Friday, March 26, 2010

Burden of Proof

Due to time constraints, I haven't had a chance to address the slurs allegedly shouted by tea partiers in D.C. last weekend as the Democrats ran roughshod over the wishes of a majority of Americans. I say allegedly because last time I checked, we live in a country that requires proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, before we convict people. And that burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the accusers, not the accused. Unfortunately, that seems to be yet another part of our Constitution and legal tradition that this administration and Congress want to ignore and violate, aided and abetted by the mainstream media (a.k.a. the Democrat-Media Complex, or the DMC for short).

Who could have guessed?

The DMC's modus operandi is on display in this situation, and predictable as ever. If the accusation fits their narrative of tea partiers and aids in their efforts to smear the Tea Party Movement in such a way as to demonize and marginalize us, then the Democrat-Media Complex will descend upon it with glee and fervor, regardless of having no evidence or proof to support the accusations. Though they won the battle last weekend, they know they moved against the will of the people and that they are definitively acting without the consent of the governed (or taxed for that matter), and therefore, they must use any weapon in their arsenal to stop our momentum.

Below is my response to the accusations. Be sure to read Michelle Malkin's response as well. She covers a lot of ground, with references, including the "hate crime" hoaxes frequently committed by some on the left.

First and foremost:

*I want to see proof that it happened. Already the "spitting" allegation has been downgraded to "he allowed saliva to hit my face." If the situation were reversed, the DMC would be demanding proof too, as well they should. We do no good to anyone or to justice when we don't demand the same level of evidence across the board. Remember, justice is supposed to be blind and when you disregard this ideal for political gain, you corrupt the system and eventually everyone suffers as a result.

The following point is only relevant IF the accusations are true. Again, we have no idea if they are because there is no proof.

*IF it is true that one person out of the millions of Americans who participate in the Tea Party Movement yelled a racial slur at the Congressman, then you must acknowledge that one person represents no one but himself. To paint the entire movement with such a broad brush is true injustice, and the DMC knows it. It is the epitome of intellectual laziness and moral bankruptcy to use the alleged actions of one person to thereby convict millions of innocent people, especially for political gain.

I suppose that by using the DMC's logic, we should be able to assume that all Democrats are KKK sympathizers or former members, a la Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV). Right?

*IF this happened, then of course the people of the Tea Party Movement reject this person and their behavior. Duh.

Other thoughts:

*Where is the outrage when "hate crimes" are perpetrated against conservatives? Why does the mainstream media turn a blind eye when a black conservative gets called a "ni**er", beat up by SEIU thugs when it is all caught on tape and the man accused is arrested? If the DMC was consistent in its outrage, no matter what party or side of the debate the alleged victim came from, then they would have a lot more credibility when they claim to be the victims.

*My own Congressman, Jim McDermott described me (a conservative) as a teabagger and as an indecent person on the floor of the House of Representatives because I believe in limited government (so that said government does not have the power to oppress the people). But I guess we don't deserve respect or decorum or decency from an elected official in the eyes of the DMC.

*Every tea party group that I know has put out press release after press release condemning racism and racist acts. Does the mainstream media report this? No. They act as though we never address it. So, just to set the record straight, the Tea Party Movement decisively and categorically rejects real racism, and we work for the benefit of ALL Americans. Period. (I say "real" racism because the Democrats accuse us of being racist just for being capitalists.)

*The DMC has been calling us racists for over a year, simply for disagreeing with the Democrats, and particularly for disagreeing with President Obama. The fact that they have incorrectly and unjustly read racism into every single thing we have done and said over the last year shows that they are willing to hurl lies and accusations for any reason at all, so why should we believe the hype this time without proof? The DMC has no regard for real victims of racism, otherwise they wouldn't use the term so carelessly.

In fact, if there is one side that is obsessed with race, it is the left's representatives. During the primaries, Joe Biden said that Obama was the "first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean;" Harry Reid celebrated that Obama was a "light-skinned African-American" with "no negro dialect;" Chris Matthews forgot that the President was black for an hour; and more recently, Dan Rather said something about President Obama not being able to sell watermelons.

