Yesterday, I got, in response to my blog calling the new “Tea Party of Nevada Party” (Tea Party Squared)’s bluff. The response was from an anonymous correspondent (AC for short), but from someone who claims to know Scott Ashjian well (though, oddly, he repeatedly maintains he doesn’t support Scott politically).
AC’s comments seem intent on defending Scott from charges (mine and others) that the Tea Party Squared is a false-flag operation intended to split the grass roots movement and help Harry Reid hold onto his seat by his bloody fingernails. Nothing this individual has said changed my views – in part because I never trust anonymous sources, and in part because I feel the writer’s logic is flawed.
However, I find it an interesting exchange, and perhaps an interesting insight into the minds of Scott Ashjian supporters (it could, you know, be Scott himself writing in the third person as AC – that’s the problem with anonymous sources). So I’m sharing this with you, in order. Some of my replies are interwoven with AC’s messages, so I first offer them unedited, then with my comments. I’ll try to make it clear who’s who, though I suspect that will prove obvious.
Finally, if you’ve got one of those reverse directories, you might tell me who AC is – his email is govgood@aol.com. If you find out, please let me know.
Ned
AC began this exchange as follows:
AC: I do not know you. I am not involved with the Nev Tea Party. But I just read your Wire where you were interested in Jon Ashjian.
I have known him professionally for at least ten years. He is a true conservative. He is a self made man, who has worked his whole life to make something of himself. No one works harder than Scott.
He is a devoted husband and father. No one is more dedicated to his family than Scott.
His views are diametrically opposed to the Democrats. He is pro life, against big government, pro strong defense, against unlimited welfare for lazy people who will not work, and against high, and unfair, taxes. He is totally committed to the capitalist system where anyone can be anything they want to be as long as they are willing to work for it. He did it himself.
He is a compassionate and extremely charitable man. But he gives because he wants to, not because he has to. He feels this is much preferred to welfare.
I would suggest that your conservative group not be too quick to try to smear him, or discredit him. I truly believe that once you get the opportunity to talk with him, you will find that he is a lot like you. It is true that he has no prior political experience, but I am sure he views that as a positive factor.
I have had many political arguments with Scott over the years because he is so conservative and I am a lifelong Democrat. While I do not agree with his positions, I have always respected his convictions. The one thing that I will be willing to bet anyone, a lot of money, is that Scott is not doing this for Reid’s benefit. He hates Reid’s politics, and always has.
You can try to read into this letter what you wish. But let me at least tell you why I am writing, and then you and your friends can speculate and theorize all you want.
I like Scott. He is a great guy. And I respect him. Once you see how he is with his kids, you will see what kind of man you are dealing with. And I truly believe he is in this race because he thinks he can win. You may think this is delusional, but I know that he will approach this challenge like every other. He will work harder and do more than any other candidate. And hard work has always paid off for him.
I hope the true conservatives will give Scott a chance before they decide to castrate him. You might be surprised to learn that this oyster contained a real pearl.
END of AC’s first post.
My first reply –
NED: I don’t give a lot of credence in anonymous testimonials. If you’d like to put a name to your claims and discuss this, I’d be glad to consider what you have to say. But as you surely must understand, anonymous testimonials suggest that there is something to hide. If you’ve got nothing to hide, introduce yourself and allow us to evaluate the merits of your comments.
As I have expressed in my blogs, our suspicion of this gentleman and his cohorts is that none of them have participated in any tea party events, yet they co-opted the Tea Party name. That smacks of false advertising. Perhaps it’s not, but since none of the people involved will talk to either legitimate Tea Party leaders or with the conservative media, how can we do anything but be suspicious.
I invite you (and your candidate) and the other Tea Party Party (Tea Party Squared) leaders to meet with me, face-to-face and on the record. Then, skepticism will disappear and be replaced by knowledge.
Otherwise, don’t waste your time with anonymous testimonials. Nobody will believe them.
Ned
When I got no reply after 24 hours, I wrote a pointed and sarcastic second comment. Perhaps I jumped the gun just a tad.
