diversity of the Tea Party. I do have to wonder, however, why there is so little diversity in the Tea Party and why non-white folks do not support the same idealogies?

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 3:39 pm on Sun, Jul 17, 2011.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    So what; Humanist? What's your point? Is it to constantly attempt to pit race against race; to be a bigot like you all call me constantly?
    See, the Tea Party INVITES people of ALL RACES into the party. You, like any Liberal Communist would, introduce race into something that race has no part in.
    WHY< you ask?
    Because race is unimportant when it comes to how we run OUR government. IF government were to get out of the way, tax less, and be more responsible, it would benefit ALL races & ethnicities.
    But RELY on the democraps to TRY to play the race card in EVERY dealing they have. The reason for this is that they HAVE nothing else.

     
  • Humanist posted at 2:54 pm on Sun, Jul 17, 2011.

    Humanist Posts: 3038

    Quote Mary Souza: "The research company surveyed 3400 people, of which more than half were Hispanic or Black. Less than half were White. (That's significant because as a percent of total US population, Hispanics are 16% and Blacks are 13%)"

    According to the poll, http://blairrockefellerpoll.uark.edu/5146.php, 48% polled were white, 24% were black and 27% were hispanic. So, it seems that there were a larger percentage of blacks and hispanics polled than is the national populace average. So one would expect their involvement in the Tea Party to be skewed in their favor (indicating a higher percentage of blacks and hispanics in the Tea Party than reality). But, in fact, the poll results show that 91% of Tea Partyers are white. In reality, that number is probably higher.

    Quote Mary Souza: "My conclusion?: Tea Party people are a cross section of ethnicities,"

    But, according to the poll and the poll results, that statement would be patently incorrect. Tea Party people are predominantly one ethnicity - white.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 2:51 pm on Sun, Jul 17, 2011.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    Thanks Mary....
    Liberals are today's Tories:
    "Loyalists (capitalized L as considered a title) were North American colonists who remained loyal subjects of the British crown during the American Revolutionary War. They were often referred to as Tories , "Royalists or King's Men". Later after the war those Loyalists that did not want to remain in the new USA and settled in what would become Canada were given the hereditary title of United Empire Loyalists. Their colonial opponents, who supported the Revolution, were called Rebels, Patriots or Whigs, but generally just thought of themselves as free Americans"

    Tories were FOR MORE TAXATION and FOR the oppression of the American people.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 2:47 pm on Sun, Jul 17, 2011.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    humanist; seriously? Honestly?
    Well, let's see there......you; the left wing communists have railed UNENDINGLY about the Patriot Act.
    Pray tell; did the Patriot Act remove any of our rights to privacy?
    (Before you answer, read up on this, the Demos will disown you if they hear you argue FOR the Patriot Act...)

    The 2nd Amendment.
    Left Wing Government has FOEREVER been trying to take away guns from the citizenry, and have absolutely succeeded in many areas of the country, especially in the cities where now, if you have a gun, it means you ARE a criminal.


    Free Speech-
    Hate Crime Laws in America definitely address free speech issues, and anything that resembles a verbal assault based on race is considered a "hate crime".
    FREE SPEECH IS A RIGHT. That doesn't mean some speech, it means all of it, good AND bad.

    I can go on for days......

     
  • idabilly posted at 2:42 pm on Sun, Jul 17, 2011.

    idabilly Posts: 390

    @Humanist I'm not a member of any party however I can tell you that in the last 25 years in business I have become more and more burdened with unnecessary audits, intrusions and extra licensing- all to raise fee income for the City, State and Fed. I have to report to new divisions within divisions created solely to raise revenue- there's no "public protection" even feigned by these people! Perhaps this doesn't fit the bill of "individual rights" but it is a change for the worse.

     
  • Humanist posted at 12:54 pm on Sun, Jul 17, 2011.

    Humanist Posts: 3038

    I'm wondering if a Tea Party person here can kindly explain which individual rights they feel have eroded or are eroding? Thank you.

