Something that occurs to me when I see notices like this one:
Larry invited you to “Tea Party Event ” on Sunday, September 27 at 1:30pm.
Larry says, “Please join me.”.
Event: Tea Party Event
“Come hear Senator Larry Grooms”
What: Informational Meeting
Start Time: Sunday, September 27 at 1:30pm End Time: Sunday, September 27 at 4:30pm
Where: Wannamaker County Park
… is this: Who wants tea? Certainly not me. I’m a coffee guy. All these people having “tea parties” seem kinda, you know, effete to me. Not very American.
I mean, when the British slapped that tax on tea, a few unsteady types went spare and committed an act of vandalism in Boston harbor. But the rest of us moved on and drank coffee instead. Preferably Starbucks coffee (he said, still hoping against hope for a major endorsement deal).
When the UnParty wants to whip up its base, it’s going to have Kaffeklatsches instead. We’ll sit around, talk, drink coffee — no big whoop.
Related Posts
Just to riff on this a bit more — almost every time I see John McCain, he’s drinking Starbucks coffee. In fact, I’ve documented the fact with photographs, both here and here.
And remember the little video clip I did with his cute press secretary, when I got her to promise to quit smoking? That was outside the Starbucks on Gervais. Swinging by Starbucks was always a part of the job for McCain aides.
Of course, John McCain doesn’t appeal to the kinds of alleged “conservatives” who are most avid about going to “tea parties.” But as I’ve written in the past, John McCain practices the kind of “old-time conservatism” that appeals to me. I don’t like the newfangled kind at all.
So you see, there was ALMOST a serious political point in this post…
Plus, there’s no suggestive derogatory name I can think of which could be applied to people attending coffee events.
Susanna K. says:
“Plus, there’s no suggestive derogatory name I can think of which could be applied to people attending coffee events.”
Accepting the challenge (maybe not suggestive):
Java-nile Delinquents
Deep Roasters
Venti-cles
Cawfee Tawk with Brad Wawthen?
It’s like buttah…
I just got another invitation from Larry Grooms — this one to the Okra Strut.
Now THAT I can get into. I love okra. Unfortunately, it’s tonight, and I’ve got a show to do…
From free-loader to walk-on. A regular hyphenate.
If I’m not mistaken, when coffee first migrated to Western Civilization from the Middle East the coffee house became the center of political and community discourse – an intellectual catalyst.
Constrast this with the Palinesque aversion to facts and intellectualism at the tea bagger/”keep the government away from my medicare” puppet shows.
Sarah Palin last week delivered a 90-minute speech in Hong Kong to bankers, on the subject of the US banking crisis, Federal Reserve and world banking.
Mrs. Palin used no teleprompter, only a few note cards.
Contrast this with The Reader, Barack Obama, who cannot put together an intelligent sentence on his own.
Coffee houses, in Amsterdam, mean something completely different, I’m told. Those who doubt our President’s intellect and verbal skills and compare them unfavorably to the failed Vice Presidential candidate perhaps have spent too much time there.
I can see and hear that OBama is inarticulate.
His college records are sealed by teams of lawyers. No one knows if he actually has a degree in anything. He never wrote a law review article, but conned his way onto Law Review as an affirmative action nominee.
He has no resume, no accomplishments in business, military, or even sports. He and Michelle didn’t make $50,000 together as attorneys until Abner Mikva connected him to Tony Rezko.
Eight months in office, he has accomplished NOTHING. No legislation passed. That’s good, considering how radical and dangerous he is.
He talks about “my plan” this and “my plan” that, but never puts anything out in writing, and his verbal descriptions change 180 degrees every week.
Lee, he doesn’t put anything in writing because he doesn’t know how to write – uses an “X” as his signature.
He hasn’t passed any legislation because he spends his time studying the quoran and praying 5 times a day.
I did hear through reliable sources on Glen Beck’s show that he was pushing legislation to tax idiotic posts on blogs. I hope you’ve been saving up.
Poor Randy, has to resort to silliness in the face of the truth. You would be smarter to not post at all – just run away like some of the others do when they can’t bluff any more.
