.jpg)
Posts
January 4, 2010 is a day we should remember. On this date former Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado reminded the country that bigotry, racism and ignorance still lives in American Politics. Granted this is not a main stream view and certainly never will be. However, Tom Tancredo's speech on the opening night of the National Tea Party Convention in Memphis, TN does reveal a disturbing ignorance of reality and American History. This is an attempt to put the record straight.
Tom Tancredo was an elected Republican Congressman from Colorado and ran for President on the Republican ticket in 2008. Mr. Tancredo ran on a platform of rabid anti-immigration reform which revealed his obvious racial and cultural bias. Mr. Tancredo is not the first wing-nut to be elected for public office and sadly will not be the last. Other bizarre elected officials in this class include Sarah Palin from Alaska and Michelle Bachman from Minnesota. The scariest part is these individuals actually won elections and were voted into office, meaning at least 51% of individuals in their respective districts or states actually believed or agreed with their hate spewing bizarre world view that is not based on reality, fact or history. Evidently if you spew enough nonsense with enough conviction over and over, sadly enough people will believe it as fact. Thomas Jefferson once said "Democracy is founded on a well educated population" it was true then and obviously it's true now.
OK, lets get back to Tom Tancredos speech at the Tea Party convention on February 4, 2010. This speech was just over the top insanity and 600 people actually stayed and applauded it. I mean during elections we expect to hear some bizarre accusations against their political opponents it's just one of the sad but true facts about American politics, but seriously Tom Tancredo's speech might have well come from an alternate reality or universe. I'd like to discuss and dissect some of his most bizarre key points. Keep in mind 600 people actually stayed and applauded this speech.
Tom Tancredo -"President Obama was elected because "we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country." and "People who could not even spell the word 'vote', or say it in English, put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House." "His name, is Barack Hussein Obama."
Ok, lets break down this paragraph into it's four separate components.
1. "We do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country." This statement is an obvious reference to the "Jim Crow" laws commonly used in the south to prevent poor and illiterate African -Americans from voting. These racist laws were repealed by the voting rights act of 1965. Since many, many bloggers and news organizations have written extensively about this particular angle I really have nothing more to add except that I obviously agree that it is blatantly a raciest reference on Mr. Tancredo's part.
However, the remarks from Mr. Tancredo and others including; Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin and various vocal Tea Party supporters would certainly indicate that If there were a civics literacy test they themselves would fail it and not be allowed to vote, due to their profound mis-understanding and ignorance of American politics and history. I'm not even going to quote Michelle Bachman Republican Congresswoman from Minnesota as her off-the-wall rants are quite well publicized, and as far as I'm concerned I'm actually surprised that someone hasn't come up with a TV sitcom based on her bizarre rants. (If someone doe's come up with a sitcom after reading this I really should get some sort of credit and royalties for my concept, call me I have some ideas).
1. "We do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country." This statement is an obvious reference to the "Jim Crow" laws commonly used in the south to prevent poor and illiterate African -Americans from voting. These racist laws were repealed by the voting rights act of 1965. Since many, many bloggers and news organizations have written extensively about this particular angle I really have nothing more to add except that I obviously agree that it is blatantly a raciest reference on Mr. Tancredo's part.
However, the remarks from Mr. Tancredo and others including; Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin and various vocal Tea Party supporters would certainly indicate that If there were a civics literacy test they themselves would fail it and not be allowed to vote, due to their profound mis-understanding and ignorance of American politics and history. I'm not even going to quote Michelle Bachman Republican Congresswoman from Minnesota as her off-the-wall rants are quite well publicized, and as far as I'm concerned I'm actually surprised that someone hasn't come up with a TV sitcom based on her bizarre rants. (If someone doe's come up with a sitcom after reading this I really should get some sort of credit and royalties for my concept, call me I have some ideas).
Here is a less radical statement that's a good example - Jeffrey McQueen of Rochester is a tea party movement believer, He is quoted as saying "All across America, 'we the people' are tired of the fighting between team 'R' and team 'D, our forefathers did not pledge their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to build this country, just to have it split in two by political parties "
Sounds like a lofty and utterly reasonable statement. However, it is factually incorrect and far from the truth. The founding fathers were far from unified in their beliefs. The founding fathers of our nation were basically of two opposing beliefs systems; the 'Federalists" and the "Anti-Federalists" There were no established political parties.