NED: Thanks for your reply. You’re obviously seriously committed to this guy’s political career, and clearly committed to his credibility. Why else would you write me anonymously then refuse to answer me.
Hmmmm … makes this guy look ever more like a Reid/Dem plant. Prove me wrong by replying with names, facts, figures, and access to him (so I can interview him and let him tell me straight to my face his answers to my questions). Unlike you, I’ll publish those comments straight, and with my own name in case anyone disagrees, they’ll know how to get hold of me.
Ned
Following that second message, I got another reply from govgood@aol.com
AC:
Dear Mr. Barnett,
First, I do not live on the internet and just read your first email. You immediately jump to conclusions that I will not respond, when I will.
Second, why is everything with you so contentious? I gave you information. You want to fight about it. Why not try being a real investigative journalist and try to develop some information or a source instead of trying to drive me away? Is it possible, as Scott says, that you are not truly about what is best for the people of America, but only a hack for Lowden?
Third, if you are really concerned about the Tea Party movement, why not at least try to determine if anything I said is true? Because once you find out it is all true, then you may discover that Scott is good for the movement, and not against the movement.
Fourth, I specifically told you Scott is my friend, but I do not agree with his politics. Hence, he is not my candidate, but the best candidate for what I believe are the misguided, misled, but sincere, Tea Partiers.
Fifth, Scott has preached to me that Reid and Lowden are two sides of the same coin. Both are members of the corporate party. Neither give a damn about the American people. Both are interested in perpetuating their own wealth and vote that way.
Sixth, I want you to look at the following websites Scott has discussed with me and tell me whether it makes sense that Paul Lowden would allow his wife to oppose Reid, and why there are so many Republicans for Reid? Doesn’t this bother you? It bothers Scott!
So, as my mother used to say, you catch a lot more bees with honey than you do with poop?
http://frankrosenthal.com/feature_story/index.php?id=34
http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Glick_Allen_3537098.aspx
http://www.lvrj.com/news/unlike-political-races-car-bomb-attempts-are-no-laughing-matter-68202782.html
Read down about 6 paragraphs
on this site
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1561650/posts
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2008-02-25-vegas-disneyland-train_N.htm
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/feb/26/sig-rogich-influential-gop-endorses-reid/
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/06/nevadas-harry-reid-secures-republican-backing-for-reelection.html
http://www.beatreid.com/2009/06/reid-roglich-railroad-the-maglev/
http://blogs.lasvegascitylife.com/various-things-and-stuff/2009/06/08/reid-backs-rogich-train/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2268309/posts
http://www.lvrj.com/news/nevadas-high-speed-rail-plan-deemed-ineligible-for-stimulus-funds-83014497.html
http://rightrevrowland.org/wordpress/?tag=democrats
http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=4368
After you reads this, write me and tell me which one of these candidates is interested in America? Because Scott thinks this stinks. So if you think it is best to chastise someone you do not know, who might actually be on your side, then have at it.
One thing you can count on, no one will ever question to whom Scott owes allegiance. His only concern is for his family, his country, and most importantly, his lord.
END of AC’s second email.
Here’s my reply, woven into his message. I think you’ll be able to tell who’s saying what.
AC: Dear Mr. Barnett,
First, I do not live on the internet and just read your first email. You immediately jump to conclusions that I will not respond, when I will.
NED: Good call – I was precipitous. My bad.
AC: Second, why is everything with you so contentious? I gave you information. You want to fight about it. Why not try being a real investigative journalist and try to develop some information or a source instead of trying to drive me away?
NED: My beginning as a “real investigative reporter” (something I’ve actually been earlier in my career), my first question has to be, “who are you?” When you insist on remaining anonymous, I have to believe that you’ve got a reason to hide your identity – and because of what you’re trying to sell me, I have to believe that you are at least possibly a false-flag agent working to disrupt the tea party movement in Nevada.
Why contentious? Because, first, your Scott took upon himself an honorable name he didn’t earn through participation in the real tea party movement in Nevada, and second, because you’re behaving suspiciously, and I’m not about to be sandbagged by someone without the courage to identify himself. Finally, because your Scott is hiding from us, the media and the public – just as you are hiding behind anonymity. Theft (of our name and credibility, without our permission or even knowledge) and secrecy don’t engender trust. You want trust? Earn it and you’ll have it.