If anyone is obsessed with the color of our President's skin, it certainly isn't my side. I, and my fellow tea partiers, could not care less about the color of someone's skin. MLK Jr. was so right when he said it was about the content of a person's character. And right now, the Democrats are showing their complete and utter lack of it.


  1. Succinct as always, Keli.

  2. The effort by Democrat operatives to paint Republicans and Tea Partiers as racists is demonstrably wrong. History records who the racists in our country were and what they were prepared to do in pursuit of that vision.

    Rev. Wayne Perryman, from the Seattle area, wrote a book entitled "Unfounded Loyalty", in 2003. In his own words, Rev. Perryman explains that, after reading his book, you will understand:

    -- For 150 years blacks were victims of terrorist attacks by the Democrats and their Klan supporters, including lynchings, beatings, rapes, and mutilations.

    -- On the issue of slavery, the Democrats literally gave their lives to expand it; the Republicans gave their lives to ban it.

    -- Many believed the Democrats had a change of heart and fell in love with blacks. To the contrary, history reveals the Democrats didn’t fall in love with black folks, they fell in love with the black vote knowing this would be their ticket into the White House.

    Anyone who doubts whether Rev. Perryman's voice as an African American is an authentic one should take a look at his activities and associations of the last several years:

    Perryman's past and present organization affiliations include the following:

    1. Founder of Operation Destitution
    2. Founder of Inner city Vision Ministries
    3. Founder of Role Models Unlimited
    4. Co-founder of Youth Challenge
    5. Chairman of Occupational Steering Committee for Seattle Public Schools
    6. Member of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency
    7. United Way Loaned Executive
    8. Advisory Board Member of Seattle Community College
    9. Executive Director of the Regional Educational Alliance on Gang Activities for 500 schools with a population of over 300,000 students in Washington State.
    10. National Program Director for Brothers, a new program that works with African American inmates.
    11. As a basketball, baseball and football coach for thirty years.

    In light of the swirling accusations of racism lodged against anyone who opposes the policies of this Democrat President and Congress,
    the book is really worth reading as it is a well-researched and referenced document.

  3. I don't think you are telling the whole story when you say that the majority of people oppose this bill. More and more surveys are showing that 10-15% don't like it because it doesn't go far enough. So the people who fear socialism, may actually be in the minority.

  4. hey jackass you ever hear of this guy called david duke or this other thing that started like 600 years ago with a bunch of boats and someone being taken against there will and a guy named toby and then "king and x they got rid of them both"so dont come on hear talkin bout racism with your short term memory and maybe if george did katrina better you guys MAYBE could have put up a better fight but dont put this on skin color cuz your boy treated the white house like it was a oil well his dad gave him i mean either way it was gonna be the o man or hilldog so whatever you guys had your chance theres always 2016...

  5. Liberty Belle, I agree that it's demagoguery to accuse the Tea Party of racism. But as for your account of our nation's history: It's quite true that the Republican Party, under the leadership of Abraham Lincoln, was the champion of the rights of black American -- at least to the extent of opposing the spread of slavery. But sadly, after the Civil War, white Americans united in their opposition to any measures ensuring the advancement of blacks. (The exceptions were rare.) The first president to show concern for the rights of black Americans was FDR (largely at the prodding of his wife). Harry Truman took a step forward by integrating the armed forces. JFK gave his support to MLK, and LBJ passed the most sweeping civil rights legislation in our history. It's true that LBJ's civil rights legislation received the support of some Republicans (how times have changed!), but that the Dixiecrats opposed it. But, as LKJB foresaw, his sponsorship of civil rights legislation handed the Solid South over to the GOP. In the light of all that, I think that it would be hard to say the the GOP is currently the champion of the rights of black Americans -- unless you take into account the right of black Americans to go without health coverage when unemployed.

  6. Just because Perryman wrote a book that appeals to and gives comfort to sensative white RepubliCONs does nothing to counter the fact that the RepubliCON Party went into the South seeking the vote of the dixiecrat.
    The Republicans haven’t had a single African-American in the Senate or the House since 2003 and have had only three in total since 1935.


