Know-Nothings

The underpinning of the so-called Tea Party “movement” would be funny if not for the off-the-cuff alliances being made between local groups and so-called militias and other organizations, such as the John Birch Party.

Just think about this: citizens worried so much that they lives in fear of their government. Has our government rounded up and interred us, our families, or our communities? Is there a pretext leading to a valid concern over the imposition of martial law?

In a word: No.

“Pam Stout has not always lived in fear of her government… Worried about hyperinflation, social unrest or even martial law, she and her Tea Party members joined a coalition, Friends for Liberty, that includes representatives from Glenn Beck’s 9/12 Project, the John Birch Society, and Oath Keepers, a new player in a resurgent militia movement.”

Tea Party Lights Fuse for Rebellion on Right, David Barstow, New York Times

The 9/12 Project is not a militia group; neither is Glenn Beck associated with a militia group. For that matter, the John Birch Society is not a militia group, either.

But, there is the fear, nonetheless. It’s groundless, but present. So, let’s look at some entities that claim, or are attributed, to be leaders in the Tea Party movement.

ResistNet

Subtitled “Home of the Patriotic Resistance,” this website was claimed to be:

“…the official social network of Grassfire Nation. ResistNet is a place where citizens can resist—in a peaceful, patriotic way—the efforts to move our nation away from our heritage of individual liberties toward “brave new world” of collectivism. ResistNet is designed to give citizens a new level of networking resources to organize the Patriotic Resistance.”

So far as I found, there are no specifics identified on the site to show how government, either federal or state, is purposely moving the United States to collectivism. There are, however, many blogs and links to stories about a variety of topics, chiefly regarding President Barack Obama and his administration. ResistNet.com stated it was:

“…designed to be the social networking platform for Grassfire Nation and citizens who oppose the the rising tide of socialism. This platform is designed to provie [sic] a place for grassroots conservative citizen-resisters to network and delelop [sic] strategies and action items.”

If one wished to contribute to this social networking site, one agreed to the No Tolerance Policy, which stated in part:

“I affirm that ResistNet is for principled, patriotic resistance to Barack Obama’s ideology and agenda and is not a forum for personal attacks, lewd or profane language, or militancy against Barack Obama or others.”

Basically, members of ResistNet believe that our President and his ideology are unpatriotic. Therefore, those who voted Obama into office are either, in this construct, unpatriotic or dupes. This is a far cry from debating or opposing policies or programs; it holds that the elected leader of our nation is not a patriot, a charge not far from one of treason.

InfoWars

The New York Times article cited above refers to this website as one where Tea Party followers have “…discovered radical critiques of Washington.” This site is by and about Alex Jones, though. Jones broadcasts a syndicated radio talk show, The Alex Jones Show, from Austin, Texas. From the articles he publishes on his Web site, he appears to believe that every government agency and official, in this and all other countries, conspire constantly to eliminate the US Constitution and subvert US citizens to political slaves. His online pitch for his next broadcast, for example, reads:

“Alex welcomes back to the show Philip J. Berg, a former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania who brought a RICO lawsuit charging president George W. Bush and 154 others with complicity in the 9/11 attacks, and another suit challenging the eligibility of Barack Obama to become president. Alex also talks with Lindsey Williams, the ordained Baptist minister and Alaskan missionary who has brought to light revelations of the plan by the global elite to sabotage the economy and destroy America. Williams is the author of The Energy Non-Crisis.”

There you go.

Tea Party Patriots

I think I’ve found, in the Tea Party Patriots website, a set of principles that may (again, loosely) describe the principles of the movement. These include:

Authors Note: The material quoted above in 2010 has been modified and differs textually from the content displayed on the organization’s current website.

Constitutionally-limited Government

The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Think about that: if the US Constitution is supreme, then what of state’s rights? Some members of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 argued strongly to protect the interests of their states, to be sure. That’s why James Madison suffered what he felt at the time to be two defeats:

1. Senators would not be elected by direct popular vote.
2. The US government would not have the absolute ability to veto state laws.

Don’t think that Madison espoused these elements? Here’s Article 6 of The Virginia Plan, written by Madison and read into the Convention by Edmund Randolph, then serving as Governor of the Commonwealth:

“Resolved that each branch ought to possess the right of originating Acts; that the National Legislature ought to be empowered to enjoy the Legislative Rights vested in Congress by the Confederation and moreover to legislate in all cases to which the separate States are incompetent, or in which the harmony of the United States may be interrupted by the exercise of individual Legislation; to negative all laws passed by the several States, contravening in the opinion of the National Legislature the articles of Union; and to call forth the force of the Union against any member of the Union failing to fulfill its duty under the articles thereof.”

If, as claimed, the original intent of the Founders can be easily discerned, nothing could be more easily understood—without possibility of misinterpretation—than this.