AC: Is it possible, as Scott says, that you are not truly about what is best for the people of America, but only a hack for Lowden?
NED: That’s interesting. You want me to be open (to someone who insists on remaining anonymous) while your Senatorial candidate is quick to jump to conclusions while knowing nothing about me. If he knew me at all, he’d understand why I’m convulsed with laughter over the idea that I’m a hack for Lowden (or any other candidate). As an officer in the local party, I can’t publicly endorse any candidate. As an individual, I can and do have a preference, and while that preference isn’t your business, I can assure you that it isn’t Sue Lowden. I am a committed constitutional conservative, and those I support are also committed constitutional conservatives.
If you care to know more about me, read my political blogs (Capitol Curmudgeon … and … Barnett on Politics and PR) – I’m sure when you do, you’ll realize what a joke it is to think that I’m a shill for Sue Lowden (or any other candidate). And I’m not hard to find – I don’t hide my name.
AC: Third, if you are really concerned about the Tea Party movement, why not at least try to determine if anything I said is true? Because once you find out it is all true, then you may discover that Scott is good for the movement, and not against the movement.
NED: My first step in finding out what is true is finding out who you are. If you won’t tell me, I can’t allow myself to be suckered by someone with something to hide.
My involvement in the tea party began before April 15, 2009; it has remained active to this day (in fact, I spent more than five hours today working on tea party activities and business). Your Scott has, to my certain knowledge, never participated in any Nevada tea party activity, yet he and his party have purloined our good name, even as they are not part of us.
AC: Fourth, I specifically told you Scott is my friend, but I do not agree with his politics. Hence, he is not my candidate, but the best candidate for what I believe are the misguided, misled, but sincere, Tea Partiers.
NED: If he is a tea partier (for real, as you suggest) and if you don’t agree with his politics (which is your right), that you think we are misguided and mislead (but sincere), why on earth do you think any real tea partier should listen to you? Should we take advice from someone who admits he’s not on our side (so presumably you’re on someone else’s side)? You really have to be kidding – but perhaps that’s why you’re hiding your name. You know that tea partiers would recognize your name and put two-and-two together.
AC: Fifth, Scott has preached to me that Reid and Lowden are two sides of the same coin. Both are members of the corporate party. Neither give a damn about the American people. Both are interested in perpetuating their own wealth and vote that way.
NED: If he preaches that to you, why won’t he go public and preach that to the REAL tea partiers, and to the press and the public? Why is he putting this forward via anonymous surrogates? Does he think he’s Batman, or Zorro – doing “good” while hiding his face from the public? I’m not sure anybody wants to elect a caped crusader.
AC: Sixth, I want you to look at the following websites Scott has discussed with me and tell me whether it makes sense that Paul Lowden would allow his wife to oppose Reid, and why there are so many Republicans for Reid? Doesn’t this bother you? It bothers Scott!
NED: Republicans who support Reid – most wealthy and powerful people – bother me deeply. They bother any real, constitution-loving conservative. However, I only have the word of a nameless source that Scott cares about this. However, if he’s concerned that Lowden is going to win, he should go public and run as a Republican and unseat her. There is literally NO CHANCE of a third party – any third party (let alone an anonymous third party) can win – but any third party is sure to help elect Reid, by siphoning off an important minority from the Republicans. This happened to the Republicans in 1992 and 1996 (Perot) and to Gore in 2000 (Nader) – and it will happen to the Republicans, Nevada and America if your buddy Scott actually attracts as few as 3-5% of the votes.
AC: So, as my mother used to say, you catch a lot more bees with honey than you do with poop?