  7. I'm puzzled by the claim that "an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose" Obama's health care reform. Most polls show those "disapproving" at 4 or 5 percentage points above those approving. And among those disapproving, 10 to 15 per cent disapprove because the reforms don't go far enough. This hardly constitutes "overwhelming disapproval". I would also call your attention to the fact that when Obama ran for President (both in the primary and in the general election), he had health care reform one of his main issues -- as well as a promise to the voters. And the voters chose him to be president. Yes, the country is deeply divided about health care reform -- right down the middle.

  8. About "the whole story"...funny how our perspective changes when the shoe is on the other foot...remember in 2007 and 2008 all the polls that showed 80% or so of the American people thought the country was on the wrong track? The left thought it meant 80% of the people agreed with them.

    Now, we find out from polls that a larger bloc identify themselves as conservatives or right of center than any other one bloc of political thought. A really big chunk of that 80% (including me) weren't disgusted because they thought GWB was too conservative...they were disgusted because he had drifted too far into the BIG spending left.

    Had Candidate Obama been honest about what kind of change he had in mind for the country, he would not have been elected. Now, we listen to campaign clips and we see that he was speaking in code. The progressives and left wing liberals knew exactly what he was talking about.

    The rest of us, unfortunately, heard him through the filter of our normal, everyday, uncritical language filters and thought he meant change from irresponsible, special interest spending. Little did we know he meant change that would put irresponsible spending for special interests on mega-super steroids. Oh yes, and the companion change: the special interest groups getting all this infusion of taxpayer dollars would be HIS special interests.

    The bulk of us non-special interest Americans got bilked again...maybe that should be "milked" again, because we are pretty much like defenceless cows without a choice about who gets what we produce.

  9. If I may ask what is the position the Tea Party people have taken on the drug war?

  10. "History records who the racists in our country were and what they were prepared to do in pursuit of that vision."

    Yep and history recorded that they joined the RepubliCON Party?


  11. veritasvosliberabitMarch 28, 2010 at 11:36 PM

    In response to Anonymous above who said "But sadly, after the Civil War, white Americans united in their opposition to any measures ensuring the advancement of blacks. (The exceptions were rare.)"

    Here are a few hard facts to chew on. If you doubt any of them, please feel free to do some real research:

    In 1865, Republicans pass the 13th Amendment, ending slavery. 100% of Republicans vote for it. Even among northern Democrats, it receives the support of only 23%. In 1866, Democrats form the KKK with the express purpose of preventing the election of Republicans in the South.

    In 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed, establishing citizenship and equal protection for all in Federal law. 100% of Republicans vote for it. 0% of Democrats vote for it.

    In 1869, the 15th Amendment is passed, establishing the right to vote for all people, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. 98% of Republicans vote for it. 3% of Democrats vote for it.

    From 1866–1875, the Republican Congress passes 19 civil rights laws. Democrats oppose them all. In 1875, in order to counter the Democrats' passage of Jim Crow laws, Republicans pass the most sweeping civil rights legislation ever—the Civil Rights Act of 1875.
    Eight years later, the Supreme Court (mostly Democrat appointees) declares the act unconstitutional.

    In 1876, Democrats take control of the House of Representatives. No more meaningful civil rights legislation is passed until 1964.
    Beginning after the War, and thenceforward until 1935, ALL blacks elected to Congress are Republicans. In addition to those elected to Federal office, hundreds of blacks—all of them Republicans—are elected to state legislatures in the South.

    In 1954, Republican Chief Justice Earl Warren (appointed by Republican Dwight Eisenhower) authors the desegregation decision of Brown v. Board of Education. In 1956, Democrats express their opposition to Brown v. Board of Education in the "Southern Manifesto." One hundred and one members of Congress—all but four of them Democrats—sign the manifesto.

    In 1957, Republican President Eisenhower authors a Civil Rights Bill, hoping to repair the damage done to blacks and their civil rights by Democrats since 1892. Passage of the bill is blocked by Senate Democrats. When the bill finally goes through, it is significantly weakened due to lack of support from Democrats.

