The Big Republican TEA Party Lie

“[I]n the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”

Adolph Hitler
Mein Kampf (1925)

"What makes that passage so monstrously mind-bending is that Hitler was accusing the Jews of engaging in the big lie, when in fact the Nazis would be history’s greatest practitioners...The GOP’s avid willingness to wield the big lie makes the comparison valid."

Andrew Leonard


3CP said...

Perhaps someone can explain why President Obama deserves impeachment? Has he done too little to deserve to keep his job or has he screwed things up so bad he needs to be removed from office? Evidently, certain groups of people are ignorant of how the Constitution relates to our political system and where the high crimes and misdemeanors fits into the picture. I believe the standard next chance to give Obama the thumbs-up or thumbs-down for job performance with be in November 2012. Does anybody notice any non-White people in the picture of Obama as Hitler?

Roadkill said...


There is absolutely no basis for impeachment of President Obama. Any such call is nonsense.

But it is interesting to see who is behind this silly Obama-Hitler link and call for impeachment.

"LarouchePAC" is the political action committee formed to promote Lyndon Larouche, a fringe agitator who ran 7 times for President as a Democrat Party candidate.

I guess LL never got the memo that all the Democrat racists were supposed to become Republicans when, after 150 years of advocating slavery, Jim Crow, and the KKK, the Democrats finally renounced their racist ways in 1964

Then again, perhaps the party that advocated abolition, waged the civil war to end slavery, oversaw reconstruction, and advanced civil rights bills in 1957 (defeated by Democrats) and 1964 (voting in higher percentages for it than did Democrats) never really wanted those racists after all.

Sunny B. said...


It's interesting how the two parties have evolved into each other. Used to be the Democrats were the party of Big Business and the Republicans were the party of progressive issues.

Since the progressive wing of the Republican Party got left in the cold with their anti-war stand in WWII and decided to join the Democrats, it looks like they brought the civil rights banner with them and incorporated it into the Democratic platform.

This of course let to LBJ's Great Society and signing the Civili Rights Act and sending the Dixiecrats over to the Republicans. Now it looks like the major voice in the Republican Party is the voice of the Dixiecrats. Of course, those Dixiecrat/Republican renecks won't admit they are Republicans -- they're "conservatives." However, they vote Republican.

Hey, if they can get a third party together and take on the Republodems in 2012, I'll gladly vote for them -- whether they have a chance or not. However, until they start incorporate as much anti-Republican rhetoric in their spit showers and can the KKK, John Bircher bullshit, they won't be getting off my hook.

I believe it was my Dad -- and probably your Dad and most everyother Dad -- who said, "You are judged by the company you keep." There is a skunk in the midst of the TEA Party movement that is smelling up the whole crowd. There have always been skunks in the Democratic and Repulbican parites, but they are big enough, more entrenched and nebulously sophisticated to disperse the foul air.

The TEA Party needs to show more virtual and sincerity and last hatred, ignorance and stupidty to get my vote. But then again, maybe they don't want my vote. I tend to see more shades of gray than they do.

Do you happen to have any links to the "LarouchePAC" info?

Roadkill said...


You are being far to critical of the Tea Party movement and I think you know it.

From all that I can see, this movement is real and genuine. It is comprised, in its vast majority, of regular folks who believe the federal government is getting too large, too intrusive, and too acquisitive. They are deeply suspicious of big government power, particularly in areas that are not specified in the Constitution (e.g. education, energy, and national health care).
And they are extremely concerned that the huge, unprecedented deficits that are being rung up to fund this engorged regime are going to bankrupt the country and/or saddle our properity with untenable levels of taxes and debt.

That you (and even I to some extent) do not agree with these sentiments does not mean that they are devious, malevolent, or flat out wrong, but only that they differ from our own views. To smear these folks as racists or bigots is both unfair and unproductive.

Whacknuts always glom on to mass movements, and the Larouchites (just check out larouche.com or google larouche for plenty of info on this kooky movement) are just one example. We see it all the time -- look at the strange antics of the ACT UP crowd, Cindy Sheehanites, or Code Pink-sters who stood out in so many anti-Bush protests over the past few years. Or those New Black Panther guys who were "policing" the polling places in Philadelphia last fall. Or Van Jones or Jeremiah Wright. Kooks all, but really unrepresentative of the major movement - be it the Tea Party movement or the Democrat Party / Obama campaign.

Politics is a dirty business, and people/groups are used and discarded all the time by politicians on both sides of the aisle. The trick is to throw them under the bus before their "return on investment" deminishes, and certainly before they have any influence on policy.

We have had numerous socio-politial movements in our history analogous to the Tea Party phenomenon. Late 19th Century populism was one, as was Huey Long's "Share our Wealth" movement, pre-WWII Isolationism, Vietnam-era anti-war movment, and the nuclear freeze craze of the early 1980's. What makes the current fad so unique is that for the first time it is largely made up of Conservatives, and the political left finds that deeply unsettling. Well, what goes around...

So I think you should stop focusing on the kooky fringe of this Tea Party thing and start looling at the larger movement and the vast majority of its participants. Its pretty cool to see hundreds of thousands of people protesting in Washington, no matter what the cause, not to mention similar, smaller scale events springing up in hundreds of places across the rest of the country. And except for a few isolated instances of Hostili-TEA, its been a remarkably peaceful movement by historical standards.

Or look at it this way, you old anti-war protester you: imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Sunny B. said...

RK: My concern with the TEA Party is when they became "suspicious" of all those things. They didn't seem too suspicious when Bush was in office. They didn't seem too suspicous when McCain was running for President. They seemed to have become suspicious after the November election. I don't buy the line that the TEA Party is somekind of non-partisan movement. It's pissed off Republicans -- a large percentage of which don't have a clue about what they are talking about. Check out the TEA Peepole video forthcoming. That actually represents what I've run into at the TP rally I attended -- except that they seem to be way nuttier in DC.

The majority of TEA peepole are taking their marching orders from Limbaugh and Hannity and Beck. Glenn Beck must be loving this time of his professional life. He's been my favorite CON-servative talker for a number of years. The reason when I mention him to most people the listen to conservative talk radio they'd tell me he's a nut case. Too bad KTLK took him off the 8 PM slot. I actually found him kind of humorous. I suppose some people found Hitler funny too. Whatever you can do to sell a few simple-mind, easy-to-read books...

I have no problem with hundreds of thousands of people protesting the actions of their government. I think it's quite healthy. I also think it's quite healthy when the KKK marches...don't keep the darkest hid from the public light.

I also think it's amusing to see those old 1960s Lefties up in arms over people protesting. However, I think those 1960s people understand there are nuts out there who will kill people for their cause. But that's also been an ugly point in American political history.

Should I ignore the racist knuckle-draggers at the TEA Party and focus on the 10 employees at ACORN who got fired for advising people how to scam the government? Of should I focus on Wal-Mart and focus on how it educates it's uninsured employees how to scam the government for food stamps and health care?