We differ in our core beliefs, so it would be pure coincidence if we agreed on any particular policy direction.

Thank you for agreeing that government should serve the people. That may be the closest we get.

I confess I am shocked that you do not cherish the principles of freedom, equal justice, and fair taxes, and do not respect the constraints of the Constitution.

My report did not come from Fox News, it came from a sound bite from Mr. Cleaver. He said he never reported that any of those things actually happened. But I may have misunderstood what he meant.

You sound as though you have it figured out…

Corporations are always bad – unless they are the DNC or a supporter of the DNC. Obama and the Democrats are allowed to be unaccountable because George Bush and the Republicans were awful. The people working in the private sector are demons and the people in working in government agencies are angels (except the government of Oklahoma – demons). Laws should be based on fear and hate. (I fear gun accidents, so I hate guns, so they should be illegal. I fear someone may not be adequately treated, so I hate insurance companies, so private options in health choices should be illegal.)

The left will never start to outgrow its racial bias and propensity for manipulating others until it admits that it has a problem.

Mutual respect for the liberty of all people, with equal protection under the law is the solution, not pitting groups against one another.

Anyway, I will stop visiting this post so you can resume your activities.

We differ in our core beliefs, so it would be pure coincidence if we agreed on any particular policy direction.

Thank you for agreeing that government should serve the people. That may be the closest we get.

I confess I am shocked that you do not cherish the principles of freedom, equal justice, and fair taxes, and do not respect the constraints of the Constitution.

My report did not come from Fox News, it came from a sound bite from Mr. Cleaver. He said he never reported that any of those things actually happened. But I may have misunderstood what he meant.

You sound as though you have it figured out…

Corporations are always bad – unless they are the DNC or a supporter of the DNC. Obama and the Democrats are allowed to be unaccountable because George Bush and the Republicans were awful. The people working in the private sector are demons and the people in working in government agencies are angels (except the government of Oklahoma – demons). Laws should be based on fear and hate. (I fear gun accidents, so I hate guns, so they should be illegal. I fear someone may not be adequately treated, so I hate insurance companies, so private options in health choices should be illegal.)

The left will never start to outgrow its racial bias and propensity for manipulating others until it admits that it has a problem.

Mutual respect for the liberty of all people, with equal protection under the law is the solution, not pitting groups against one another.

Anyway, I will stop visiting this post so you can resume your activities.

“The psychology behind the pervasive show of images” could be an examination of the psychology of the media as much as that of the protesters. Maybe my ideas and behavior are too boring to reporters. BTW – Can we stipulate that many, if not most, of the media reports of slurs, threats, or assaults have been retracted or remain unsubstantiated by evidence?”

Actually, I don’t know of any media reports of slurs, threats, and assaults that have been retracted or have been shown to be unsubstantiated in mainstream media coverage of the Tea Party movement. The videos of demonstrations and interviews with Tea Partiers are there for all to see. The most recent was on March 20, of a Tea Partier spitting on African American Rep. Emanual Cleaver (D. MO) and another shouting the “n” word at Rep. John Lewis (D. Ga). Yet another called Rep. Barney Frank (D. Mass.) a “faggot.” This was as legislators climbed the steps of the Capital to hear the President speak to them about health care reform. You may not approve of this behavior, but you do think of yourself as a Tea Party member and you can’t deny that this kind of racist, outrageous, un-American behavior is going on.

It may have been “reported” on Fox news that the reporting on these network or cable reports were retracted, or found to be unsubstantiated, but that doesn’t make it so. These things happened.

“I agree that bigotry exists in 2010. I do not think it is concentrated in one political group more than another.”

“They do it too” statements are an easy way to avoid looking at the facts. Racism and bigotry have indeed been actively pursued in the Republican party, manifesting, for example, in voter suppression activities. Democrats want full voter registration and participation, and have introduced legislation such as “motor voter” to increase voter registration (regardless of party affiliation) Republicans have used different tactics in African American areas (because they tend to vote Democratic) to try to keep American-Americans from voting —from supplying fewer voting machines at polls, to mounting frivolous court challenges claiming “widespread voter fraud” when very little to none exists. These are filed so as to give the impression that there really are reasons to make it difficult to vote. Republicans are generally against entitlement programs, especially those that serve minorities. Many Republicans have issues with immigration because they want to preserve a mythical white America that no longer exists. Democrats have traditionally been in favor of civil rights legislation, and hiring quotas to offset discrimination, whereas Republicans generally have not. The list goes on.