NED: I will eschew comments about your mother, bees and poop (though that’s a really weird thing to tell a stranger), but mostly I’ll ignore it because it makes no sense. If you think you’re offering honey by remaining anonymous and thinking I’ll be persuaded by lame “logic” and links, you’ve got another think coming.
http://frankrosenthal.com/feature_story/index.php?id=34
NED: Why on earth do you think this tells me anything about your candidate or much of anything else beyond ancient history?
http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Glick_Allen_3537098.aspx
NED: Ditto – if this is supposed to tell me anything useful, one of us isn’t firing on all thrusters.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/unlike-political-races-car-bomb-attempts-are-no-laughing-matter-68202782.html
NED: If you like mob history, fine, but this is the 21st Century and none of the mobsters are running. As I said, I’m not a Lowden man, so your attempts at smearing her by linking her to organized crime is a waste of your time. I really just don’t care.
Read down about 6 paragraphs
on this site
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1561650/posts
NED: You really are obsessed with the mob. Like I care … unless, of course, your buddy Scott is a made man …
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2008-02-25-vegas-disneyland-train_N.htm
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/feb/26/sig-rogich-influential-gop-endorses-reid/
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/06/nevadas-harry-reid-secures-republican-backing-for-reelection.html
http://www.beatreid.com/2009/06/reid-roglich-railroad-the-maglev/
http://blogs.lasvegascitylife.com/various-things-and-stuff/2009/06/08/reid-backs-rogich-train/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2268309/posts
http://www.lvrj.com/news/nevadas-high-speed-rail-plan-deemed-ineligible-for-stimulus-funds-83014497.html
http://rightrevrowland.org/wordpress/?tag=democrats
http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=4368
AC: After you reads this, write me and tell me which one of these candidates is interested in America? Because Scott thinks this stinks. So if you think it is best to chastise someone you do not know, who might actually be on your side, then have at it.
NED: I see nothing here that impresses me. If you’re wondering if I think Reid is corrupt, duh! Of course he is. Do I think that Republicans supporting Reid are on the take, duh again.
What any of that has to do with your buddy Scott is a mystery to me. I’m sure you have a reason, but for the life of me, I can’t figure out what it is.
I end as I begin. You’re anonymous. Scott is in hiding. Scott’s party, which has absolutely no links to the tea party movement in Nevada, stole (hijacked, if you prefer) the name of a group of people who are pissed at this. Scott’s apparently part of this, which makes him an accessory before the fact.
How any of this is supposed to motivate me is, well, beyond me.
AC: One thing you can count on, no one will ever question to whom Scott owes allegiance.
NED: On that, you’re dead wrong. EVERYBODY who’s involved in Nevada’s tea party questions Scott’s allegiance. Nobody knows who he is or what he stands for – beyond taking someone else’s good name for his own benefit, without so much as a by-your-leave. That theft hardly speaks well for your buddy Scott’s integrity.
AC: His only concern is for his family, his country, and most importantly, his lord.
NED: What part of “Thou Shalt Not Steal” and “Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness” doesn’t Scott understand? As an honest and committed tea partier, I feel that Scott has stolen my good name and my good works and appropriated to himself and his party. And he’s done that the way the Good Book says that evil does it – hiding from the light (in this case, the light of public awareness, the light of truth).
when you and your buddy are ready to come out of hiding, you know where to find me. In the mean time, all you’ve done is convince me that you’re an agent provocateur and that Scott has something big to hide. No honest man would behave as you have, and no honest man would behave as Scott does.
Sir, go public and prove me wrong. If I’m wrong, I’ll admit it, and publicly. However, since you’ve ducked naming yourself twice, I’m not worried about having to do that.
Ned Barnett
Below is AC’s last message to me, unedited. Beyond that, you’ll see my interwoven responses again. Hang in there, it’s almost over (but it gets better).
AC: Dear Mr. Barnett,
Thank you for your honest response. I appreciate your taking the time to read what I wrote and to thoughtfully respond. Since you appear to be an honest and sincere man, who believes in his convictions, I know you have given consideration to my comments. That is sufficient for me. My only purpose for writing you in the first place was because I felt Scott was being falsely accused of being a Reid plant. I know he is not, and I believe you now have your doubts.
Whether Scott is a true conservative, a righteous man, and someone who the Tea Partiers can support is not up to me. Scott will have to earn that. But I know his wife and I know his children and I did not want to have them subjected to the lies and smears from the people Scott supports.
