Do tea partiers care about the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth amendments?

Like many civil libertarians, I have been deeply disappointed in President Obama’s insistence on keeping many of the same disturbing, unconstitutional policies that President Bush employed during the so-called war on terror. Those policies include detaining citizens without any charge.

You’d have thought that tea-partiers would express outrage against those policies, since they advertise themselves as restorers of the constitution and advocates of individual liberties or “freedoms.” The Fourth, Firth and Sixth amendments are clear about the rights that citizens have to be free of imprisonment by the state.

In a case about to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Bush administration imprisoned a man, supposedly because he was a “material witness” holding valuable information about the commission of a crime. It wasn’t true and authorities never even interrogated him about any crime. From The NYT editorial page:

It can be hard to distinguish between the Bush administration and the Obama administration when it comes to detainee policy. A case the Supreme Court agreed last week to hear, Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, is one of those occasions.
It turns on a principle held sacrosanct since the country’s early days: the government cannot arrest you without evidence that you committed a crime. An exception is the material witness law, which allows the government to keep a witness from fleeing before testifying about an alleged crime by somebody else.

These principles were horribly twisted when John Ashcroft was President George W. Bush’s attorney general. The Justice Department held a former college football player in brutal conditions on the pretext that he was a material witness in a case in which he was never called to testify and which fell apart at trial.

The Bush administration’s behavior was disturbing, and so is the Obama administration’s forceful defense of this outrageous practice of using a statute intended for one purpose for something very different. Judge Milan Smith Jr. of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals called it “repugnant to the Constitution.”

The Justice Department arrested Abdullah al-Kidd, known as Lavoni Kidd when he was a star football player at the University of Idaho, at Dulles airport in March 2003 before he boarded a plane to Saudi Arabia, where he was going to work on his doctorate in Islamic studies. For over two weeks, he was treated like an enemy of the state — shackled, held in high-security cells lit 24 hours a day, and sometimes humiliated by strip searches. When Mr. Kidd was released, he was ordered to live with his wife and in-laws, restrict his travels and report to a probation officer. The restrictions lasted 15 months.

The government said Mr. Kidd was a material witness against Sami Omar Hussayen, who was tried for supporting an Islamic group that the government said “sought to recruit others to engage in acts of violence and terrorism.” A jury acquitted Mr. Hussayen on some charges and didn’t reach a verdict on others. Mr. Kidd was not called to testify. Nor was he ever charged with a crime.

Kidd has sued John Ashcroft, who was the attorney general at the time of his detention. Previously, courts have held that the attorney general would be immune from lawsuits. The Obama administration has supported that position. Where is the tea party?

330 comments Add your comment

Paddy O

October 25th, 2010
10:44 am

If Christine ODonnell wins, the repubs will take back both houses, then Obummer shall be effectively castrated, just like Slick Willie Clinton.

Keep up the good fight!

October 25th, 2010
10:44 am

Harry…when you have the weakest of arguments continue the personal attack…

Oh let me boo hoo…….

stands for decibels

October 25th, 2010
10:46 am

my comments regarding Obama and ev. Wright are factual.

I have yet to read a single solitary comment from a winger about Rev. Wright on the intertubes that was factual.

HDB

October 25th, 2010
10:47 am

Harry Callahan

October 25th, 2010
10:34 am
If you REALLY want to know why many Democrats (like myself) don’t care about Clarence Thomas…..it’s HYPOCRACY!! A man that claims that he made it on his own….but denies the fact that he IS a product of Affirmative Action…..and wishes to eliminate the same pathways that HE used to succeed…..

THAT’S the basis….no more!1 The better example is Colin Powell!!

Harry Callahan October 25th, 2010
10:38 am

Didn’t happen!! Jeremiah Wright DIDN’T espouse hatred towards white people….there are white members of his church…and lest you forget, Fr. Michael Flager ALSO spoke to the membership!! If you heard or READ the enitre sermon…you’d see that it’s NOT anti-white!!

granny godzilla

October 25th, 2010
10:47 am

Paddy O

October 25th, 2010
10:48 am

willie agreed with most of what you said up to “rest of the world looks at us with disdain”. How do you know this, because MSNBC indicated so? IF they do, it is jealousy. We have the best system, the biggest economy. A republic is a messy place, operation wise. The liberal muslims are the “meek” getting blown up by the Satanist cowards operating the jihads. You see where we are winning in Afghanistan, now that we have applied adequate pressure, yes?