“When people come out to discuss something as crucial as liberty over their personal health choices, there will be free speech on all sides, and it can be disruptive at times. The alternative would be a population of semi-sedated sheep. In my experience, I have never personally met an adult bully that was not a Democrat. But that’s just my experience in St. Louis City.”

The Tea Partiers came to the health care town halls holding sheets of paper with talking points and tactics to disrupt the meeting. They were encouraged by leadership to shout down any politician who was for health care reform and to prevent anyone in the audience who was for health care reform from speaking. The disruptive behavior was on one side, and it was the Tea Partiers. This was not the practice of free speech, it was bullying.

“I would not be disturbed (if I were you) by law-abiding citizens exercising their legal right to carry firearms.”

The idea of millions (mostly men) walking around with guns, many of whom may be “law abiding citizens” but who may not be in control of their anger, getting into a fight in a bar and shooting someone, frightens me. Or that they may decide they need to attack the federal government (as in the new militia forming in Oklahoma to actually use guns on the Federal government). Or I worry that a loaded gun could accidently go off and kill someone, possibly a child. I feel the only people who should be allowed to carry handguns are police and others tasked with protecting the public and keeping the peace. According to the CDC, there are tens of thousands of deaths from firearms per year with about 20% from accidents. There are hundreds of thousands of non-fatal injuries. Guns make for a violent society. I personally feel handguns should be banned. Hunters should be able to have shotguns for hunting purposes only.

“However I would be disturbed by the steady encroachment of regulators into our personal lives and property.”

In what specific ways have “government regulators” encroached on your personal life or property? BTW, I don’t believe that taxes are a personal encroachment on your life or property. And I don’t think denying you the right to have an AK47 in your possession encroaches on your personal freedom. I believe notions of personal freedom are not absolute, but need to be balanced against the greater good of society as a whole.

“Government is not the enemy, it is the servant, of the people.”

I agree

“I believe that freedom of choice, equal justice, and fair taxes enable the pursuit of happiness for each of us.”

I don’t believe we are completely independent individuals that make it in life by our own efforts. That is a favorite myth of the Libertarian and conservative movements. For example, every person benefits from hundreds of people helping them, nurturing them into adulthood—from family members, teachers, ministers, church members, family friends, business mentors, to doctors, nurses, and the person that picks up your garbage. You depend on the phone guy, the cable guy, the guy who builds your house, the woman who cuts your hair, your lawyer, your pharmacist, and your grocer and the person who repairs the brakes on your car.

Some are born into white middle class families who provide a college education. Others are born into more difficult circumstances. So to think, if you have done well in life, it was solely because of your own efforts, flies in the face of reality. To insist on complete personal freedom denies that you live in a society. So, because I recognize my profound interdependence with others, I feel an obligation to balance my need for “freedom” with a responsibility to others. If my taxes go to entitlement programs, and helps others to have a better chance in life, I’m happy.

The revolution that you mentioned is ***putting people over politics***.

Actually, I think you are in denial that there is a growing, very radical anti-government movement in this country. Revolution means armed revolution to many Tea Partiers. Just today, the AP reported that the State government of Oklahoma and the Tea Party movement in that state are joining forces to form an armed militia to fight off the encroachment of the federal government. This is hardly “people over politics” It is sedition, and should be prosecuted as such.

“To imply that the food I eat is safe because the FDA said so is naive and potentially dangerous. The food I eat is safe because I have freedom of choice and the producers want me to buy their food and return and buy more of it.”

The FDA suffers from a revolving door syndrome, with corporate executives going in and out. This needs to be stopped and efforts made to make the FDA more independent and effective. That said, I think you are naïve to think the food industry has your best interests at heart. The profit motive is not altruistic. The growing problem with food safety—foods recalled because of being contaminated with chemicals or botulism—is not the fault of the FDA, it is the fault of the companies were cutting corners to make a bigger profit. If you die from food poisoning, you won’t have chance to let the “free market” work and choose another brand.