Whether Scott has done something inappropriate by formally forming the Tea Party of Nevada is not my judgment either. My personal belief about the Tea Party is that, as to the sincere members as opposed to those trying to pretend they are members for their own gain, it is a very loosely knit group of people who share common concerns about the current state of our country, the future of our country, and the principles upon which this country was founded. I am not aware that anyone or any group owns the name. It has always seemed to me that any person who believed in these common concerns could rightfully claim to be a Tea Partier. If I am mistaken then it is out of ignorance, and I apologize.
So, it was easy for me to support Scott’s decision to try to make a difference and to speak out against the real enemy of this nation, corporate greed and self-serving politicians because I know he is committed and very concerned. These are not of one party, but both parties. I do not have to agree with his politics to support his right to speak. To me, this very concept is the biggest problem most Tea Partiers have. They preach the Constitution, but start with the Second Amendment; somehow they seem to skip over the First Amendment when it comes to other people’s speech. Perhaps if people with different views would talk with each other, instead of screaming at each other, we could work our way out of this mess. In all likelihood, neither the far left, nor the far right, nor the middle, are correct on all issues. Other opinions and viewpoints may help. But my impression of Tea Partiers is that they do not want to hear any other viewpoints, and I am sure, as an honest man, you would agree that is not in the best interest of this country.
I am sure Scott will come forward when he deems it appropriate. I am not involved in his decision making, nor do I know any members of the group you listed who may be advising him.
If you were a true journalist, who was willing to fight for your First Amendment right to keep your sources anonymous, I might consider meeting you. (Have you ever noticed how that darned First Amendment keeps getting in the way?) But I am not aware of any case that says this protection applies to bloggers!
I hope you will keep fighting for what you believe, but I pray that you will keep an open mind to the remote possibility that there are people who have different beliefs from you, yet love this country as much as you do.
Good bye.
Now, finally (and congratulations for hanging in there), here’s my final reply:
NED: I’m not sure what it will take to convince you of a couple of things:
1. I cannot give credence to anything said by someone who will not identify himself – for all I know, you could be anybody, from Ron Paul to Harry Reid – or you could be Scott himself. I just have no way of knowing, and not knowing, I have no way of trusting.
2. Scott and his cohorts hijacked the name Tea Party. You are right that tea partiers are a loose-knit group of self-appointed activists concerned with the future of their country. They are free to use the name to describe themselves. However, it is one thing to say, “I am a tea partier” and quite another thing to say, “we are the official Tea Party of Nevada” … especially when you have never once participated in any tea party activity in Nevada.
Anybody can be a Christian (or call himself one), but if I incorporated The Catholic Church of Nevada or The Mormon Church of Nevada (never having been either a Catholic or a Mormon), don’t you think that the real Catholics (who do not “own” their church) and the real Mormons (who do not “own” their church, either) would be royally pissed off? Well, apply that to politics (remember that “politics” and “religion” are the two things people are advised against mentioning in polite company) and you’ll start to understand why real tea party activists are so offended and outraged by the theft of their name and reputation by people who’ve never even been part of the tea party movement.
Until Scott and his cronies address the second issue, they will be suspected and despised by those they’ve offended. Until you address the first part, I don’t see how I can believe anything you say. I’m not calling you a liar – you might be as honest as the day is long, or as crooked as a dog’s hind leg – how can I know?
See below for a few parting shots …
OC: Dear Mr. Barnett,
Thank you for your honest response. I appreciate your taking the time to read what I wrote and to thoughtfully respond. Since you appear to be an honest and sincere man, who believes in his convictions, I know you have given consideration to my comments. That is sufficient for me. My only purpose for writing you in the first place was because I felt Scott was being falsely accused of being a Reid plant. I know he is not, and I believe you now have your doubts.
NED: Sorry, but I believe that Scott still stands accused of being a Reid Plant. Here’s why:
a. His attorney and business partner, Barry Levinson, is a registered Democrat who has worked with and/or supported Reid in a previous election and who was a “Bush Lied” activist. That is not the profile of a tea partier.
b. He refuses (as do his cadre of official supporters) to talk to real tea partiers, to the media or pretty much anybody else. That (like your anonymity) makes it hard to believe anything good about him.
c. He and his cohorts “stole” the good name of the Tea Party, without any connection to the tea party or tea partiers. That theft has (as I noted above) proved profoundly offensive, and it is exactly the kind of thing Harry Reid has done many times.