Wiki-Answers has a good definition: "From 1796 to 1828 the first political parties were formed. During the time when our country was in its formative years, two opposing factions arose. Each was concerned with how the new government was to be organized. The Federalists believed in a strong central government and supported the ratification of the Constitution. Additionally, they supported industrialization, a national bank, and government aid to build roads and canals.
The Anti-Federalists strongly supported the rights of the states. They were opposed to a national bank and favored farming over manufacturing. They were firmly against the government helping to further industrialization by building roads and canals.
The Federalists won their cause for the Constitution. However, efforts by the Democratic-Republican Party to influence people to the Anti-Federalist cause eventually weakened the Federalists. By 1824, the party was virtually non-existent." (Note: The Democratic-Republican Party later went on to become the Democratic Party. http://www.consource.org/ has great resources available including the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers posted on-line)
From the first constitutional convention to the early days of our nation these beliefs were prevalent. The United States Constitution went through several drafts and revisions in an attempt to accommodate these opposing beliefs. As a matter of fact, these opposing beliefs were so strong that the constitution was almost never completed because of these disagreements. The delegates were hopelessly deadlocked, a compromise was proposed, referred to historically, as the Connecticut Compromise:
From Wikipedia: "On July 16, 1787, Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth, both of the Connecticut delegation, created a compromise for a bicameral, or two-part, legislature consisting of a lower and upper house.In favor of the larger states, membership in the lower house, as in the Virginia Plan, was to be allocated in proportion to state population and candidates were to be nominated and elected by the people of each state. A census of all inhabitants of the United States was to be taken every 10 years. Also all bills for raising taxes, spending or appropriating money, and setting the salaries of Federal officers were to originate in the lower house and be unamendable by the upper house. In exchange, membership in the upper house, however, was more similar to the New Jersey Plan and was to be allocated two seats to each state, regardless of size, with members being chosen by the state legislatures. Members of the Upper House, or Senators, were elected by the State Legislature until the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment, which called for the direct election of Senators by the people". The compromise passed after eleven days of debate, by one vote—five to four.
2. "People who could not even spell the word 'vote', or say it in English, put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House." So by your own twisted fuzzy logic Mr. Tancredo, are you saying that 69,498,513 registered voters or 53% of voting Americans, who voted for Progressive Democrat Barack Obama are somehow either civics illiterate or can't even spell the word vote? I consider myself fairly educated, I also consider Edward Kennedy, Carloline Kennedy, Colon Powell, and at least most of the 53% of registered voters who voted in the general election in 2008 to be reasonably educated and informed. Just imagine 53% of 2008 registered voters voted for Barack Obama, a Progressive slightly left of center Democrat. A man who graduated from Colombia University, Harvard University School of Law, the first African American to become Editor of the Harvard Law Review, a Community Organizer, Constitutional Law lecturer at the University of Chicago, a Illinois State Senator and United States Senator. Wow!.. what are the odds that all these people, in all these states during all those primaries and caucuses and finally the the General Election were all or mostly civics illiterate and couldn't even spell vote were wrong? And to make matters worse Barack Obama is a committed Socialist ideologue?
A committed Socialist ideologue, Socialism? Mr. Tancredo are you freaking kidding me? Do you even know what Socialism is? Obviously not. Wikipedia defines Socialism as: "The various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended."
By definition President Obama's policies are not Socialism. President Obama's healthcare plan is no more Socialistic then Social Security, Medicare, regulated banks, regulated business, OSHA, EPA, FDA, FCC, DOT, etc. The United States has never been an unregulated Democracy. Why don't you be really honest with yourself Mr. Tancredo, and admit to yourself that the real truth is that unregulated Capitalism is the greatest threat to Democracy. The United States has never been an unregulated Democracy ever, especially since we gave our consent to create a Legislature in 1787. To make it simple for you Mr. Tancredo, Legislation by the people and for the people by definition is a regulated Democracy. Mr. Tancredo may I suggest that you and your wing nut allies read our American History as evidently you are the one who needs a civics lesson not us.