Paddy O

October 25th, 2010
10:50 am

hdb – i think you are wearing rose colored glasses when judging the Rev. Wright.

HDB

October 25th, 2010
10:52 am

Paddy O October 25th, 2010
10:50 am

Nope — I’ve READ the enitre “GDA” sermon…….
Don’t think that I agree with EVERYTHING Rev. Wright has said…but much of what he’s said IS based in truth!! Sometimes, it’s truth we DON’T LIKE….but it’s truth novertheless!!

Paddy O

October 25th, 2010
10:52 am

The US: Has the best Constitution, the most lethal military, a very charitable (too charitable to me – if we balance the budget, we can throw good money after bad) populace, a good system of helping people temporarily who want it. We span an entire continent with a ton of diversity from Montana to NYC, depending upon your personal preference, you can live alone with the elements, or surrounded by 8-10 million people riding a subway every day.

Paddy O

October 25th, 2010
10:54 am

hdb – a person who supposedly had Jesus Christ flowing through him WOULD NEVER SAY GDA, since he did say it, he does not have Christ flowing through him, so he is simply a racist schuckster, feeding his followers what they want to hear.

Paddy O

October 25th, 2010
10:54 am

hdb – how old is his truth? 40 years?

paleo-neo-Carlinist

October 25th, 2010
10:57 am

QED, please excuse mental typo. somehow the number 23 got in my brain. but really, does it matter how many times it has been amendned. if “rights” can be added/removed (let’s not forget when slavery was outlawed, slave owners lost their “property” rights as defined by the Dred Scott case). and isn’t it odd that the 26th Amendment gave 18 year-olds the “right to vote” but only because the politicians were drafting 18 year-old and sending them to kill or be killed in Southeast Asia (as per Article I Section 8)?

granny godzilla

October 25th, 2010
11:00 am

Paddy O

October 25th, 2010
10:54 am
hdb – a person who supposedly had Jesus Christ flowing through him WOULD NEVER SAY GDA

Jesus told me you were wrong about that.

He was pretty pissed off about all that torture stuff and the Tuskeegee experiment and things like that…..

He’s not real impressed with you at the moment either…

jezzie1

October 25th, 2010
11:01 am

Ms. Tucker, It would be nice if you actually wrote an opinion piece instead of copying the entire text of someone else’s stories.

HDB

October 25th, 2010
11:05 am

Paddy O October 25th, 2010
10:54 am

First – damnation IS a Biblical policy….so in the proper context (which too many things – especially POLITICALLY..are taken OUT OF!), he may have been RIGHT!! I recommend that you Google the speech…and read it!! Many won’t come to the same conclusion as I did…but that is due to their own personal analysis/point of reference!!

Second – in many aspects, Rev. Wright’s truth (in HIS eyes…can’t speak for the man!) may be CURRENT!! The main question is this: How many can SEE his truth….or are they blinded by the Limbaughs and Hannitys??

HDB

October 25th, 2010
11:06 am

BTW…Good MORNING…GG!!

granny godzilla

October 25th, 2010
11:06 am

jezzie1

it would be nice if you stuck to one name too…..

granny godzilla

October 25th, 2010
11:07 am

HDB

Good Morning to you too!

quod erat demonstrandum

October 25th, 2010
11:08 am

paleo-neo-Carlinist,

Rights are never granted or taken away, just the protection of them – our rights are unalienable as stated in the Declaration of Independence.

Dred Scott was overturned, but it did have an interesting twist on firearm rights.

The 18 year old vote – if you can die for your country, you should have a say with the vote – This was not a new right granted them, it extended the right to vote to them.

HDB

October 25th, 2010
11:11 am

quod erat demonstrandum
October 25th, 2010
11:08 am
“Rights are never granted or taken away….”

Not quite true; in many states, the right to VOTE is taken away by due process….or on some cases, political disenfranchisement!! Check the laws about reinstatement!! The right to own a firearm is taken away if convicted of a felony…..