     
  • Mary Souza posted at 12:08 pm on Sun, Jul 17, 2011.

    Mary Souza Posts: 790

    Well said, JoeIdaho!

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 10:32 am on Sun, Jul 17, 2011.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    Sure truth, the NRA is "rinky dink". Shows what you don't know about the NRA.

    The Tea Party is in fact the only savior that America has politically, as stated by others, it crosses party lines easily; is for limited government, and lower taxes, along with curtailing illegla immigration, which is effectively enforcing our laws.

    IF you like owning a rifle or any firearm, you better stand behind the Tea Party & the NRA, because without them you won't shoot anything except your mouth, and that won't be for long; either, becuase if they can control your gun they can CERTAINLY control your mouth.

     
  • squirrel nutkin posted at 4:05 pm on Sat, Jul 16, 2011.

    squirrel nutkin Posts: 231

    It's ironic that the far right AND the far left both espouse the same 'we know best' philosophy - and that is "We must destroy the world to save it."

     
  • The Truth posted at 1:42 pm on Sat, Jul 16, 2011.

    The Truth Posts: 2193

    ."No notes, no teleprompters, he just spoke from the heart"

    -- Easy enough to do when he's giving the same speech he says at every other rinky dink little gathering he pops into to raise money. I suspect that the NRA has been seeing a lack of funds since their demographic, poor scared white people, are poorer now than ever.

     
  • Thaddeus posted at 1:39 pm on Sat, Jul 16, 2011.

    Thaddeus Posts: 232

    @milburnschmidt

    LOL! You have no idea what you're talking about. Now, do yourself a favor, go back to your self medication and try again................ Or not.......

     
  • Mary Souza posted at 1:31 pm on Sat, Jul 16, 2011.

    Mary Souza Posts: 790

    The poll you cite, Lone Wolf, is interesting. I read the actual poll, not just the "news" coverage of it. The research company surveyed 3400 people, of which more than half were Hispanic or Black. Less than half were White. (That's significant because as a percent of total US population, Hispanics are 16% and Blacks are 13%)

    Another surprising bit about this poll is that the Tea Party folks VOTE in numbers almost double those of so-called regular Republicans. and the Tea Party people were MUCH more informed about current government officials and issues.

    My conclusion?: Tea Party people are a cross section of ethnicities, we vote and we are informed. Potent stuff.

     
  • mister d posted at 9:34 am on Sat, Jul 16, 2011.

    mister d Posts: 1531

    Definitely for my second amendment rights but not so favorable toward the tea party antics.

     
  • lone wolf posted at 9:33 am on Sat, Jul 16, 2011.