“I would characterize myself as defensive and skeptical rather than paranoid. I am defensive because the administration says things like, “Never allow a crisis to go to waste. They are opportunities to do big things.” Or they issue reports declaring veterans and Ron Paul supporters as likely terrorists.”

I am defensive and skeptical myself, so I understand those feelings. Personally, I want the government to do big things. For example, I want the government to extend Medicare to all, to repair our aging infrastructure, and to start a New Deal style jobs program. I checked on the Web and was not able to find a single official government report that cites Ron Paul as a terrorist.

“I am skeptical because the administration touts Pay-As-You-Go but refuses to abide by it because everything is an “emergency.””

Republicans, who ran up the deficit, recently rejected Pay-As-You-Go.

“When one asks, “What is the proper role of government as currently defined?” The major political parties respond, “Whatever you want it to be (as long as you vote for us).” This is not productive. There is a defined role of government, and we are not following the definition.”

About the “defined role of government.” I think that it is actually not defined. You may have an opinion that it should be limited, etc., etc., but the government, historically, has changed its role to stay with the times. For example, the invention of radio and TV gave us the FCC, which I know Jefferson did not anticipate. The role of government is definitely open to debate and I sense we don’t agree about that role. Again, I define myself as pro government.

“I am troubled by the acceleration of unconstitutional, fiscally irresponsible, government-can-do-it-for-you sentiments which undermine our human experience and heap debt on future generations.”

I understand your viewpoint, but I simply don’t agree with it. The most fiscally irresponsible administration is the one that preceded this one, the one that spent wildly and drove the economy to the brink. The Obama administration has been trying to dig us out. I don’t agree with everything this administration has done. It is too Wall Street friendly and not as Main Street friendly as I would like. Government can be a force for good, and I don’t feel that it inherently “undermines our human experience.” Government can’t do it all for you, but it can make for a more humane, and compassionate society.

I have a question for you and the readers, would you support or oppose an act that would allow individuals to not purchase health insurance without penalty if they do not want it? Please explain why you support or oppose?

Actually,personally, I am for single payer health care run by the government, (think Canada, France or the UK) I am unhappy with the health care bill because it leaves health care in the hands of insurance companies, the ones that suddenly cut off your insurance when you get sick. Whether or not there is a penalty for not buying insurance is of less concern to me than the fact that an insurance company has control of my health care.

“The psychology behind the pervasive show of images” could be an examination of the psychology of the media as much as that of the protesters. Maybe my ideas and behavior are too boring to reporters. BTW – Can we stipulate that many, if not most, of the media reports of slurs, threats, or assaults have been retracted or remain unsubstantiated by evidence?”

Actually, I don’t know of any media reports of slurs, threats, and assaults that have been retracted or have been shown to be unsubstantiated in mainstream media coverage of the Tea Party movement. The videos of demonstrations and interviews with Tea Partiers are there for all to see. The most recent was on March 20, of a Tea Partier spitting on African American Rep. Emanual Cleaver (D. MO) and another shouting the “n” word at Rep. John Lewis (D. Ga). Yet another called Rep. Barney Frank (D. Mass.) a “faggot.” This was as legislators climbed the steps of the Capital to hear the President speak to them about health care reform. You may not approve of this behavior, but you do think of yourself as a Tea Party member and you can’t deny that this kind of racist, outrageous, un-American behavior is going on.

It may have been “reported” on Fox news that the reporting on these network or cable reports were retracted, or found to be unsubstantiated, but that doesn’t make it so. These things happened.

“I agree that bigotry exists in 2010. I do not think it is concentrated in one political group more than another.”

