The opponents to the Tea Party movement are busy setting up the grassroots protesters as angry, potential homegrown terrorists like Timothy McVeigh, so it's no surprise that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg assumed that the Times Square Bomber could be someone "that doesn't like the health care bill."
Bloomberg later told CBS Evening
News Anchor Katie Couric that the suspect behind the bombing attempt could be a
domestic terrorist angry at the government who acted alone.
"If I had to guess 25 cents, this would be exactly that. Homegrown, or maybe a mentally deranged person, or somebody with a political agenda that doesn't like the health care bill or something. It could be anything," he said.
It turned out to be a young, Islamic-extremist immigrant.
You don't say.
Why is it that Progressives ignore the danger posed by Islamic extremists, despite hundreds of examples of attempted or executed terrorist attacks by them over the last few decades, but they jump to conclusions that Tea Partiers, who have turned out in the millions to protest government expansion with nary an arrest, are inherently violent?
One reason is that they're drinking their own Kool-Aid. Almost all the high-profile Progressive leaders are on record worrying about Tea Party violence and shaking their fingers at Fox News and talk radio, sending a warning that they'll be blamed if some crazy extremist from the right blows something up. When they heard of the terrorist attack, they immediately assumed that their PR campaign was about to be validated.
In their haste to blame the Right, they overlooked the obvious--that terrorists are almost always young, Islamic-extremists.
While I believe that one day some nut from the right will commit an act of violence--the movement is so large that there has to a few of them amid the millions that take part in it--it's wildly unfair to blame the movement as a whole. Similarly, it's unfair to blame the Islamic religion for Islamic extremism.
But we shouldn't cast aside common sense either and pretend that most terrorism isn't committed by Islamic extremists.
Eric Ingemunson's commentary has been featured on Hannity, CNN, NBC, Inside Edition, and KFI's The John and Ken Show.
Eric was born and raised in Ventura County and currently resides in Moorpark. He earned a master's degree in Public Policy and Administration from California Lutheran University. As a conservative, Eric supports smaller government, less taxation, more individual freedom, the rule of law, and a strict adherence to the Constitution.
It saddens me to find that a master’s degree from a private college continues to spit out partisan zombies who refuse to analyze the issues in front of them with an objective eye. Rather they find it more provocative to figuratively poke their fingers in the eyes of their opposition expecting it to increase their credibility. It’s a shame these Young Republicans who you deem the ‘future leaders of tomorrow’ have not evolved as critical thinkers and continue to recite the same rhetoric that’s aired daily on Fox News rather than examining their own contradictions. A couple of points:
-Although the press is having a field day with this, the combination of propane, manure, and fireworks in Times Square does not constitute a 9/11 style terrorist attack. Try to put it in context with what happens in Baghdad on a daily basis. To sensationalize this act is yet another means of diverting the public’s attention (which isn’t difficult) from an honest debate about our actions abroad. I agree with a young Pat Buchanan who held the notion of non-interventionism as an important element in the makeup of our foreign policy. It’s a shame that you don’t because it would help validate your belief in fiscal responsibility.
-This is a great opportunity for Republicans to jump back on the Terror Alert Bandwagon and try to parlay this event into a November victory. "Is Obama and the Democrats keeping America safe?"If so, do you believe that is that in the best interest of the country or in the best interest of your party’s desires? Machiavelli would be proud.
-I assume the Young Republicans and their strict adherence to the Constitution and individual freedoms were against Prop 8? Equality for all, correct?
-Dwelling on legitimizing the Tea Party while playing the role of victim with regards to the nefarious liberal mainstream media is difficult to swallow. You play it like Al Sharpton plays the race card. Find a new deck to play with that includes an internal look at the Tea Party and what their true goals are rather than lofty notions of anti-socialism and lower taxes. What gov’t programs does the TP want to cut? How do you lower taxes and reduce the deficit at the same time? If the chains of regulation were relieved in the marketplace how is the public interest protected? Should BP be responsible for the cleanup in the Gulf of Mexico or the federal government?
- If Mike Bloomberg is a progressive, I am a former Mark Foley staffer.
-I assume the Young Republicans still have their attention on the trillion dollar occupation of Iraq. I assume the Young Republicans are asking questions like “what have we learned from this?”, “is this action consistent with our belief in fiscal restraint?”, “are we safer because of it?”
I do not politically categorize myself, it helps with my attempt to analyze what I believe as important and not. I get frustrated with MSNBC as much as Fox (well, almost as much) because both of them are acting with hubris. With that said I don’t claim to have definitive answers to the important questions of our time. There are conservatives out there that I respect, Ron Paul and George Will to name a few because they provide an intellectual approach to ideals as opposed to the populous acrimony of the Tea Party.
Jake, your points are well-taken. I should take some time to clear up some points in my positions that appear as inconsistencies to you.
Iraq war: Yes, it's hugely expensive and features rampant waste. But I think you misunderstand what it means to be a fiscal conservative. Rather than knee-jerk opposition to any spending, real conservatives believe in smart spending. Like a savvy investor, we believe in holding onto our money until the right situation comes along and then we spend it. The right situation will involve an acceptable rate of return. In the case of Iraq the idea was to spread freedom to the Middle East which would benefit us in many ways (if it works) that will exceed the cost of the enterprise (theoretically). That's not antithetical to fiscal conservatism.