    lone wolf Posts: 243

    To tea party, Obama is bogeyman-in-chief
    Posted on 23 June 2011
    By John Brummett
    New national polling information released by political scientists at the University of Arkansas reveals interesting and perhaps mildly counterintuitive findings about the tea party.
    This survey, conducted under the joint aegis of the UA’s Blair Center and Winthrop Rockefeller Institute, shows that devotees of the tea party are better-educated than the rest of the population as well as possessed of higher incomes.
    That is the perhaps mildly counterintuitive part, if, like me, you factored a higher yahoo quotient than is apparently so.
    What is merely interesting, meaning not surprising, is that a greater percentage of tea party people believe in the inerrancy of the Bible than is the case with the rest of the population, including regular Republicans.
    Also interesting is that tea party people are less supportive than the general population, again including regular Republicans, of the supposed ideals of equal opportunity and equal rights for all, specifically minorities.
    Tea party people are significantly less supportive of gay rights and significantly more hostile to illegal immigration than garden-variety Republicans.
    But what I find most interesting on this subject is not anything contained in this data compiled from more than 3,000 survey calls nationwide last November. Instead, it is in the candid analysis provided me by Dr. Angie Maxwell, assistant professor of political science at the UA.
    She said the poll suggests that the common denominator in the tea party’s emergence is President Obama.
    “He represents a world they can’t function in,” she said.
    First things first, to get it out of the way: Maxwell is not saying that all tea partiers are racists and that their movement is based on a racial bigotry toward this historic president.
    She is saying the tea party arises from much more than that — from, as she describes, a coincidence of varying cultural and economic fears all falling under the general heading of a dreaded new world. People with these fears have come to “put all of them,” to “project them,” on Obama, she said, often without basis in fact or fairness.
    For example:
    If you fear a changing America in which white people become a minority because of the black population as combined with other new ethnic groups and with the Hispanic influx, then Obama, being of mixed race and with a foreign father, personifies that fear for you.
    If you fear a changing America in which traditionally conservative Christian church values are being eroded by new forms of spiritual thinking and by cultural changes such as the growing acceptance of homosexuality, then Obama, with a Muslim parent and a former pastor who once screamed “God dam America,” personifies that fear for you.
    If your relatively high household income is drawn from the medical profession, from doctoring or as a drug rep, perhaps, and if you fear that health care reform will transform America into something more like a European country and lower your standard of living, then Obama personifies that fear for you. You don’t call it Pelosicare or Reidcare. You call it Obamacare.
    Maxwell compared this to the way the Whigs sprang to prominence for a couple of decades solely from resentment of Andrew Jackson.
    If she is right, then the Republicans have a short-term window and long-term problem.
    The tea party is vital to Republicans at the moment, representing maybe a tenth of the electorate. Republican victories in the next elections will hinge on appeasing this far-right bloc.
    But if the glue that holds the tea party together is fear of Obama, then the tea party goes away after Obama goes away.
    That would leave the Republicans burdened with a deadly combination — a weak reality, meaning a sort of nondescriptly soft conservatism, and a reputation for a harder conservatism that would have caused an alienation from the more pragmatic, and usually decisive, center.
    For immediate purposes though, the tea party lives, and garden-variety Republicans must oblige it, so long as Obama is its bogeyman-in-chief.
    ——-
    John Brummett is a columnist for the Arkansas News Bureau in Little Rock. His e-mail address is jbrummett@arkansasnews.com; his telephone number is (501) 374-0699.
    « U.S. Open was one-time thingA trip on Arkansas’s last ferry »

     
  • milburnschmidt posted at 9:31 am on Sat, Jul 16, 2011.

    milburnschmidt Posts: 1161

    Dont you love folks like thaddeus and ricky that look down their nose at folks that think different than themselves and then think they better and smarter. They [preach tolerance and practice intoleranceWith their rants against tea baggers its a good bet they pay no taxes and are recieving benefits from the folks who do and get sick at the thought of supporting themselves. As a tea party sympathizer Im tired of paying for folks like those two and their off spring that cant cope with responsibility and their own bills..Like the NRA or not without them hunting and sport shooting would become extinct. The crowd Obama brings from Cook county are rabidly anti gun ownership. Chicago lost its cases to ban guns so now you can apply for permits to own guns resulting in a expensive wait . One of the requirements to own a gun there is you must qualify at a approved range except ranges are outlawed in Cook county. When you consider if Obama appointed one more like minded justice to the supreme court we could lose our rights to own or purchase weapons. Not a very firm right to own firearms. Obamas record in the Illinois senate is very anti gun ownership.

     
  • Nutter Watch posted at 9:17 am on Sat, Jul 16, 2011.

    Nutter Watch Posts: 476

    Obviously few exercised their first amendment rights and none, as far as I know, threatened to use their second amendment rights in defense of The Bill of Rights as government upended #4 & #5 and effectively suspended Habeas Corpus. I don't really understand all this carping after the horse has left the barn.

     
  • will-- posted at 8:55 am on Sat, Jul 16, 2011.

    will-- Posts: 923

    " I wanna stick around and watch the de-evolution..."

    Obama is doing it daily for all to see.

    The man has doubled down on virtually every failed Bush policy from free givaways (stimulus) to waging war.

     
  • Will Penny posted at 8:31 am on Sat, Jul 16, 2011.