I am impressed that Lee thinks that President Obama managed to fool all those University of Chicago law students when he taught Constitutional Law. Quite a feat if one hasn’t done well in law school, but what would I know–I’m only a lawyer who worked with many University of Chicago Law School graduates. They are excellent.
I guess if Obama is inarticulate, George W. Bush (or George H. W. Bush) was what?
Obama didn’t teach that much, and he very well may have fooled most of the students, given the lack of education in the Constitution at the undergraduate and high school level.
Just look at the many lawyers who ignore the Constitution, or try to spin new authorities and powers for the federal government out of one or two words.
What would I know? My father was only a graduate of the University of Chicago Law school, back when it was much better than today.
The fact is that President Bush is not only better educated than Obama, but probably more intelligent, given his SAT and other test scores. Obama is even less articulate when forced to talk without a teleprompter. And Bush had a lot broader interests and experience, especially in business. He was able to bring in top executives to any position he wanted, while Obama only knows radicals and fringe academics.
We don’t need to speculate about Obama; we KNOW enough.
Mrs. Fenner, when I talked about liberals making a bogus assertion and then running away from the factual evidence, I was thinking of something like this example…
https://bradwarthen.com/?p=1667#comments
A conditional assertion is not a bogus assertion, and an internet link is not evidence.
I will truthfully stand by an assertion that I see nothing wrong with a duly elected President’s being a Muslim or a communist. Communism is putting the ownership of the means of production into the hands of the workers. This is much like a 401(1)(k) plan that offers employees company stock or someother employee stock ownership plan.The Soviet Union is dead. I am opposed to anarchy. Communism is not necessarily anarchy or authoritarianism.
Our duly elected President is neither a Muslim nor a communist. Please do not link to biased internet sites.
I’m curious, “Lee Muller.”
If Obama keeps his educational records top secret, how is it you know his SAT scores?
We DON’T know Obama’s SAT scores.
I was referring to Bush’s SAT scores, which the Boston Globe obtained – Bush was a way better student than Gore, and much better than Bill Bradley.
We (including you, Burl) haven’t see Obama’s birth certificate or any other academic records, which would show his citizenship.
We DO know Obama was raised communist, and was, until recently, member of the Socialist Party.
What is wrong with being a communist or socialist, is that America is based on individual liberty, which includes the freedom to enter into contracts and own property, under a limited government which is supposed to only do what is necessary for the good of EVERYONE, with low taxes at a single rate.
Lee, I forwarded your posts to the White House. Obama is going to geeeetttt yyyooouuuuuu!!!!
No, “Lee Muller” stated flatly above that Bush is more intelligent than Obama, based on SAT and other test scores.
Hmmm. About ten seconds of seaching gives us these scores, which are backed up by their college transcripts:
Al Gore — 625 verbal, 730 math
George W. Bush — 566 verbal, 640 math
While Gore scored higher, that ain’t shabby on Bush’s part. Puts him in the 88 percentile, with a projected IQ of about 125. As his mother described him, “He’s dumb like a fox.”
As for Barack Obama, apparently his SAT scores really are unknown (for the time being). He likely did very well on testing though, because that’s what gets you into college on a scholarship. “Lee Muller” will tell you it was all affirmative action. AA will get your foot in the door, but if your grades suck, you fail. Harvard has confirmed that Obama graduated magna cum laude from the law school. meaning the top ten percent of the class. That’s based on earned grades, not admission tests or SATS.
Yes, dumb old self-made millionaire GW Bush, fighter pilot, Harvard MBA.
That’s right, he inherited $250,000 and turned it into $16,000,000.
Meanwhile, Obama worked as an ACORN voter fraud organizer, then made less than $25,000 a year as an adjunct professor, before hooking up as Tony Rezko’s attorney. He and Tony used the ACORN connections to get federal funds for “urban revitalization”.
Obama got into Harvard Law School through his connections with the Black Panthers. His tuition and expenses were paid by a Saudi radical. And Burl, you have no idea whether this mediocre lawyer “earned” his grades.
We DO know Obama was raised communist, and was, until recently, member of the Socialist Party.
We KNOW he has appointed dozens of radical socialist as his czars, without Senate oversight.
We KNOW his close friends were terrorists, murderers, swindlers, and crooked politicians. He managed Blogovich’s last campaign.