“They do it too” statements are an easy way to avoid looking at the facts. Racism and bigotry have indeed been actively pursued in the Republican party, manifesting, for example, in voter suppression activities. Democrats want full voter registration and participation, and have introduced legislation such as “motor voter” to increase voter registration (regardless of party affiliation) Republicans have used different tactics in African American areas (because they tend to vote Democratic) to try to keep American-Americans from voting —from supplying fewer voting machines at polls, to mounting frivolous court challenges claiming “widespread voter fraud” when very little to none exists. These are filed so as to give the impression that there really are reasons to make it difficult to vote. Republicans are generally against entitlement programs, especially those that serve minorities. Many Republicans have issues with immigration because they want to preserve a mythical white America that no longer exists. Democrats have traditionally been in favor of civil rights legislation, and hiring quotas to offset discrimination, whereas Republicans generally have not. The list goes on.

“When people come out to discuss something as crucial as liberty over their personal health choices, there will be free speech on all sides, and it can be disruptive at times. The alternative would be a population of semi-sedated sheep. In my experience, I have never personally met an adult bully that was not a Democrat. But that’s just my experience in St. Louis City.”

The Tea Partiers came to the health care town halls holding sheets of paper with talking points and tactics to disrupt the meeting. They were encouraged by leadership to shout down any politician who was for health care reform and to prevent anyone in the audience who was for health care reform from speaking. The disruptive behavior was on one side, and it was the Tea Partiers. This was not the practice of free speech, it was bullying.

“I would not be disturbed (if I were you) by law-abiding citizens exercising their legal right to carry firearms.”

The idea of millions (mostly men) walking around with guns, many of whom may be “law abiding citizens” but who may not be in control of their anger, getting into a fight in a bar and shooting someone, frightens me. Or that they may decide they need to attack the federal government (as in the new militia forming in Oklahoma to actually use guns on the Federal government). Or I worry that a loaded gun could accidently go off and kill someone, possibly a child. I feel the only people who should be allowed to carry handguns are police and others tasked with protecting the public and keeping the peace. According to the CDC, there are tens of thousands of deaths from firearms per year with about 20% from accidents. There are hundreds of thousands of non-fatal injuries. Guns make for a violent society. I personally feel handguns should be banned. Hunters should be able to have shotguns for hunting purposes only.

“However I would be disturbed by the steady encroachment of regulators into our personal lives and property.”

In what specific ways have “government regulators” encroached on your personal life or property? BTW, I don’t believe that taxes are a personal encroachment on your life or property. And I don’t think denying you the right to have an AK47 in your possession encroaches on your personal freedom. I believe notions of personal freedom are not absolute, but need to be balanced against the greater good of society as a whole.

“Government is not the enemy, it is the servant, of the people.”

I agree

“I believe that freedom of choice, equal justice, and fair taxes enable the pursuit of happiness for each of us.”

I don’t believe we are completely independent individuals that make it in life by our own efforts. That is a favorite myth of the Libertarian and conservative movements. For example, every person benefits from hundreds of people helping them, nurturing them into adulthood—from family members, teachers, ministers, church members, family friends, business mentors, to doctors, nurses, and the person that picks up your garbage. You depend on the phone guy, the cable guy, the guy who builds your house, the woman who cuts your hair, your lawyer, your pharmacist, and your grocer and the person who repairs the brakes on your car.

Some are born into white middle class families who provide a college education. Others are born into more difficult circumstances. So to think, if you have done well in life, it was solely because of your own efforts, flies in the face of reality. To insist on complete personal freedom denies that you live in a society. So, because I recognize my profound interdependence with others, I feel an obligation to balance my need for “freedom” with a responsibility to others. If my taxes go to entitlement programs, and helps others to have a better chance in life, I’m happy.

The revolution that you mentioned is ***putting people over politics***.

Actually, I think you are in denial that there is a growing, very radical anti-government movement in this country. Revolution means armed revolution to many Tea Partiers. Just today, the AP reported that the State government of Oklahoma and the Tea Party movement in that state are joining forces to form an armed militia to fight off the encroachment of the federal government. This is hardly “people over politics” It is sedition, and should be prosecuted as such.

“To imply that the food I eat is safe because the FDA said so is naive and potentially dangerous. The food I eat is safe because I have freedom of choice and the producers want me to buy their food and return and buy more of it.”