Lowering taxes and reducing the deficit: Deficits are caused by spending more than you take in. If you lower what you spend more than what you take in, the deficit is gone. That's why Tea Partiers advocate shrinking the government. A side note--it's been shown that if you reduce taxes you can increase revenue.
Tea Party Victimization: I don't know how you say they aren't victimized. The name calling they've endured is atrocious. They turn out millions of passionate people without incident, but when a few hundred union workers or a few hundred socialists protest they burn cars and throw bottles at police. Yet somehow the media is scared of Tea Party violence.
Consumer protection: If the government stepped back its regulation of businesses, the private sector would step in and impose "soft" regulation. First of all, people will vote with their pocketbooks. If Wal-Mart poisons its shoppers, people will shop at Target. Wal-Mart will either change their ways or go extinct. The second way the free market fixes it is with consumer watchdogs. These watchdogs would stand to earn a lot of subscribers by keeping an eye on big corporations. Should they become coopted, their subscribers will withdraw their support.
Let me know if I missed anything.
Iraq War: the notion of a democratic Middle East is inane at best. Religion trumps freedom in the middle east. I wish your neoconservative viewpoint of inserting freedom and democracy was as feasible as you claim. If there’s anything to be learned in Iraq it’s that the United States is not “the panacea of all ills” and the empire we’ve created and continue to expand will be the death of us. We’re creating more enemies with every day, an estimated 100,000 civilians dead. Multiply that by all of the family members affected by each and every death and you have a huge national security problem for the United States.
I hate to debate economics because it is such a huge, highly volatile and complicated enterprise that there is no way either of us can determine if the simple idea that lowering taxes can increase revenue. Supply-side economics and trickle-down economics seem implausible to me and uncivil as well. It promotes further class warfare allowing for the wealthy to inflict its will on the lower classes.
I’m not aware of violent socialists. However with regards to the TP I have no doubt they are sensationalized but no more than any other group. Once they parse out certain radical elements of their group I will pay more attention to them. I don’t believe they understand what socialism is. I don’t believe they know exactly what they want, except for the President to resign. Note: no mention of racism.
So if Wal-Mart is poisoning shoppers, how are consumers to know they are being poisoned? Do they just die off one by one and over time their customer base slowly realizes that they’re dying and should switch to shopping at Target? If the government did not require ingredients to be documented on packaging do you think Nabisco/Archer Daniels Midland, etc… would freely inform the public that most of their processed food has way too much sodium, or that they no longer include sugar but something completely void of nutrients, that being high fructose corn syrup? How is the marketplace seeing after the public good?
How long does it take for consumer watchdogs to be bought out by the very industry they provide oversight to?
I enjoyed this debate. One last thought. My theory is that private business is just as ‘in need’ of government as the very people the government aims to serve. What I mean is that I private enterprise puts an enormous amount of emphasis on using government to gain a competitive advantage. That will always be there, a government subsidy in a way. The ‘too big to fail’ companies on Wall St. have played both sides. They pay lobbyists to see the Financial Reform does not occur yet they’ve perpetuated a level of growth within their business so that when an economic collapse is looming they request help from the government. The free market can never truly be ‘free’.
Topics you missed:
-If you’re truly a TP member who believes in personal freedoms/no gov’t interference, you support the rights of homosexuals including marriage and the right to adopt. Sean Hannity espouses the virtue of freedom all the time…just selectively I guess.
I can't write this much anymore. Nice 'chatting' with ya'.
Why are all you Republicans from Simi Valley? It must be the heat.
Eric,
Extreme right wingers have already unleashed violent acts on people and property since Barack Obama took office. A church was shot up, an abortion doctor was killed in another church, a Tea Party activist told people to throw bricks through the windows of politicians, and three police officers were killed by a nut that was convinced that Barack Obama was going to order guns to be confiscated.
Did you miss all of those stories? There's more if you need it.
Jake, there's too many topics to go over thoroughly, but I think we can agree on companies using the government to squash competitors. No monopoly can exist long in the free market--they need the government to sustain that environment. And I think Tea Partiers might tell you that the government shouldn't be involved in the marriage process anyway.
UU, I was talking about Tea Party events. The things you cited aren't from Tea Party people. And the dude that shot those three people was a Democrat. You need to focus a bit more.
Wow. 234,000 PRIVATE SECTOR jobs created. Thank You President Obama and no thanks to right wing nutjobs for creating the worst economic mess in 70 years.
Eric,
The man that shot the police officers believed the government was about to start confiscating guns. That is a belief pushed by the right, not the left.
The man that told people to throw bricks is a Tea Party leader.
The church that was shot up was targeted because it is liberal. The murderer was motivated by his hatred for liberalism. He had at his home many books by Fox News host.
All of this isn't to say the average tea party member is anything other than a patriot. But how high does the body count need to go before you acknowledge there has been right wing violence lately?