3."His name, is Barack Hussein Obama." Please Mr. Tancredo you choose to use words as weapons. Your favorites weapons of choice are to emphasize Barack Obamas middle name "Hussein" as if that is supposed to conjure up fear and conspiracy in small minds that somehow President Barack Obama is a secret radical Muslim. Seriously whats in a name? in this case nothing Your charge of President Obama having Socialist ideologies is just another nonsense accusation that really only resonates with the rest of the wing nut micro-minority. Frankly, for the rest of us 69,498,513 Americans and counting this is just getting a little old. It is really a little sad that your prejudice is blinding you to reality. Your ignorance of American history and politics is making you a laughing stock to the vast majority of thoughtful and informed Americans.
Sounds like a lofty and utterly reasonable statement. However, it is factually incorrect and far from the truth. The founding fathers were far from unified in their beliefs. The founding fathers of our nation were basically of two opposing beliefs systems; the 'Federalists" and the "Anti-Federalists" There were no established political parties.
Wiki-Answers has a good definition: "From 1796 to 1828 the first political parties were formed. During the time when our country was in its formative years, two opposing factions arose. Each was concerned with how the new government was to be organized. The Federalists believed in a strong central government and supported the ratification of the Constitution. Additionally, they supported industrialization, a national bank, and government aid to build roads and canals.
The Anti-Federalists strongly supported the rights of the states. They were opposed to a national bank and favored farming over manufacturing. They were firmly against the government helping to further industrialization by building roads and canals.
The Federalists won their cause for the Constitution. However, efforts by the Democratic-Republican Party to influence people to the Anti-Federalist cause eventually weakened the Federalists. By 1824, the party was virtually non-existent." (Note: The Democratic-Republican Party later went on to become the Democratic Party. http://www.consource.org/ has great resources available including the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers posted on-line)
From the first constitutional convention to the early days of our nation these beliefs were prevalent. The United States Constitution went through several drafts and revisions in an attempt to accommodate these opposing beliefs. As a matter of fact, these opposing beliefs were so strong that the constitution was almost never completed because of these disagreements. The delegates were hopelessly deadlocked, a compromise was proposed, referred to historically, as the Connecticut Compromise:
From Wikipedia: "On July 16, 1787, Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth, both of the Connecticut delegation, created a compromise for a bicameral, or two-part, legislature consisting of a lower and upper house.In favor of the larger states, membership in the lower house, as in the Virginia Plan, was to be allocated in proportion to state population and candidates were to be nominated and elected by the people of each state. A census of all inhabitants of the United States was to be taken every 10 years. Also all bills for raising taxes, spending or appropriating money, and setting the salaries of Federal officers were to originate in the lower house and be unamendable by the upper house. In exchange, membership in the upper house, however, was more similar to the New Jersey Plan and was to be allocated two seats to each state, regardless of size, with members being chosen by the state legislatures. Members of the Upper House, or Senators, were elected by the State Legislature until the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment, which called for the direct election of Senators by the people". The compromise passed after eleven days of debate, by one vote—five to four.
2. "People who could not even spell the word 'vote', or say it in English, put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House." So by your own twisted fuzzy logic Mr. Tancredo, are you saying that 69,498,513 registered voters or 53% of voting Americans, who voted for Progressive Democrat Barack Obama are somehow either civics illiterate or can't even spell the word vote? I consider myself fairly educated, I also consider Edward Kennedy, Carloline Kennedy, Colon Powell, and at least most of the 53% of registered voters who voted in the general election in 2008 to be reasonably educated and informed. Just imagine 53% of 2008 registered voters voted for Barack Obama, a Progressive slightly left of center Democrat. A man who graduated from Colombia University, Harvard University School of Law, the first African American to become Editor of the Harvard Law Review, a Community Organizer, Constitutional Law lecturer at the University of Chicago, a Illinois State Senator and United States Senator. Wow!.. what are the odds that all these people, in all these states during all those primaries and caucuses and finally the the General Election were all or mostly civics illiterate and couldn't even spell vote were wrong? And to make matters worse Barack Obama is a committed Socialist ideologue?
A committed Socialist ideologue, Socialism? Mr. Tancredo are you freaking kidding me? Do you even know what Socialism is? Obviously not. Wikipedia defines Socialism as: "The various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended."
