Posted on 04/15/2009 12:47:29 PM PDT by jmc813
Here’s an AFP report on “tea party” demonstrations: Anti-Obama ‘tea party’ protests mark US tax day.
NEW YORK (AFP) – Critics of President Barack Obama marked national tax day Wednesday with “tea party” protests that Republicans are calling the birth of a grassroots opposition, but Democrats dismiss as a fraud.
Initially small crowds gathered under blustery skies in Washington, New York and Boston to protest taxes, government bailouts, and Obama’s big-spending budget proposals.
Organizer Eric Odom said protests would take place across almost 800 cities in a “new day for the freedom movement.”
Who is Eric Odom, in addition to being the organizer and spokesman of the tea parties?
UPDATE at 4/15/09 11:15:46 am:
Here’s Eric Odom, with an article at wacko conspiracy website “The National Expositor,” arguing that Ron Paul’s Poll Results are Valid.
Take a look through some of the other stuff at the National Expositor site, if you want to know why I label them as “wackos.”
I can't tell you about Tea Parties across the nation, but I can tell you about some of the Tea Parties in and around Sacramento.
Mark Meckler, who organized the Sac Tea Party, describes himself as "a former Republican" and "unaffiliated American" (Make of that what you will). But Meckler absolutely reamed the the California Republican Party from the stage for not getting off their butt to support the Sac Tea Party UNTIL it got big names associated with it.
Republican Congressman Tom McClintock -- who Ron Paul endorsed & supported for election-- was the only elected politician invited to speak at the Sac tea Party. (Coincidence? Don't thinks so!)
At the second Tea Party in Citrus Heights, the organizers were absolutely from Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty, although most of the attendees were totally oblivious to that fact. RP Campaign for Liberty accepted "anonymity" & made no attempt to recruit anybody for anything other than the next Tea Party.
I would venture a guess that Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty was a prime organizer behind a lot of the Tea Parties, because whatever else you may think of them, Ron Paul's people are outstanding at grassroots organizing -- something the Republican Party desperately needs whether they will acknowledge it or not!
I'll get another source and let you know pal.
NO! I do not believe in Pork Barrel spending as Ron Paul participates in. See Wild Shrimp.
Ron Paul should walk the walk, but instead he plays his flute for his eager lemmings as he walks towards the river.
I do not think there were too many Freepers who supported John McCain. It is just that there were many, many fewer who supported cut and run. I always said, “The only person running for the Republican nomination who was worse than John McCain was Ron Paul”.
Cut and run, huh? So, you would prefer the socialism of Obama to the foreign policy of Ron Paul? Because that is the choice. Until people wake up and realize that people like Ron Paul, by which I mean the kooks who care about the constitution and capitalism, are the only real opposition to socialism we are lost. The lesser evils that you support, e.g. McCain, are nothing but creeping socialism. McCain never would have stood firm for what was right. He certainly never has.
As it is, and regarding any possible "cut and run" scenarios, I am personally unconvinced that invading Iraq has had any real effects regarding terrorism. Yes, I know that there have been no more 9/11 type attacks since, but that doesn't really impress me much. It assumes that such attacks would definitely have happened and we cannot be sure of that at all. Additionally, Afghanistan may have been enough to disrupt any potential future attacks at that time. So, I just haven't seen enough real evidence to know whether the beloved operations in Iraq are helping us in the war on terror.
But, I do know that socialism is a threat. I do know that these fiscal policies, many put in place by GWB himself at the end of his term, have been very bad for our nation. I know what a threat the government can be if it goes the direction it is currently going. That is without doubt. But, people are arguing that possible threats from outside are exponentially more important than real threats from within. What I say is that if you lose your rights it won't make any difference what you think anymore. You will no longer have any voice and the path will be set.