The Tenth Amendment

This amendment in the Bill of Rights states:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Madison argued that this amendment was not needed, but he was over-ruled by anti-Federalists (itself a suspect term, since all present at Philadelphia were in favor of a form of federal government). So, in The Federalist No. 45, Madison declared that the powers of the federal government were “few and defined.” The legislative and judicial history of this amendment shows that it was laid aside during the Civil War and Reconstruction, subsequently renewed with vigor by the Supreme Court (which used it to strike down the first two Child Labor Laws, for example), and then relegated to the dustbin from the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt until the term of Chief Justice John Rehnquist.

Authors Note: Debate over the implications and application of the Tenth Amendment will continue for as long as our nation and our Constitution exist.

Abraham Lincoln…A Founder?

The second principle cited above includes the statement: “As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people…” You will not find these, or similar, words in our Constitution. Instead, Abraham Lincoln spoke them in 1864 in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania while dedicating a cemetery for US Army casualties:

“It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

The great irony here is, that Lincoln spoke these words to honor those US patriots who died in the greatest, bloodiest battle on US soil in a war to preserve the Union against the unbridled application of—state’s rights.

Free Markets

Let’s look at what a free market means:

• Protection of private property
• No regulation
• No subsidization
• No government-imposed monopolistic monetary system
• No government monopolies

Okay, then. Let’s see what implementation of a free market, in this classic sense, would mean for us:

• The property of scoundrels such as Bernie Madoff could not be confiscated because all private property is protected, period.
• Neither state nor federal government could regulate, in any part, the market, so there would be, for example, no Securities and Exchange Commission.
• There would be no subsidization of any kind, including:
  • No VA home loans
  • No FHA home loans
  • No government-backed student loans
  • No Fannie Mae
  • No Freddie Mac
  • No Sallie Mae
• No standard monetary system imposed by either federal or state government
  • Banks and other financial institutions could issue their own currencies
  • Government could not regulate currencies or currency policy
• No government-established or controlled utility company or any agent that sold services to the public, such as public water systems

A completely free market has implications more far-reaching, such as with the defense establishment and the procurement of defense materiel.

Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution appears to directly contravene the position that the nation was founded upon the principles of the free market, in that it grants the federal government the rights:

“To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
“To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;”

In fact, the Constitution does not contain the phrase “free market” at all. The US economy has gone through panics and depressions in 1797, 1807, 1819, 1837, 1857, 1870s, 1890s, 1907, 1926, 1929–1941, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2001, and today. In most cases, each was caused by the failure of a private company, monopoly, or bank coupled with conservative government monetary policies.

We certainly should scrap all legislation that attempts to regulate the economy, eh? AIG, Bear Stearns, and General Motors would not have failed but for government regulation?

Fiscal Responsibility

Government should certainly be fiscally responsible. Government should have created the means to pay for the Global War on Terror, for example, but government did not.

I don’t like the incalculable size of the deficits we face. On the other hand, it is irresponsible to hold that the federal government should have stood aside and let the financial crisis of 2008 cause a full-blown world-wide depression.

The aftermath of the stock market crash in 1929 saw at least 25% of formerly employed citizens lose their jobs. Banks failed in every area of the country, and there was no FDIC to help account holders.

Today, we suffer with 10% unemployment and rising mortgage foreclosures as well as bankruptcies. Imagine, then, what our economic and community lives would look like with 25%–30% unemployment!

Does no one recall history? Between 1930 and 1941, many developed nations suffered major internal unrest—revolts—that manifested themselves in the ascendance of Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco, among others. Revolutionary movements grew in the United Kingdom and the United States. Why? People were out of work and starving. Not all people, but far too many.

We can, and should, critique the actions and reactions of the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama to our current economic crisis. However, we would be better served to keep in mind the historical contexts and lessons.

It’s one thing to march along in blithe ignorance; it’s quite another to lay claim to a history that is not true.

Historical Footnote

Back in the 1840s, there arose across the United States an informal, unorganized political protest movement whose participants quickly became known as the Know-Nothings. Gradually, people in the various states who affiliated with this nativist movement organized political parties, known as the American Republican Party and the Native American Party, for instance.

One of the many ironies about this movement was the fact that no member was truly a Native American. Instead, membership was limited to those who were primarily of English or British descent and whose families had lived in North America for more than a single generation.

The Know-Nothings, loosely unorganized as they were, were against immigration. Particularly immigration by Catholics from Ireland and the various German states. Of course, as gangs devolved to fight along nativist or non-nativist lines, the matter of one’s religion became less important than one’s birthplace and length of residency.

By 1860, most who had been a part of the Know-Nothings became Republicans and diverted their attention to, of all ironic things, the elimination of slavery.