By definition President Obama's policies are not Socialism. President Obama's healthcare plan is no more Socialistic then Social Security, Medicare, regulated banks, regulated business, OSHA, EPA, FDA, FCC, DOT, etc. The United States has never been an unregulated Democracy. Why don't you be really honest with yourself Mr. Tancredo, and admit to yourself that the real truth is that unregulated Capitalism is the greatest threat to Democracy. The United States has never been an unregulated Democracy ever, especially since we gave our consent to create a Legislature in 1787. To make it simple for you Mr. Tancredo, Legislation by the people and for the people by definition is a regulated Democracy. Mr. Tancredo may I suggest that you and your wing nut allies read our American History as evidently you are the one who needs a civics lesson not us.
3."His name, is Barack Hussein Obama." Please Mr. Tancredo you choose to use words as weapons. Your favorites weapons of choice are to emphasize Barack Obamas middle name "Hussein" as if that is supposed to conjure up fear and conspiracy in small minds that somehow President Barack Obama is a secret radical Muslim. Seriously whats in a name? in this case nothing Your charge of President Obama having Socialist ideologies is just another nonsense accusation that really only resonates with the rest of the wing nut micro-minority. Frankly, for the rest of us 69,498,513 Americans and counting this is just getting a little old. It is really a little sad that your prejudice is blinding you to reality. Your ignorance of American history and politics is making you a laughing stock to the vast majority of thoughtful and informed Americans.
End of Part 1. Click for Part 2
Wow, that surely was a mouthful for a simple speech. Where to begin. Tom you and I have discussed this before and it was much more calmer and much less racist undertone. I am sick to no end that simply because this man is black that any opposition of his policies is deemed racist. Furthermore this whole blog you have written makes you more racist and anyone who agree with it than congressman Tancredo. He did not say that BLACK people can not spell VOTE OR BLACK people can not speak ENGLISH. he said that there should be a literacy test. To me that is all, black, white ,yellow, purple, and blue people may fail it. To dissect his words and suggest that he was being racist is ludicrous and truly makes you racist. It shows that these things you are speaking of are fresh on your mind and perhaps is why you voted for him.It still is racist to like someone more for there color alone. Perhaps Tom, Just perhaps, you can write a blog explaining your position on how we should not send immigrants home due to we need someone to pick our vegetables?
ReplyDeleteAs to support what he is suggesting, I offer this question. If you were entering a a barbecue contest, would you expect the judges to be people who never ate barbecue or worse yet, vegetarians? No I think you would expect some common knowledge of what they are judging, and that is all he was saying and i fully agree. Granted it is Unconstitutional, but i think some knowledge of who we are putting into office and what we are putting them there to do holds some huge consequences if we are voting for "star power". There were many surveys, videos, and reports done on facts that some people thought they were voting Obama, and Pallin into office. Others didn't even know his name was Barack or that his middle name was Hussein. Not that there is any significance in any part of his name but these Obama chuckle heads who voted for someone on popularity only is a problem! There was questions asked how do you feel that obama's view on pro life policies and how do you feel that he doesn't want health care reform, and people would answer "oh i agree with him full heartily" there is a problem there!! If we are concerned about vegetarians judging a barbecue contest, then we ought to be concerned of STUPID people judging the contest of life altering degrees!!!
Now you tried to throw yourself in there Tom, no, I believe that you would pass a literacy test, flying colors perhaps!! But are you afraid that many of the voters for obama wouldn't and which case you are afraid yourself,that obama would of never won,interesting. I asked you during the campaign i asked you "whats more important to win or to be morally correct"(or morally fair perhaps) and you said "too win of course" and that comment alone tells all tale why you would be afraid of a literacy test!!
In closing, some how it will be said I'm racist or perhaps the "angry" republican. I ask you this why are Liberals so hung up on this man's color, and wasn't it Hillary Clinton herself who screech her words saying that it is our civil right and duty to question our government and to hold them accountable? Or was she suggesting we only hold republicans accountable, democrats are just naturally honest and do right?!?!?!
In the spirit of transparency, The Anonymous comment above is an unsolicited comment from my very, very good friend Billy. We civilly discuss politics all the time. We will never agree but that is what makes this country great.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, Billy I believe that you have missed the point of my post. I was just refuting Mr. Tancredo's facts and assumptions. I used historical references and facts that I believe are indisputable. You know me well, and know better then to even insinuate that I might be racist and I know that you are not either. Opposition is good, just oppose on the facts and not myths or distortions of reality or history.
I appreciate your opinion and your right to voice it, as I know you respect my right to voice mine.
Tom