Is Ron Paul perfect? I doubt it. I am sure he is far less than even approaching perfect. But, he has been right more than he has been wrong, and he has certainly been right on the issues that are most important in these times. Yes, terrorists may attack, and we may have to react. And yes, somebody like Paul may not choose war in hopes that it will stop attacks before they happen, like has been suggested about Iraq. However, if people like Ron Paul were running this country I at least know that I would have a vote, a voice and a gun. After years of socialist Obama, or whichever socialist-lite Republican may be in office, I would have grave doubts that I could say that.
***Ron Paul would not react even after an attack.***
Even though he supported going in to Afghanistan.
I've heard that this blog used to be good back in the day, but since I recently discovered it, I've seen nothing but anti-conservative, anti-religious rants by what appears to be the biggest sociopathic prick on the Internet.
On a completely unrelated note, how the heck are you?!? I really do miss our daily parries on the Paul threads during the campaign.
He didn’t. He blamed Osama bin Laden.
Really? He said America attacked itself? News to me.
I think you are smoking some of that funny weed cut and run wants legalized. I said, he blamed America for the attack.
No he blamed America’s foreign policy on the motive for the attack. The attack he blames on Al Qaeda.
He has also said that the actions of Al Qaeda aren’t justified by any means, whatever we have done.
As for weed, I don’t drink or do drugs. If you’re saying his stance is to take it out of the hands of the feds and leave it up to the states, you’re right. I happen to agree with that proposal, but then again, I’m one of those crazy states’ rights proponents.
The foreign policies of both are the same, get attacked, blame America.
Ah, yes, that old canard. It is one of my favourites, and it proves why most "conservatives" today are not trustworthy in the White House. Ron Paul, at a debate, said ”Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years." Now, the entire GOP, along with the lefty Giuliani, were up in arms that he "blamed America" and that he "said 9/11 was our fault."
So, one must ask, given that it can't be America's fault, why do you and others worry so much about Obama? What if he allows Iran to get nukes? What if he drops our security and allows them to bring a weapon into NYC? What if he ignores all the credible reportst that a weapon is there and it is detonated killing everyone in Manhattan? It wouldn't be his fault, because that would be blaming America. Surely you wouldn't blame America, now would you? And why worry about what Paul would have done, since it couldn't be his fault either? America is infallible after all.
The truth of course is much scarier, and more telling about all of the cheerleaders in this issue. What Giuliani, and everyone cheering him, and everyone screaming that Ron Paul "blames America," are actually saying is that foreign policy shouldn't be considered important, or thought too much about. Don't worry yourself America, because nothing we do can ever contribute to future bad stuff. If it could, then it could be our fault, and that is blasphemy remember? Only Ron Paul actually thought that what Presidents do matters, and only he argued that it deserves care. I certainly am not interested in trusting a person who thinks he has supernatural protection and can do no wrong or ever be responsible. And I am just saddened that the party that used to be the defenders of responsibility have now joined the people who consider holding people responsible an evil act. Very sad.
I never said I supported John McCain, (If you look back at my posts for the last 10 years you will see I have opposed him 95% of the time), What I said was that cut and run Paul was the only person running for the Republican nomination who was worse than John McCain.
That is my point. You supported McCain over the real conservative. McCain has made it totally clear that he will sell out every conservative value to the highest bidder. Paul has generally stood firm in his principles. And his principles are conservative principles.
Ron Paul would not react even after an attack. Remember, he is the one who said "It was America's fault the terrorists attacked us."
How do you know this? Ron Paul certainly never insinuated that attacks should be ignored. He has always been a very strong supporter of our fighting forces, and believes in a strong national defense. He simply disagrees that invading places like Iraq does us any good, and I tend to agree with him.
Don't be saddened. The Republican insiders club never cared about smaller government, secured borders, conservatism, etc. They made that inordinately clear in the past 8 years.
They only cared about their party. Nothing else mattered, just party and holding onto their power, to benefit themselves.
He did vote for the authority to attack Afghanistan.
While Paul's defense policy is too isolationist and Taftian for my tastes, his domestic vision is the closest to conservative that we could have. I'd rather be having foreign policy debates with anti-war folks like Paul than the Chavez/Ahmadinejad worshipping goons that have taken over the mainstream anti-war movement and the White House.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.