So, he remains under suspicion, and every day that goes by makes his actions more – rather than less – suspicious. He’s going to have a LOT to prove if he wants anybody to believe in him or his sincerity. In that, he’ll be like other senatorial candidates. Danny took support from Sarah Brady’s gun-grab group in 2006 – he’s ducking questions, but that only makes him look more suspicious. Sue screwed over the Ron Paul people at the last state convention, and she made enemies who’ll never forget what she did. So your Scott is in good company among people who aren’t trusted for very good reasons.
AC: Whether Scott is a true conservative, a righteous man, and someone who the Tea Partiers can support is not up to me. Scott will have to earn that. But I know his wife and I know his children and I did not want to have them subjected to the lies and smears from the people Scott supports.
NED: Questions are not lies. Statements of fact (such as they stole our name) are not lies. If Scott didn’t want to subject his wife and children to questions and statements of fact, he never should have stolen our name or refused to answer questions (which only raises more questions). Every politician must come to grips with the fact that they will be questioned and uncomfortable facts will come out – and if they have family, those familial wounds are self-inflicted. Even more so in this case, because of the way Scott’s started his campaign.
I trust that you’re sharing all of this with Scott. He needs to know what he’s up against.
AC: Whether Scott has done something inappropriate by formally forming the Tea Party of Nevada is not my judgment either.
NED: No, but it is OUR judgment, and we (the tea partiers) are unanimous in this view. I have yet to find even one person who will stand up to defend what Scott and Barry and the rest have done. If they are for real, they have dug themselves a HUGE hole, and digging themselves out will not be easy. It would be easier to change their party name before it’s too late – if they choose to hang onto that which is not legitimately theirs and they will find a huge and very active group of Nevadans continually and regularly pissed off at them. And unless they do something dramatic, it will become “conventional wisdom” that he and they are indeed Harry Reid shills … and how will he, holding a stolen name, prove it otherwise?
AC: My personal belief about the Tea Party is that, as to the sincere members as opposed to those trying to pretend they are members for their own gain, it is a very loosely knit group of people who share common concerns about the current state of our country, the future of our country, and the principles upon which this country was founded. I am not aware that anyone or any group owns the name.
NED: In that, you are wrong. Your buddy Scott and his cohorts now “own” the name. They stole it, but according to the Secretary of State, they own it.
It should have continued that “nobody” owned the name. But they chose to upset the applecart that had been exactly as you described – a loose-knit group of people who shared some common beliefs and goals, who were upset with government and wanted to pursue real change. Now, wherever they go, if they call themselves “tea partiers,” people will wonder if they are Scott’s people – and that will anger them. You have no idea how angry people are right now.
Scott needs to know this – and if he’s for-real, he needs to renounce the name while he still has the chance.
AC: It has always seemed to me that any person who believed in these common concerns could rightfully claim to be a Tea Partier. If I am mistaken then it is out of ignorance, and I apologize.
NED: Any individual can claim to be a tea partier. And anybody active in the tea party movement can rightfully claim to be a tea partier. But nobody has (had) the right to claim that name solely for himself (or themselves) – especially so because Scott and his gang are not part (and have never been part) of Nevada’s tea party movement. You are not mistaken about the rights of individual participants – but Scott and his cronies are dead wrong to think they can kidnap that name without suffering electoral and reputational consequences.
AC: So, it was easy for me to support Scott’s decision to try to make a difference and to speak out against the real enemy of this nation, corporate greed and self-serving politicians because I know he is committed and very concerned. These are not of one party, but both parties. I do not have to agree with his politics to support his right to speak.
NED: Those are sentiments very common in the grass-roots movement. I am, for instance, a member of Oath Keepers – and we have all publicly renewed our sacred oaths to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Key among those rights can be found in the First Amendment – speech, press, assembly and religion … those are rights we not only defend, but exercise regularly when we meet and speak out.