Gore barely got a diploma at Harvard, where grade inflation is ramopant (though not so much in Gore’s day).
Gore was thrown out of divinity school, and flunked out of law school – his friends say due to drug and alcohol abuse.
Gore and his business associates just parlayed their $2,200,000 in campaign donations to Obama and other top Dems into a $529 million loan to build a new hybrid car… in Finland. Sorry, laid of UAW workers.
LOL, W’s Arbusto oil company was crap until Daddy’s friends bought it then made W president of the company. They let him in on the Rangers as well.
Lee, the Hispanic political power is skyrocketing. The GOP outside of Dixie and parts of the west will continue to decline rapidly but you’ll be safe in your bunker.
How does it feel to know that the Hispanics are marginalizing your party?
(You’ll post some fluff about illegals but that’s moot.)
Randy, don’t you realize how sick it is for the Democrats to pin their hopes on importing 30,000,000 more illegals, giving them welfare and making them instant citizens?
The Democrats’ entire strategy consists of creating a base of uneducated illiterates on welfare who take jobs from blue-collar Republican and independent voters.
Ummm… I seem to recall — and y’all correct me if I’m wrong on this — that the left was “anti-immigrant” before the right was. You know, on the grounds that they lowered wages and benefits and working conditions in this country. And the fact that they were exploited when they got here.
The liberal take on it is that illegal immigration would cease if all these jobs paid more and had better conditions so that Americans would take them. Or something like that. It’s a variation on the “corporations are wicked” theme.
The right came to the game late, but has just been yelling louder than the left for the last three or four years.
Or did I dream all this?
Here’s what I don’t understand about illegal immigration. If we made legal immigration easier, wouldn’t the number of illegal immigrants drop?
I’d prefer if our laws didn’t make criminals out of people who just want to make a living and in turn make a contribution to our society.
Do you think the laws of America are to serve its citizens, or to serve every other nation which wants to dump is social problems on us?
Legalizing criminal behavior doesn’t solve the social problems of millions of illiterates, many of them diseased and career criminals, pouring into the country.
The simple fact is that about 3 billion people would like to come to America right now. Would you want to live in such a human cesspool?
Mexico wouldn’t tolerate 30,000,000 Anglos walking into their country, taking jobs and demanding citizenship. They know it would be the end of their culture and their political system.
With high unemployment in every skill level, we obviously don’t need any immigrants to “do the jobs Americans don’t want to do”. We haven’t needed them for 100 years.
The greatest environmental problem in America is the population increase due to illegal Latinos. Roll that number back to 1975 levels, and all our air and water is 25% cleaner.
Until we get 99% control of the borders, we need a suspension of all immigration. Then deport everyone, set up some criteria for who whom we want to come here, and how many, and check out every one of them.
Brad, why don’t you try to intellectually engage the issue, instead of dismissing every opponent of illegal immigrant invasion as “as racist”, or some other name-calling?
Try, just once, as practice for a better job than the one you left.
I’m supposed to go to work in Toronto for the next three weeks. Should I just jump the border like you “let ’em all in” folks suggest?
Maybe I can get a free colonoscopy while I’m up there.
Actually, the forms I have to fill out to enter Canada to work require me to specify my college degree held, current salary, specific work location and work schedule. That seems reasonable, doesn’t it?
The Obama policy appears to be heading toward “if you’re lucky enough to sneak in, you get free citizenship and all associated rights”.
Illegal immigrants break the law to enter the country and then most of them break more laws to remain under the radar: identity theft, driving without insurance, failure to pay taxes.
Here’s news from Florida on September 17:
10 being charged in million-dollar scheme to sell driver licenses to at least 1,500 illegal immigrants
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/services/content/local_news/epaper/2009/09/17/0917dmvlicenses.html?cxtype=ynews_rss
It is also widely known and reported that much of the illegal drug trade in the Southeasten U.S. is run by illegal immigrants.
http://www.sunherald.com/412/story/1614508.html
You “We Are The World” types need to get yours heads out of the sand. It’s not a racial issue, it is simply about people who have no interest in following our laws.