    Will Penny Posts: 265

    thaddeus didn't say you left N. Idaho, said you left the NRA.. The respectively refers to what each of you said in that order. Again, thanks for leaving NRA, we're smarter with out you.

     
  • Thaddeus posted at 8:22 am on Sat, Jul 16, 2011.

    Thaddeus Posts: 232

    Hey halfwit,,,, or isthat cent? I didn't say anything about leaving I-dee-ho. I wanna stick around and watch the de-evolution of the humans that call themselves the N. Idaho teabaggers.

     
  • idabilly posted at 8:19 am on Sat, Jul 16, 2011.

    idabilly Posts: 390

    The President of the United States of America knows what's best for all of us. The Democratic party (all of the truly enlightened like Randy M.) know that the rest of us (anyone not subscribing to "The New Yorker" magazine) aren't capable of making our own decisions, we need the government to tell us what to eat (thanks Mrs. Obama, I don't know how I made it this far without your nutritional guidance) or what my new tax classification is ("Jet Owner" per Mr. Obama). Thank God for all of the help bestowed upon us from the government. (Oh shoot! Can I still say "God" in a public forum or do I need to specifically say Allah Akbar!?!?!) Not to worry, I'm sure the government will let us all know soon enough.

     
  • Will Penny posted at 7:55 am on Sat, Jul 16, 2011.

    Will Penny Posts: 265

    To heyrickyg and Thaddeus; Thanks for leaving N. Idaho and the NRA respectively. The collective IQs of both groups have undoubetly increased!

     
  • Tim Herzog posted at 7:27 am on Sat, Jul 16, 2011.

    Tim Herzog Posts: 359

    Unfortunately I could not attend but I think it i great that he drew a good crowd. As Americans we are losing more rights because we have become complacent (a nation of sheep) and even though most don't trust government, failing to vote or actively pursuing protection of our freedoms will lead to our downfall. We should have pulled out of the UN years ago.

    As a defender of motorcyclist's rights for over 20 years, an NRA member and definitely a rebel by nature, I will fight to protect my rights. Americans will continue to be led down the slippery slope of socialism as long as the rank and file continue to be sheep!

    Oh and heyrickyg, us NUTS up here that are trying to protect are freedoms as were originally drafted in the Constitution and Amendments, are also glad that you left northern Idaho!

     
  • Thaddeus posted at 7:18 am on Sat, Jul 16, 2011.

    Thaddeus Posts: 232

    I cancelled my NRA membership this morning. Now I'm waiting for the inevitable phone call looking for a reason and I'll be happy to tell them to go whine at the teabaggers.

     
  • uncle fester posted at 7:03 am on Sat, Jul 16, 2011.

    uncle fester Posts: 831

    God and guns, real American hero.

     
  • Mary Souza posted at 6:29 am on Sat, Jul 16, 2011.

    Mary Souza Posts: 790

    Wayne La Pierre was such a powerful, informative speaker!...No notes, no teleprompters, he just spoke from the heart and factually detailed the loss of liberty that we are experiencing in our country. He has been fighting to keep individual freedoms for more than 20 years. He just addressed the UN two days ago, and last night he was here, in North Idaho, walking through the crowd, shaking hands and talking with people. You would never have known he was the keynote speaker; he was dressed in a simple plaid cotton shirt and khaki pants, and said, "Hi, I'm Wayne" but when he stood at the podium, his knowledge, experience and passion for this country inspired us all.

    Marshall Foster was also outstanding. These were two of the best speakers I have heard for many years. Rev. Foster is a great teacher who makes history come alive with his lively and interesting descriptions about the struggle for personal freedom throughout history. If you have a chance, try to attend his workshop today, as mentioned in this article.

     
  • heyrickyg posted at 5:49 am on Sat, Jul 16, 2011.

    heyrickyg Posts: 2

    Who lead this rally Randy Weaver? I'm so glad I left Northern Idaho and all the nuts up there.
    hr

     
default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
Not you?||
Logout|My Dashboard

Stocks