AC: To me, this very concept is the biggest problem most Tea Partiers have.
NED: Which only shows how little you know about the Tea Partiers. We are an eclectic group with no formal orthodoxy, and we welcome all who share our core views to be with us without membership dues or a secret handshake or anything else. Anybody can start a tea party group, and anybody can join a group that already exists. If that person turns out to be a plant – a MoveOn.org liberal or Harry Reid provocateur, s/he will soon be proven false and asked to move on. But his or her freedom of speech will not be abridged.
AC: They preach the Constitution, but start with the Second Amendment; somehow they seem to skip over the First Amendment when it comes to other people’s speech.
NED: I’d love to know who among the tea partiers have forgotten the First Amendment and jumped right to the Second. You seem to overlook the fact that we meet, exercising our right to free assembly. We speak out in public, exercising our free speech. We write blogs and newsletters and websites and signs we carry at rallies, exercising our right of free press. And many of us worship God in our hearts and our homes and our churches on a daily basis, exercising our religious freedom. I know of NO tea partier who wants to strip others of free speech or other First Amendment rights.
That does not give outsiders the right to try to hijack our meetings or drown out our speakers – and that has happened, and we’ve sent them packing … even as we’re planning senatorial debates that will include (if they’ll come) Harry Reid as well as Sue and Danny and Sharron and Bill and John and … if he’s for real, Scott.
If you think that the tea party movement wants to stifle or ignore the First Amendment, you’ve been spending too much time watching MSNBC. You need to get out, come to an event or two and see just how freely we assemble, communicate and pray.
AC: Perhaps if people with different views would talk with each other, instead of screaming at each other, we could work our way out of this mess. In all likelihood, neither the far left, nor the far right, nor the middle, are correct on all issues. Other opinions and viewpoints may help. But my impression of Tea Partiers is that they do not want to hear any other viewpoints, and I am sure, as an honest man, you would agree that is not in the best interest of this country.
NED: All I can say is that your belief – based on whatever it’s based on – is at dramatic odds to my experience at tea party events. And I’ve been to a lot of them, and promoted even more of them.
I would contend that there is one right way for America – and that is a return to the Constitutional government granted to us by God and our Founders. That means honoring the 9th and 10th amendments, repealing all unconstitutional laws and restoring to Americans liberty and freedom. The freedom to succeed without restriction, the freedom to fail without a nanny-state holding our hands. I agree that talking has merit – without discussions, how can others come to see the vital importance of the Constitution.
I do not believe that judges should be able to “interpret” the Constitution and create rights that don’t exist, or deny rights that clearly do exist – and that right doesn’t go to Congress or the President, either. Our Founders gave us two ways of amending the Constitution, and America has done that more than 25 times in less than 250 years. Instead of the courts – or Congress – or the President – abandoning the Constitution when it’s inconvenient, they should make the case to America to amend the Constitution.
Tell me where in the Constitution is the “separation of Church and state?” It doesn’t exist. The First Amendment bars the Federal government from creating an established, tax-supported church akin to the Church of England – and it also gives to the people the unrestricted right to practice religion. Congress begins each session with a prayer, as does the Supreme Court. George Washington wrote and delivered a national prayer, and Thomas Jefferson made it clear that a country without a strong belief in God could not succeed. Yet the Liberals have sold us a bill of goods (and the courts have bought this) that all but bans faith from the public square. That’s absurd.
Tell me where in the Constitution is the right of privacy that undergirds the incredibly flawed Roe v. Wade decision – regulations of abortions should be where they were for nearly 200 years – with the states. Most would approve of abortion, but perhaps not all. That’s what the Founders intended – a Federal system where in each locale, citizens could decide for themselves.