Illegal immigrants break the law to enter the country and then most of them break more laws to remain under the radar: identity theft, driving without insurance, failure to pay taxes.
This coming from the guy who was whining about those poor 18-20 year olds who can’t legally drink. They break the alcohol laws and then break more laws to remain under the radar: fake identification, running from law enforcement, etc.
Doug, it’s not an age issue. It’s simply about people who have no interest in following our laws.
Birch, you picked a poor diversionary topic. An argument can be made that 18, 19, and 20 year American CITIZENS are legally treated as adults in other areas, so why not consumption of alcoholic beverages?
I happen to take the position that 21 should be restored as the age for adulthood, including signing contracts and drinking.
Now, try to address the very real menace of illegal aliens. Or, if you like ignorance, illiteracy, depravity and lawlessness, tell us why we should accommodate you.
Lee:
Legalizing criminal behavior doesn’t solve the social problems of millions of illiterates, many of them diseased and career criminals, pouring into the country.
The simple fact is that about 3 billion people would like to come to America right now. Would you want to live in such a human cesspool?
Doug:
Should I just jump the border like you “let ‘em all in” folks suggest?
Who is it that is saying we should have no standards for who we let in, Lee? Not me. We shouldn’t let in career criminals or those who would create a health issue in the US population.
So who is it exactly that is saying we should “let ’em all in”, Doug? As far as I can tell, nobody.
Birch,
Your logic is twisted.
I believe all laws should be followed and those who break them should be punished accordingly. I also believe the drinking age should be lowered to 18. That doesn’t mean anyone who drinks under age 21 now should not be punished… nor should anyone who drinks and drives or uses illegal identification.
So can we agree that anyone who breaks the law should be punished?
Let’s start with that. If a person enters the country illegally today and is caught, what should be done?
If a person enters the country illegally, what rights and access to taxpayer funded services should that person be given?
Simple questions. You either are for enforcing laws or you’re not.
Doug,
To state this simply, I am trying to make the arguments about immigration that you were making about drinking. Laws should be changed. I’ll answer your questions though.
Anyone who breaks the law should be subject to penalty.
If an illegal immigrant is caught today, he should be subject to whatever penalty the law prescribes.
Your third question is a little tricky. Obviously anyone should have the right to life and property (I can’t steal from you or harm you just because you’re an illegal immigrant). In general, I agree that an illegal immigrant should not have access to taxpayer-funded services. But then, I think police protection should apply to them while they are here. I think firefighters should be dispatched to the residence of an illegal immigrant if necessary. That’s a tough one.
I’d be willing to bet that those who are coming here for legitimate work would rather come here legally. Our laws should better reflect that. If people are willing to break the law to do something that would actually benefit our society, then I must question the law.
I’m fine with changing the laws, Birch, if that’s what America decides.
Until then, the laws we have should be enforced.
And if any law allows people who have entered illegally to remain in the U.S. without going through the same process others have gone through, then I want no part of that.
As I said earlier, I’m trying to get the paperwork done to work in Canada for the next three weeks. It requires me to supply a copy of my college diploma! For a three week assignment…
We could seriously cut into the illegal immigration issue if we a) enforced laws against hiring illegals b) did not allow children of illegals to attend public schools c) did not provide any healthcare EXCEPT for life threatening emergency care. I linked awhile ago to the case of one hospital in Nevada that has spent $20 million on dialysis treatments for illegals. If some charity wants to provide that service in Mexico, go for it… but that $20 million should be going to American citizens.
I’m fine with changing the laws, Birch, if that’s what America decides.
That’s such a passive statement. Our very goal should be an immigration policy that better serves our economic interests as a country.
The policy which would best serve America is to expel all foreigner workers and their families. We don’t need them, and haven’t, for 100 years.
We certainly should only be accepting the best talent, and those who enthusiastically adopt our culture of individual liberty and personal responsibility. No immigrant should ever receive public assistance of any kind.
“That’s such a passive statement. Our very goal should be an immigration policy that better serves our economic interests as a country.”
Perfectly fine objective. Can it be met by allowing millions of non-English speaking, unskilled workers into the workforce?
Seems unlikely.