    In 1960, Republican Senator Everett Dirksen authors a Voting Rights Bill, again, in an effort to undo the disenfranchisement of blacks by Democrats through poll taxes, literacy tests, and threats of violence by the KKK. And once again, Senate Democrats attempt (though in the end unsuccessfully) to block passage of the bill.

    In 1964, Congress passes, and President Lyndon Johnson signs into law, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is essentially the law originally authored by Eisenhower in 1957. Democrats, including still-serving Senator Robert Byrd (a former KKK member), employ a filibuster of the bill. Once the filibuster is overcome, a larger percentage of Republicans vote for passage than do Democrats.

  12. Thanks, veritasvosliberabit. That was an excellent posting. Still, I'm not convinced that the GOP has been the friend of black America and the Democratic party its enemy.

    It is certainly true that in the aftermath of the Civil War, important moves were taken to protect the rights of black Americans, such as the 14th and 15th amendments, and that these amendments were pushed through by what was then, still, the party of Lincoln. It's also true that for generations, the Democratic party remained the party of the Confederacy, and did its best (which was often quite good enough) to block measures to protect the rights of black Americans.

    Still, neither party made more than token efforts on behalf of black Americans until the 1960s. Until then, Jim Crowe segregation was the reality that black Americans lived with -- and a reality that most white Americans were comfortable with.

    Plessy v Ferguson was the law of the land until overturned by Brown v Board of Education. It's true that Earl Warren was a Republican; it's also true that Eisenhower, the Republican who appointed him, regarded this appointment as the biggest mistake he ever made.

    You wrote: "In 1876, Democrats take control of the House of Representatives. No more meaningful civil rights legislation is passed until 1964." Certainly -- but the Democrats were hardly in control of Congress all that time, and the civil rights legislation of the 1960 was the work of Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat.

    I was growing up in central Ohio when Johnson's civil rights legislation was being discussed in Congress. Nearly everyone I knew was a Republican, and I didn't know a single one who supported Johnson's civil rights legislation. Our Congressman, a republican named John Ashbrook, routinely sent newsletters to all his constituents that "unmasked" Martin Luther King as a Communist and declared that the civil rights bills would institute a reign of socialism and tyranny.

    True, Ashbrook was an extreme case. The civil rights legislation of the 1960s received the support of some republicans. But it was the Democratic party that started and sustained the legislative move to change things.

    And, we should remember that neither party can claim credit for awakening the conscience of white America on matters of race. The credit belongs to James Meredith, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, and others who risked and sometimes lost their lives in the effort.

    To return to the point that started this exchange: I am sorry that the Tea Party is being called racist. That is slander, pure and simple.

    I would argue simply that the Tea Party is wrong-headed, and profoundly so.

  13. veritasvosliberabitMarch 29, 2010 at 1:20 PM

    Dear Anonymous, thank you for a civil discussion. We can agree to disagree about how right or wrong the Tea Party movement is. I do not argue your thesis and example that there were individual Republicans who, like individual Democrats, opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act for various reasons.

    I would just point to the fact that when the actual votes counted, a greater percentage of Republicans voted FOR the bill than did the Democrats:

    House of Representatives:
    Democrats for: 152 (61%)
    Democrats against: 96
    Republicans for: 138 (80%)
    Republicans against: 34

    Democrats for: 46 (69%)
    Democrats against: 21
    Republicans for: 27 (82%)
    Republicans against: 6

    All articles I've read point to the Congressional Quarterly, June 26, 1964 as the source for the vote breakdown.

    If anyone is interested in more detail on passage of the 1964 Civil Rights bill , you can find it at The Dirksen Congressional Center ( The website has a lengthy blow-by-blow account. It is done in a very non-partisan manner, giving due appreciation to the individual legislators, both Democrat and Republican, who shepherded this bill through both houses of Congress.