Tell me where in the Constitution it says that government can abridge the rights of free men to keep and bear arms. That wasn’t intended to protect hunting, collecting or target shooting – it was written to protect the rights of Americans to stand shoulder to shoulder on the Lexington Green and face down the Redcoats with rifles. What were those Minutemen defending? Privately owned arms – an arsenal of rifles and cannon, powder and shot. Our war of Independence was fought largely with privately-owned arms; as was the first year or two of the Civil War. Washington said that the right to bear arms was the FIRST right, since it alone protected all the other rights. Jefferson, Madison and the other Founders agreed with these men. But our courts and our governments now routinely restrict our rights to keep and bear arms, despite the clear wording of the Constitution.
Get the picture? Tea Partiers support the rights of free men (and women) – rights given us by God – and we want to return to that state of grace, to a place and a time when we are again free to live our lives as we choose, without being over-taxed, over-regulated or told what to do by a government more akin to King George’s Tyranny than anything Washington or Jefferson, Franklin or Payne ever dreamed of.
Why am I telling you this? Because you brought up the notion of dialog and compromise.
We in the tea party movement believe in absolute rights which cannot be compromised – those are basic principles, as fundamental to freedom as the Apostles Creed is to Christians. However, we are open to dialog and compromise on the specific ways we implement those rights (do we vote on the First Tuesday or the Second Monday – we can discuss that … but do we have the right to vote? – that’s not subject to debate or discussion).
AC: I am sure Scott will come forward when he deems it appropriate. I am not involved in his decision making, nor do I know any members of the group you listed who may be advising him.
NED: You would be wise to advise him that he’s already way behind the curve on this. Way behind the curve.
AC: If you were a true journalist, who was willing to fight for your First Amendment right to keep your sources anonymous, I might consider meeting you. (Have you ever noticed how that darned First Amendment keeps getting in the way?)
NED: The First Amendment never gets in the way, and I know of no conservative who’d ever think so. As for meeting, if my word isn’t my bond, what would you consider?
On the other hand, consider this. Anonymous sources are used in journalism primarily when dealing with whistle-blowers who would be at risk if it was found out that they were blowing the whistle. I’d need a damned good reason to offer a pledge of anonymity. If you’re a whistle-blower, if you’d be at risk for revealing secrets, I would for sure keep your name out of things. But you are just trying to persuade people (through me) to give Scott a chance. Hardly grist for a whistle blower’s mill.
If you want to be taken seriously, you can’t do it while hiding behind the curtain. “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” is wise advice, given by a mighty wizard, and one that I’m loathe to ignore.
AC: But I am not aware of any case that says this protection applies to bloggers!
NED: According to the courts, bloggers are journalists. Beyond that, I am editor of a magazine (Nevada’s Construction Zone) and a book author. All of those are protected by the First Amendment. What isn’t protected is the right to be taken seriously without standing up and being counted.
AC: I hope you will keep fighting for what you believe, but I pray that you will keep an open mind to the remote possibility that there are people who have different beliefs from you, yet love this country as much as you do.
Good bye.
NED: I have many friends who are wrong on the issues, but right in their love of America. We often have very interesting conversations. I do not limit my circle of friends who believe exactly as I do. When I was in college, and an activist conservative, one of my best friends was a “First Century Christian Communist” (he called it communalist, but it was a religious Marxism). We were great friends who had many fascinating debates.
Do not worry that I might miss something by having too parochial a view. However, I do choose to discuss issues of the day with people who are known to me, so I wish you goodnight and goodbye, unless and until you choose to come out from behind the curtain.
Ned
Well, that’s it. I hope you find it informative. This is as close as we seem to be able to get to Scott Ashjian right now – he won’t give interviews or take phone calls, but he will send anonymous correspondents out to shill for him. If you read between the lines, I think you’ll find useful information here. As Shakespeare says, “Methinks he protesteth too much” – that’s my take-away from the protestations of conservative innocence on Scott’s behalf.
If you want to discuss this, I’m at Ned at Barnettmarcom.com …
You may use or reprint this without permission on the following terms:
1. If you are from the news media, you may quote any part of this blog with attribution (please don't take it out of context)
2. If you're a blogger, re-publish this in full, unedited
3. Credit the author, Ned Barnett
4. Note that it is republished with permission
5. Include a link back to this blog
Thank you - Ned Barnett
ned-at-barnettmarcom-dot-com
No comments:
Post a Comment