Note some of the circumstances……

A Lumpkin Resident

October 25th, 2010
11:12 am

You are barking up the wrong tree Cynthia. Just because the Tea Party does not make your own personal Civil Liberty battle first and forefront on their agenda, that does not mean that we don’t care. Am I sick and tired of those “disturbing, unconstitutional policies that President Bush employed during the so-called war on terror” that Pres. Obama has seen fit to uphold and extend. However, it is YOUR responsibility to join the Tea Party movement and fight for the big government injustice that YOU want to see righted. You cannot expect a grassroots organization with no central organization to deliver a platform for your perusal. You want it done? DO IT. At least we are not as bad as the ACLU that , while under the guise of protecting civil liberties, refuses to defend the 2nd and makes that statement clear. To me, every single Amendment is worthy of fighting for. And finally, as much as the NYT and Cynthia Tucker would like to brand this as a Bush era problem, “absolute power corrupts absolutely” and the Democrats LOVE this control over the American people as much as the Republicans. A Democratic Congress has has 4 years to reign in that power, and a Democratic President has had two. Neither has even broached the subject of repealing and denouncing those anti-Constitutional policies.

Tech Man

October 25th, 2010
11:12 am

Memphis11Gate
October 25th, 2010
10:07 am

You are correct.

I told CT this when PPACT was passed and her terse reply was “we will have to wait and see”. Well we are seeing. The whole set up is to undo employer provided health care and get everyone covered as an individual. At the same time squeeze the insurance companies so the public demands the public option.

mystified

October 25th, 2010
11:13 am

I had to respond to this gator guy at 9:59. You, like many liberals, confuse individual rights with individual responsibility. It is your responsibility to take care of yourself and your family. It is not the tax payers. As a compassionate society, we create Temporary safety nets for when someone is down to help them get back on their feet. These were not intended to be complete protection from everything that ails or permanent. (Except social security of course which was intended to take care of mom and dad if they hadn’t saved enough on their own.)

If you are looking for protests, I’m still waiting for your protests for people not living up to their responsibilities.

You treat the tax cuts like the money belongs to the government. It doesn’t. It belongs to us. The gov’t doesn’t do us a favor by giving us a tax cut. We do the gov’t a favor by paying taxes.

Didn’t your daddy ever give you the speech about responsibility and taking care of yourself? Where did you get this “it’s better to take from everyone else to provide what I’m not willing to work for” mentality?

quod erat demonstrandum

October 25th, 2010
11:14 am

HDB,

Who ever said it was a perfect process?

Yes, rights can be limited due to the law – both state and federal.

You are right, an ex-felon can apply to have his/her rights restored. Kind of like getting you license back after you complete your DUI class. You still have the right, it is just suspended until certain processes are completed.

Ragnar Danneskjöld

October 25th, 2010
11:16 am

A state of war creates exceptions. We feel for the unfortunate Mr. Abdullah al-Kidd, whose greatest crime seemingly was going to the home of the 9/11/2001 attackers, to study the same religion the attackers affirmed as their motivation for attack. He was an innocent swept up in the wave, much like the wrongly-imprisoned Japanese under Roosevelt, and the Maryland legislature under Lincoln. The right solution has nothing to do with tort lawyers and John Ashcroft. A principled Congress should compensate Mr. al-Kidd for his injuries. Of course, principle is found only on the right, and we cannot expect democrats to do the right thing. The tea party congress should honor its convictions.

Tech Man

October 25th, 2010
11:20 am

HDB
October 25th, 2010
10:15 am

Wrong-o.

The spokesman for the Senators doesn’t have capital at risk. They “hope” it doesn’t cause employer provided insurance to end earlier than expected.
The HHS is troubled that Principal, one of your former employers, is basically giving their block to UHC. HHS didn’t foresee 130+ waivers to the MLR ruling.
HDB, look up the subsidies for those making less than $88,000 for a family of 4 and tell me how trying to match that to keep an employee from taking the subsidy is saving money.

pat

October 25th, 2010
11:21 am

Uh, this is all you could come up with? Fake outrage? What in the ruddy hell could this have to do with the tea party? This was a rather large stretch don’t you think?
Welp, since this is the best you could do, I am out.
It’s to stupid to ever bother mocking.

granny godzilla

October 25th, 2010
11:27 am

pat’s back!

are you ready to chage your mind about this blog being worthless?

quod erat demonstrandum

October 25th, 2010
11:29 am

CT,

Where is your outrage when a union worker gets fire from a job because he is wearing a sweat shirt from CVN-77 – The George H.W. Bush?