  14. well that's just great i love hearing about black history told from the white point of view 'remember it's our history not HIS story" to quote chuck d and just watch or read the book "panther"and another thing i learned is just because your black does'nt mean your for the blacks i learned that from malcom and chuck as well and you see "king and x they got rid of them both" and just because lbj signed that law don't mean squat he had to do something to distract from the war and lincon was forced to free the slaves i thought you knew and ever since then the republicans have acted like there the ones oh and dont forget the right to bear arms and how that played against the blacks too or then theres the book of mormon and all the neat stuff they say about blacks and i think utah ain't going blue anytime soon i love it when they try to give me stuff oh and jesus was a hippie who lived amongst the poor not the rich even though he could have been what's to stop him from getting paid he's the son of god he could have lived fat but he did'nt so think about that when you think of health care

  15. There is a campaign now in full swing targeting current and potential contributors to the RNC and conservative action groups. If donors can be discouraged, the liberals win another battle in their campaign to demean and degrade viable opposition. This campaign started last week with the claims of racism directed at Republicans and the Tea Party movement. Then of course there is the propaganda that Palin, the Tea Party, Republicans and christians are inciting violence and are somehow responsible for the illegal and immoral behavior of some idiots on the fringe. There are just as many crazies on the far left fringe. Are the Democrats, progressives and liberals inciting them and responsible for their behavior? No they are not. Idiots and criminals are idiots and criminals regardless of what their beliefs are. And they alone are responsible for their behavior and the decisions they make.

    Nonetheless, this campaign to demonize and degrade will continue. It is a long used tactic that diverts public attention away from the core issues, encourages divisiveness and splinters opposition. Do not be distracted by this campaign. The real issues remain unchanged: Stop spending, fix economic growth so companies will hire and people can get back to work, cut the deficit so our children and their children are not enslaved to paying down an impossible government debt, and a smaller, more effective and effcient government.

    To my fellow conservatives I say this: Keep moving forward toward these goals, do not become embroiled in this petty campaign aimed at sidetracking you. Identify the candidates, look at their qualifications, find out what their positions are on the issues and speak with your vote in November.

  16. Hey John Paul,
    So all the producers should just keep producing and give the money to people like you?
    Is that the plan?
    The opposite has already begun. The producers are pulling back and as that continues to spread and ripple through the economy old John Paul and his buddies are going to wonder what the f**k hit them. Ain't no free lunch no how, no way.
    I am pretty sure that John Paul is neondog

  17. Dear VeritasVosLiberabit, Yes, a lot of Democrats voted against the 1964 Civil Rights act. These were primarily the Dixiecrats who soon thereafter left the party and joined the GOP. But why we are arguing about this now is beyond me -- except that it's a pleasure to think about the history of our country.

  18. "Due to time constraints" that's convenient. You seemed to have a lot of time to espouse on "other thoughts."

    It's no wonder that the Coffee Party is forming in the wake of the Tea Party. Your failing is that you can not control nor care to police the people you attract to your rallies. This is exactly what the Coffee Party detests about the Tea Party.

    It is truly sad that you can not use the time spent on attacking and misinforming to actually do the democratic thing and properly educate people to make their own decisions. Too much of your time is wasted misdirecting people just as you allege democrats do. A true Tea Party member would rise up against misinforming side-steppers like you. The truest reading of the constitution is to empower people with the skill and knowledge to choose to lead a civil and free lifestyle. We should not be subjected to the manufacturing of information that the leaders of your Tea Party provide. We the people demand you provide us with information and not opinion so we can make up our own minds. Empower us with choice, do not make it for us.



  19. veritasvosliberabit,

    Let's spin it this way.

    0% of southern, house republicans voted for the for the act.
    7% of southern, house democrats voted for the act.

    85% of northern house republicans voted for the act.
    94% of northern house democrats voted for the act.

    0% of southern senate republicans voted for the act
    while 5% of senate democrats voted for the act.
    84% of northern senate republicans voted for the act
    and 95% of norther senate democrats voted for the act.

    So regionally, democrats were more likely to support the civil rights act.

    Be an honest person and tell the whole story not just the facts that favor your position.



I believe in free speech, including offensive speech, and especially political speech. Comments that are left on my blog do not necessarily represent my views nor do I necessarily endorse them. I am not responsible for other people's views or comments. That is how the 1st Amendment works.