And from the article you cited:
“In contrast, legalization of low-skilled immigrant workers would yield significant income gains for American workers and households. Legalization would eliminate smugglers’ fees and other costs faced by illegal immigrants. It would also allow immigrants to have higher productivity and create more openings for Americans in higherskilled occupations. The positive impact for U.S. households of legalization under an optimal visa tax would be 1.27 percent of GDP or $180 billion.”
I tend to view this type of “analysis” with a jaundiced eye, I suppose. It’s pure speculation typically with an end result in mind when the analysis is created.
Right now, the number of recently laid-off IT workers is exactly the same as the number of H1-B visa IT workers.
That is not a coincidence.
In fact, it is intentional.
As they say, you can’t make this stuff up…
MEXICO CITY—A partnership between a Pennsylvania accounting firm and a Mexican human rights group aims to seek out Mexicans recently deported from the United States and offer to help them file for thousands of dollars in tax refunds.
The Center for Border Studies and Human Rights Promotion, based in the border city of Reynosa, already has registered 15 such migrants as of Sept. 11, just days after the program’s Sept. 3 launch, the center’s legal coordinator, Felipe Gonzalez, told BNA.
Undocumented Mexican migrants may have worked illegally in the United States, but they are still entitled to their share of U.S. tax refunds, say officials with the center and with Warminster, Pa.-based accounting firm Warminster Financial.
“If you worked in the United States in 2006, 2007, or 2008, and were paid by check, you can receive up to $15,000 per year,” stated a flier circulated by Warminster. “Depending on how much you’ve earned, and how many dependents you can claim, you have the right to request a tax refund. It doesn’t matter if you are undocumented, were deported, or returned [to Mexico] because you’re out of a job.”
Clients who are eligible must file for an individual taxpayer identification number (ITIN), which is granted by the Internal Revenue Service regardless of the workers’ migratory status or whether they produced false Social Security numbers or green cards, Gonzalez said. Elizabeth Vargas, an IRS acceptance agent in Mexico, confirmed in an interview with BNA that the process is legal.
I am amused at the anti-immigrant schtick that ignores the contributions made by this population to the economy in terms of cheap manual labor.
If the illegals couldn’t get jobs, they wouldn’t be here – supply and demand. So businesses rely on these workers, pay them from sales, but they are to be marginalized when it comes to taxes and health care?
Doug, you’re the same one claiming that the illegals be prohibited from health care. Either illegals who are sick will rot on our streets as we cross to the other side to avoid them or they will serve as a catalyst for epidemics.
This issue is largely political red meat to move white conservatives to the polls.
I’m not amused how people who like to think of themselves as “liberal”, will make excuses for the importation of illegal laborers, working below the legal minimum wage, many of them as indentured servants, or even as slaves, and sex slaves.
Furthermore, they continue to be imported at a time when 16% of American citizens are out of work.
If they are “dying in the streets”, then they are too unhealthy to be admitted to America as legal immigrants. Let them die in the streets back in Mexico – its the responsibility of that corrupt government, not ours.
Randy,
The illegals won’t be here to rot on the streets if there are no jobs for them to do, no access to healthcare, and no public schools for their kids.
It IS a case of supply and demand: which is why I advocate strong enforcement of laws that hold the hiring companies responsible.
Basically, pro-illegals appear to be willing to create a new American lower class who will do all the dirty work for low pay and in lousy conditions because they should be glad they aren’t back in their home country. I think they tried something similar to that in the South back in the 1800’s. Maybe you heard about it?
If a rising tide raises all boats, then lowering the tide is going to sink us all.
Perfectly fine objective. Can it be met by allowing millions of non-English speaking, unskilled workers into the workforce?
Seems unlikely.
This sounds to me less an argument against illegal immigration and more an argument against immigration itself.
Basically, pro-illegals appear to be willing to create a new American lower class who will do all the dirty work for low pay and in lousy conditions because they should be glad they aren’t back in their home country. I think they tried something similar to that in the South back in the 1800’s. Maybe you heard about it?
First and most obvious, the immigrants want to come here to work. They are not forced to come here and work as property of another human.
Second, yes; I want them to do my “dirty work” for cheap because I will be better off. They want to come do my “dirty work” for cheap because they will be better off. Wait, that can’t be right! Government should not allow that!