Where is your outrage at the phony attacks on the US Chamber of Commerce?

Where is your outrage when Speaker Pelosi says you have to pass the law before you can see what’s in it?

Harry Callahan

October 25th, 2010
11:30 am

Keep Up and HDB…I think you guys better view Jeremiah Wright on youtube and report back to the group here when you have a clue.

Tommy Maddox

October 25th, 2010
11:32 am

I read an article last week [which I now cannot find] that the military has continued all these years searching on a small scale for WMD and have made and continue to make numerous finds [but nothing on a grand scale]. The article mentioned item being mainly mustard gas or bllistering agents but that stuff may have been left over from the earlier days.

I wish this stuff would get covered in the press. If you believe it did not exist, then you would be incorrect.

paleo-neo-Carlinist

October 25th, 2010
11:33 am

QED, I was not commenting on any specific rights in mentioning the Dred Scott ruling, but simply to note that ALL rights are subject to the prevailing political wind, which means there are no rights. who died and gave the “government” the authority to “protect” or not protect (as in the Dred Scott case and 14th Amendment) the rights of slaves, vis a vis the rights of slave owners? who died and initially denied women the right to vote, but then decided it better to “protect” women’s suffrage? here’s a Constittional conundrum for you; the whole concept of rights (endowed by Creator) is rooted in the same arrogance as religion. namely that the average person is two weak, stupid, and helpless to exist without some “supreme being” or supreme document to bestow or withold rights. you know, maybe from an anthropoligical standpoint, every pack of wolves needs an alpha male, but in admitting as much, we must also admit that all rights are surrendered when one joins the pack. to wit; the only right in play is the “right” to behave as the leader of the pack orders (see: plutocracy/oligarchy for a more political understanding).

paleo-neo-Carlinist

October 25th, 2010
11:38 am

QED, your “where’s your outrage” questions continue to bolster my position. the fact that we “have the right” to express outrage doesn’t mean anything (again, ask Kathryn Johnston’s family). if as Ragnar suggests, a cash value can be placed on rights (victims can be compensated), there is certainly a ‘cash value’ which favors those who ignore rights. I repeat the herd analogy, rights are little more than “carrot and stick” and they exist (on paper) to get people to pull the wagon (or kill people of a different religious, political, ethnic ilk).

Keep up the good fight!

October 25th, 2010
11:39 am

Sure Harry….I am on it. Just so you can dodge the inconsistency in logic in your argument and the diversion. Remember it does not take a brain to pull a trigger and shoot your mouth off….even if you are shooting blanks.

Now again Harry…since you want guilt by association…why are the tea partiers terrorists? and racists?

quod erat demonstrandum

October 25th, 2010
11:42 am

paleo-neo-Carlinist,

I tend to disagree with you on several levels.

Man(and women) were created to be free people, not enslaved or oppressed. This is supported by how many times people will strive for freedom in the most repressive regimes.

As the Declaration of Independence says, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

We are endowed with the right to life – some on the left think this is their right to take away.
Liberty, allowed to govern oneself within a society.
Pursuit of Happiness – in some of the drafts this was the right to property, private property rights. Others did not want to limit this.

From Wikipedia – I know an unreliable source.

This tripartite motto is comparable to “liberté, égalité, fraternité” (liberty, equality, fraternity) in France,[citation needed], “life, liberty and prosperity” in Austrialia,[citation needed], or “peace, order and good government” in Canada.[8] It is also similar to a line in the Canadian Charter of Rights: “life, liberty, security of the person” (this line was also in the older Canadian Bill of rights, which added “enjoyment of property” to the list).

The phrase can also be found in Chapter III, Article 13 of the 1947 Constitution of Japan, and in President Ho Chi Minh’s 1945 declaration of independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. An alternative phrase “life, liberty and property”, is found in the Declaration of Colonial Rights, a resolution of the First Continental Congress. The Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution declare that governments cannot deprive any person of “life, liberty or property” without due process of law. Also, Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”

quod erat demonstrandum

October 25th, 2010
11:44 am

paleo-neo-Carlinist,

The outrage is that no one is outraged – No one thinks it is wrong or worth fighting for.

quod erat demonstrandum

October 25th, 2010
11:51 am

paleo-neo-Carlinist,

I think you might also be confusing “natural” rights and legal rights.