The FDA suffers from a revolving door syndrome, with corporate executives going in and out. This needs to be stopped and efforts made to make the FDA more independent and effective. That said, I think you are naïve to think the food industry has your best interests at heart. The profit motive is not altruistic. The growing problem with food safety—foods recalled because of being contaminated with chemicals or botulism—is not the fault of the FDA, it is the fault of the companies were cutting corners to make a bigger profit. If you die from food poisoning, you won’t have chance to let the “free market” work and choose another brand.

“I would characterize myself as defensive and skeptical rather than paranoid. I am defensive because the administration says things like, “Never allow a crisis to go to waste. They are opportunities to do big things.” Or they issue reports declaring veterans and Ron Paul supporters as likely terrorists.”

I am defensive and skeptical myself, so I understand those feelings. Personally, I want the government to do big things. For example, I want the government to extend Medicare to all, to repair our aging infrastructure, and to start a New Deal style jobs program. I checked on the Web and was not able to find a single official government report that cites Ron Paul as a terrorist.

“I am skeptical because the administration touts Pay-As-You-Go but refuses to abide by it because everything is an “emergency.””

Republicans, who ran up the deficit, recently rejected Pay-As-You-Go.

“When one asks, “What is the proper role of government as currently defined?” The major political parties respond, “Whatever you want it to be (as long as you vote for us).” This is not productive. There is a defined role of government, and we are not following the definition.”

About the “defined role of government.” I think that it is actually not defined. You may have an opinion that it should be limited, etc., etc., but the government, historically, has changed its role to stay with the times. For example, the invention of radio and TV gave us the FCC, which I know Jefferson did not anticipate. The role of government is definitely open to debate and I sense we don’t agree about that role. Again, I define myself as pro government.

“I am troubled by the acceleration of unconstitutional, fiscally irresponsible, government-can-do-it-for-you sentiments which undermine our human experience and heap debt on future generations.”

I understand your viewpoint, but I simply don’t agree with it. The most fiscally irresponsible administration is the one that preceded this one, the one that spent wildly and drove the economy to the brink. The Obama administration has been trying to dig us out. I don’t agree with everything this administration has done. It is too Wall Street friendly and not as Main Street friendly as I would like. Government can be a force for good, and I don’t feel that it inherently “undermines our human experience.” Government can’t do it all for you, but it can make for a more humane, and compassionate society.

I have a question for you and the readers, would you support or oppose an act that would allow individuals to not purchase health insurance without penalty if they do not want it? Please explain why you support or oppose?

Actually,personally, I am for single payer health care run by the government, (think Canada, France or the UK) I am unhappy with the health care bill because it leaves health care in the hands of insurance companies, the ones that suddenly cut off your insurance when you get sick. Whether or not there is a penalty for not buying insurance is of less concern to me than the fact that an insurance company has control of my health care.

Thank you for continuing the conversation. For all the political heat of the past year, there has been little progress by any group in understanding the rationales, attitudes, and beliefs of the others.

I genuinely want to promote civil discourse. So I will listen to you, and try to explain why I support liberty in general and the Campaign for Liberty and the TEA Party in particular.

“The psychology behind the pervasive show of images” could be an examination of the psychology of the media as much as that of the protesters. Maybe my ideas and behavior are too boring to reporters. BTW – Can we stipulate that many, if not most, of the media reports of slurs, threats, or assaults have been retracted or remain unsubstantiated by evidence?

I agree that bigotry exists in 2010. I do not think it is concentrated in one political group more than another. Campaign for Liberty and TEA Party supporters, in my experience, are diverse. The diversity includes extreme philosophies on the fringes, just like in other groups. Campaign for Liberty and TEA Party supporters, across the board, espouse enlightened principles: we are created equal, we each have the right to fail, to ask for help, to succeed, and to seek equal protection under the law.

When people come out to discuss something as crucial as liberty over their personal health choices, there will be free speech on all sides, and it can be disruptive at times. The alternative would be a population of semi-sedated sheep. In my experience, I have never personally met an adult bully that was not a Democrat. But that’s just my experience in St. Louis City.

Alas, we survived the democratic/legislative process, and the ideas/plans of the Democratic Party have prevailed.