That argument sounds like what Brad was describing above:
Ummm… I seem to recall — and y’all correct me if I’m wrong on this — that the left was “anti-immigrant” before the right was. You know, on the grounds that they lowered wages and benefits and working conditions in this country. And the fact that they were exploited when they got here.
So, Birch, would you say working conditions and wages are better now with X million illegal immigrants in the workforce now? And you understand that if you make them legal, they aren’t as attractive to employers (benefits, workers comp, Social Security, OSHA, etc.)
What jobs are these people doing that unemployed Americans will not do? I’ve got a guy who cuts my lawn twice a month. He does a great job and frees my time up to do other things (apparently this is the crux of the “let illegals do the dirty work” theory).
I’m 99.99999% sure he’s a US citizen. Should I drop him and find an illegal immigrant who will do the job for half the price (because he doesn’t have to pay taxes or Social Security and is willing to take a lower wage because it’s better than he can get in his home country)?
That would be better for me, right?
Not so good for my lawn guy, though.
Or maybe my lawn guy needs to find a bunch of illegals who will do his work on the cheap, not pay them any benefits, and then sit back and watch the money roll in.
That’s sort of how the construction business works these days. 16 year old illegals pretending to be 18, doing sometimes dangerous work — like the kids who got killed in a ditch cave-in in Columbia awhile ago. Dead in a hole at 16 beats living South of the Border apparently.
Birch, Randy and all the other apologists for Latino slavery aren’t even trying to make arguments for it; they are just using diversions, poor analogies, and personal attacks on those who want any controls on immigration at all.
Their position seems to be anarchy. They cite as “experts” anyone who opposes immigration laws, from extreme libertarians to international socialists who believe there should be no nations.
Doug, it takes time for supply and demand to work. In the interim, the illegals who now live in this country who need health care won’t get it. What happens to them? A poor illegal breaks a leg or catches N1H1, what happens to him?
Deport them.
Don’t you liberals claim that America has the worst medical care in the world? Send them back to Mexico.
Obama wants Democrats to cover illegals
On September 18, Barack Obama told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus that he supports medical coverage for illegal aliens… by making them all legal citizens.
“Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don’t simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken,” Mr. Obama said Wednesday evening in a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. “That’s why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else.
Mr. Obama added, “If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all.”
Randy,
Lee’s right. Treat them and deport them.
What would you do? Treat them and let them go their merry way until the next time they need treatment?
Do you believe people who enter the country illegally should be allowed to remain? Just say it – the laws don’t apply to anyone who is lucky enough to cross the border.
Doug, when you use Lee to bolster your position it is clearly flawed. As soon as illegals who are treated are deported, the others will stop going in for treatment. Also, who deports them. Do nurses carry a stun gun and cuffs?
This treat and deport approach is woefully lacking in details and in foresight.
Treat and deport? Is that like catch and release?
Medical providers are REQUIRED to report to law enforcement all medical treatment to anyone who even appears to have committed a crime.
Why should illegal aliens be exempt?
Is it the same Left Logic that exempts HIV from the same policies as other venereal diseases?
Randy,
Lee brings more facts and experience to the table than anyone on Brad’s blog. I may not agree with 10% of what he says and may not agree with the tone sometimes but that doesn’t negate all the evidence.
The trouble with the pro-illegal immigrant’s position is that they have to try and do three things:
1. Make the case that anyone who is for strong enforcement of border security is a racist.
2. Ignore any questions as to whether people who cross the border illegally should be allowed to stay.
3. Deny the fact that illegals value as workers comes from the fact that they are not subject to any of the costs associated with hiring American citizens (taxes, social security, benefits, etc.)
If your position is that once a person finds a way across the border by any means, he earns the right to healthcare, education, and whatever under-the-table job he can find, then you may as well advocate for abolishing the United States government and creating the Peoples Republic of North America.
That’s why you don’t ever see these apologists describing their goals, and what they want, much less trying to argue FOR it.
All they can do is divert, snipe, make silly comments, and personal attacks.
You can’t have an honest debate with a dishonest person, and the liberal/progressive/socialist types are not open and honest. Their selfish agenda is unacceptable to the majority, so they are subversive.