Two different things entirely.

You have a natural right to life, but a legal right to vote.

One is unalienable and one is legislated.

willie lynch

October 25th, 2010
11:56 am

Paddy,

The king may have all of the best things but that doesn’t make him beloved by his subjects.

I wish I could say we’re winng in Afghanistan but we don’t know that. These are a people who have resisted other “colonizers” before us they know when to stand down and appear defeated. They understand tehy will never win a military battle with the U.S. that’s why they will eventually enter a negotiated settlement. That does not mean a U.S. victory. When the U. S. leaves, Afghanistan will still be an 85% illiterate population no more versed in what democracy is than when the first U.S. troops invaded the country, they will still be ruled by people directly influenced by a strong conservative muslim minority and they won’t have anything to point to to say to the people “we’re better off now”.

I wish the young men and women (gay and straight) who have died for our country could have done so for something more tangible but unfortunately this has been a needless waste of young lives.

Nothing Is Free

October 25th, 2010
11:57 am

Looks like the successful trail lawyer is pending yet another Monday morning, blogging.

Gosh, you would think it was just a little twit living in his Mom’s basement, pretending to be a lawyer.

Reality

October 25th, 2010
12:01 pm

With the many posts here, interestingly enough no one has anwered the question posed at the end of the blog. Where are the tea partiers?

I also wonder why do tea party members only appear for specific issues and yet leave others, in the same vein, alone. How can they pick and chose which to support or fight for and which to leave aside?

If you believe in the Constitution and its amendments, then shouldn’t they apply to all? Why can tea party members get away with selectively enforcing these?

They sound more and more like republicans in my book….

kevinbgoode

October 25th, 2010
12:03 pm

Con-artist con-servatives. Americans living and celebrating fear on a daily basis.

And today’s boogieman is. . .

Nothing Is Free

October 25th, 2010
12:08 pm

Reality

- -I also wonder why do tea party members only appear for specific issues and yet leave others, in the same vein, alone- -

I was wondering the same thing about where the violent liberal protesters are now that were rioting about wire tapping, but now that Obama has not only extended the policy, he has enhanced it.

Or where are the anti-war protesters?

I understand that Obama has done so many more radical things to rape us of our liberties that the wire tapping seems silly now. So perhaps that’s where the liberal rioters are: They are just getting used to bending over of this administration.

paleo-neo-Carlinist

October 25th, 2010
12:12 pm

QED,

please excuse cut and paste, but it’s the only way I can respond.

Man(and women) were created to be free people, not enslaved or oppressed. This is supported by how many times people will strive for freedom in the most repressive regimes.

I applaud you for using a lower case c when spelling “created”. your logic is skewed. as devil’s advocate, I would argue that if the human experience is defined by the idea that “people will strive for freedom in the most oppressive regimes” there is as much evidence to suggest a “right repress” and as noted, excercising this right is “endowed” by th use of force (political, military, religion). not saying this is good or bad, or fair/unfair; just playing devil’s advocate.

As the Declaration of Independence says, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

so, white, property-owning (including slaves) decided, in 1776, that they could build a better mousetrap, or as I said, had the proverbial “a ha/light bulb moment” and decided to “document” this notion. the fact that they felt their individual and collective self interests (business) were being “repressed” and exploited had nothing to do with the faux altruism of their “declaration”.

We are endowed with the right to life – some on the left think this is their right to take away.
Liberty, allowed to govern oneself within a society.

according to whom? people are killed every day, and most of the time they are killed by the very same government(s), whoch draft shallow, baseless documents (political, legal, theological) to confirm rights.

Pursuit of Happiness – in some of the drafts this was the right to property, private property rights. Others did not want to limit this.

I hate to go Psych 100, but we’re each responsible for our own “happiness”. a government or ruling body is not responsible for my happiness.

From Wikipedia – I know an unreliable source.