I would not be disturbed (if I were you) by law-abiding citizens exercising their legal right to carry firearms. However I would be disturbed by the steady encroachment of regulators into our personal lives and property.

Government is not the enemy, it is the servant, of the people.

I believe that freedom of choice, equal justice, and fair taxes enable the pursuit of happiness for each of us.

The r3volution that you mentioned is ***putting people over politics***.

To imply that the food I eat is safe because the FDA said so is naive and potentially dangerous. The food I eat is safe because I have freedom of choice and the producers want me to buy their food and return and buy more of it.

I would characterize myself as defensive and skeptical rather than paranoid. I am defensive because the administration says things like, “Never allow a crisis to go to waste. They are opportunities to do big things.” Or they issue reports declaring veterans and Ron Paul supporters as likely terrorists. I am skeptical because the administration touts Pay-As-You-Go but refuses to abide by it because everything is an “emergency.”

When one asks, “What is the proper role of government as currently defined?” The major political parties respond, “Whatever you want it to be (as long as you vote for us).” This is not productive. There is a defined role of government, and we are not following the definition.

I am troubled by the acceleration of unconstitutional, fiscally irresponsible, government-can-do-it-for-you sentiments which undermine our human experience and heap debt on future generations.

I have a question for you and the readers, would you support or oppose an act that would allow individuals to not purchase health insurance without penalty if they do not want it? Please explain why you support or oppose?

Thank you for continuing the conversation. For all the political heat of the past year, there has been little progress by any group in understanding the rationales, attitudes, and beliefs of the others.

I genuinely want to promote civil discourse. So I will listen to you, and try to explain why I support liberty in general and the Campaign for Liberty and the TEA Party in particular.

“The psychology behind the pervasive show of images” could be an examination of the psychology of the media as much as that of the protesters. Maybe my ideas and behavior are too boring to reporters. BTW – Can we stipulate that many, if not most, of the media reports of slurs, threats, or assaults have been retracted or remain unsubstantiated by evidence?

I agree that bigotry exists in 2010. I do not think it is concentrated in one political group more than another. Campaign for Liberty and TEA Party supporters, in my experience, are diverse. The diversity includes extreme philosophies on the fringes, just like in other groups. Campaign for Liberty and TEA Party supporters, across the board, espouse enlightened principles: we are created equal, we each have the right to fail, to ask for help, to succeed, and to seek equal protection under the law.

When people come out to discuss something as crucial as liberty over their personal health choices, there will be free speech on all sides, and it can be disruptive at times. The alternative would be a population of semi-sedated sheep. In my experience, I have never personally met an adult bully that was not a Democrat. But that’s just my experience in St. Louis City.

Alas, we survived the democratic/legislative process, and the ideas/plans of the Democratic Party have prevailed.

I would not be disturbed (if I were you) by law-abiding citizens exercising their legal right to carry firearms. However I would be disturbed by the steady encroachment of regulators into our personal lives and property.

Government is not the enemy, it is the servant, of the people.

I believe that freedom of choice, equal justice, and fair taxes enable the pursuit of happiness for each of us.

The r3volution that you mentioned is ***putting people over politics***.

To imply that the food I eat is safe because the FDA said so is naive and potentially dangerous. The food I eat is safe because I have freedom of choice and the producers want me to buy their food and return and buy more of it.

I would characterize myself as defensive and skeptical rather than paranoid. I am defensive because the administration says things like, “Never allow a crisis to go to waste. They are opportunities to do big things.” Or they issue reports declaring veterans and Ron Paul supporters as likely terrorists. I am skeptical because the administration touts Pay-As-You-Go but refuses to abide by it because everything is an “emergency.”

When one asks, “What is the proper role of government as currently defined?” The major political parties respond, “Whatever you want it to be (as long as you vote for us).” This is not productive. There is a defined role of government, and we are not following the definition.

I am troubled by the acceleration of unconstitutional, fiscally irresponsible, government-can-do-it-for-you sentiments which undermine our human experience and heap debt on future generations.

I have a question for you and the readers, would you support or oppose an act that would allow individuals to not purchase health insurance without penalty if they do not want it? Please explain why you support or oppose?

Dear Mike,

Thank you for you comment. This post was an attempt to understand the psychology behind the pervasive show of images at Tea Party events of Obama as the Joker or Hitler, and racist images of President Obama as a primitive African with the caption “Obamacare,” or as a monkey or other blatant racist depictions. The widespread attempts of Tea Partiers to disrupt health care town halls with shouting and yelling rather than allowing civil democratic discourse to take place was troubling to me. I believe in democracy and civil discourse and found this bullying behavior to be against my idea of what it is to be an American. So, I wanted to understand what kind of mind was behind this. I have been equally disturbed by Tea Partiers attending demonstrations with guns strapped to their sides with signs that suggest it is time for a “revolution.” I’ve worried about Tea Partiers’ pervasive attitude toward government as the “enemy” even though many benefit extensively from government programs. For example, many Tea Partiers are receiving Social Security and Medicare. They forget that the FDA makes sure their food is safe, the EPA that they don’t live next to a toxic waste dump, the Highway Safety and Transportation System that cars are crash tested, and the Air Traffic Controllers that they can fly safely.

Tea Partiers statements, for example, that President Obama is not really an American, or that there will be death panels to decide whether the elderly live or die, are simply untrue and those who insist on these falsehoods being factual in the face of mountains of proof to the contrary suggest a psychological profile of paranoia. I am sorry if you feel personally maligned or misjudged by this post. I don’t know you personally. What I do know, however, is that Tea Party members have expressed racist, violent, undemocratic, and anti-government sentiments and these expressions are troubling to me.

Dear Mike,

Thank you for you comment. This post was an attempt to understand the psychology behind the pervasive show of images at Tea Party events of Obama as the Joker or Hitler, and racist images of President Obama as a primitive African with the caption “Obamacare,” or as a monkey or other blatant racist depictions. The widespread attempts of Tea Partiers to disrupt health care town halls with shouting and yelling rather than allowing civil democratic discourse to take place was troubling to me. I believe in democracy and civil discourse and found this bullying behavior to be against my idea of what it is to be an American. So, I wanted to understand what kind of mind was behind this. I have been equally disturbed by Tea Partiers attending demonstrations with guns strapped to their sides with signs that suggest it is time for a “revolution.” I’ve worried about Tea Partiers’ pervasive attitude toward government as the “enemy” even though many benefit extensively from government programs. For example, many Tea Partiers are receiving Social Security and Medicare. They forget that the FDA makes sure their food is safe, the EPA that they don’t live next to a toxic waste dump, the Highway Safety and Transportation System that cars are crash tested, and the Air Traffic Controllers that they can fly safely.

Tea Partiers statements, for example, that President Obama is not really an American, or that there will be death panels to decide whether the elderly live or die, are simply untrue and those who insist on these falsehoods being factual in the face of mountains of proof to the contrary suggest a psychological profile of paranoia. I am sorry if you feel personally maligned or misjudged by this post. I don’t know you personally. What I do know, however, is that Tea Party members have expressed racist, violent, undemocratic, and anti-government sentiments and these expressions are troubling to me.

According to you, I am twisted in anger, blatantly racist, threatening violence, ignorant, confused, gun-toting, pathetic, negative, paranoid, new to politics, unemployed, homeless, and harboring fantaies of white supremacy.

Oh yeah – on the inside I feel helpless and worthless.

And to top it off, malevolent conspiracies cannot exist in reality. Ever.

In the interests of diplomacy, I will thank you for sharing your honest, if not accurate, assessment of me as a fellow human being and I wish you a good day.

According to you, I am twisted in anger, blatantly racist, threatening violence, ignorant, confused, gun-toting, pathetic, negative, paranoid, new to politics, unemployed, homeless, and harboring fantaies of white supremacy.

Oh yeah – on the inside I feel helpless and worthless.

And to top it off, malevolent conspiracies cannot exist in reality. Ever.

In the interests of diplomacy, I will thank you for sharing your honest, if not accurate, assessment of me as a fellow human being and I wish you a good day.