This tripartite motto is comparable to “liberté, égalité, fraternité” (liberty, equality, fraternity) in France,[citation needed], “life, liberty and prosperity” in Austrialia,[citation needed], or “peace, order and good government” in Canada.[8] It is also similar to a line in the Canadian Charter of Rights: “life, liberty, security of the person” (this line was also in the older Canadian Bill of rights, which added “enjoyment of property” to the list).

both Canada and Australia, like the USA were once part of the British Empire. the fact that each nation’s respective “rights documents” share common language/DNA has nothing to do with the nature or existence “rights” as a matter of law.

The phrase can also be found in Chapter III, Article 13 of the 1947 Constitution of Japan, and in President Ho Chi Minh’s 1945 declaration of independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. An alternative phrase “life, liberty and property”, is found in the Declaration of Colonial Rights, a resolution of the First Continental Congress. The Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution declare that governments cannot deprive any person of “life, liberty or property” without due process of law. Also, Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”

can’t speak for Japan – but Google Nankin rape/Manchuria to see how serious the Japanese were about human rights. and we all know Ho Chi Minh cited the U.S. Declaration of Independence when he argued his case. interestingly enough it took 58,000 American lives, nearly 1 million Vietnamese lives and hundreds of billions of dollars to prove he was right (for what it’s worth, right?).

as far as “natural rights” versus “legal rights” again, my point. you can’t have both. de facto and de jure. if ‘rights’ come from a supernatural authority, then laws, which bestow, protect, add/subtract rights, are moot; they’re man-made and as I said, subject to the whims of polticians, judges, or what Ayn rand called “rational self-interest” (which means, the only thing “natural” is anarchy – kill or be killed, history is written by the victors).

Ivan

October 25th, 2010
12:13 pm

LOL @ HDB.

“No, it’s not written! But it’s there!! I can SEE it with SUPER SECRET MAGNIFYER I got from my FROSTED flakes cereal BOX!!11!!”

Nothing Is Free

October 25th, 2010
12:14 pm

kevinbgoode

- -And today’s boogieman is. . .- -

Apparently, the Tea Party members.

So who is it that is spreading fear on a daily basis? Little old ladies with walkers are now the big threat to our liberties. Beck has hundreds of thousands at the Mall and they actually clean up the mall after they are done, but the liberals show up and the mall looks like Woodstock, after the festival.

While most liberals are gullible enough to believe that senior citizens in tour buses are a threat, but young radicals, rioting, breaking windows and looting are just exercising their rights, there has got to be a liberal somewhere who didn’t buy into this nonsense. Of course they don’t seem to show up here.

‘.

Albert

October 25th, 2010
12:14 pm

Why are you firing your guns at the little bunch of “tea partiers.” The real dangers to the Constitutution comes from Democvrats and Republicans in the Congress who ignore its provisions on a daily basis, not to mention Leftist and Rightist judges who have taken the poor old thing and wrung it out to dry. The “tea party?” What party?

paleo-neo-Carlinist

October 25th, 2010
12:22 pm

QED, “worth fighting for”. there is an interesting choice of words. if a “higher authority” determines when rights are “worth” fighting/dying for, the individual has surrendered all rights and joined the herd. again, this may be as “natural” as breathing oxygen and emitting CO2, but again, if “natural rights” exist, and legal rights (laws) are unnatural. I know this puts the “Creator” (god) in play, but which god? the god who gave us the 10 Commandments and Moses? the god who gave us the Prophet Mohammed and the Q’ran?, or the God who gave us Jesus, the Gospels and the Book of Revelations?

Ivan

October 25th, 2010
12:23 pm

“I also wonder why do tea party members only appear for specific issues and yet leave others, in the same vein, alone. How can they pick and chose which to support or fight for and which to leave aside?”

Reality. Get real. You act as if every group ever formed broadened their stances to every aspect of Constitutional protections except for the Tea Party.

You must be ticked that women’s protections groups don’t show their support for taxation without representation. Or every green movement not showing their support for speedy trials or double jeopardy rights.

Gator Joe

October 25th, 2010
12:23 pm

Cynthia,
In answer to your question, judging from their rallies, the Tea Partiers care that President Obama is not white, and care about doing away with government programs…that is, government programs which they, or their families, don’t personally benefit from.

granny godzilla

October 25th, 2010
12:23 pm

hundreds of thousands = 87,000