SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
September 16, 2011· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

A Tea Party rally by any other name…

Something about the upcoming SCV Constitution Day Summit looks awfully familiar to me.

No, it doesn’t remind me much of other Constitutional educational events. I grew up in the birthplace of our country, Philadelphia, PA, and costumed events celebrating Independence or the Constitution are commonplace and distinctly non-political. There’s the smell of hot cider and gunpowder wafting over crowds of men and women in period dress, selling reproductions of our founding documents and an assortment of all things pewter.

In school, kids in Philadelphia are drilled on the important points of our nation’s founding, so much so that I was shocked at the ignorance of my classmates when I moved to California, where our nation’s founding doesn’t receive very much attention. So I get why concerned history buffs would want to create such an event here in the SCV.

I’ve been taking a closer look at the planned event, since I’ve been thinking of taking my kids (until other things came up), despite my initial suspicion. It didn’t take long to stumble, disappointingly, on vindication of my first suspicion.

It seems that the boosters of this event can’t quite help themselves.

The names associated with this event are a who’s who of the local right-wing crazy closet. You half expect someone to come dressed like Roger Gitlin for old time’s sake. The overlap in attendance between this gathering and the upcoming Sharron Angle meetup should be considerable.

Yes, this event looks familiar. But it’s looking more like a Tea Party rally than an old timey Constitution Day.

Case in point, Bill Reynolds, known to most of you for making racist jokes here about Michelle Obama and for his NotAFerryFan videos, used his poor man’s Ken Burns schtick to create a 15 minute video on the Constitution. The organizers have been publicizing this video on Facebook and promises to use the audio during the event itself. Have a look:

The video is mostly spoken quotes from founding fathers over period paintings and pictures of monuments and cemeteries, and the like. It meanders on fine and good for a while, but further in, it all comes apart.

First red flag was a quote from John C. Calhoun. Huh? John C. Calhoun wasn’t a founding father (he born in 1782), but rather an ideological forefather of secession and the most ardent defender of slavery.

Soon enough, it further devolves into classic Bill Reynolds material: selective quotes sucked out of context over arbitrary anti-Obama cartoons, images of food stamps, a cartoon of a naked Al Gore, and so forth. There’s also this odd obsession over the liberties granted by 2nd amendment, without hardly mention of any other liberty found in the Bill of Rights.

It seems that veneration of John Calhoun and disparagement of the President is their idea of a fitting Constitutional tribute. Classy.

Have look at their website, half of their sponsors are either right-wing blogs (WRB, ROSCV), right-wing radio (TRS /w Joe Messina) or Tea Party groups (SCV Patriots).

Through the forest of (John) Birch trees, it’s hard to see what’s left for the kids. I can only expect a heavy dose of kneejerk indoctrination and little in the way of education. If this is indeed a nonpartisan educational event, they are doing a very good job of hiding it.

So to summarize: a crowd of right-wing nuts having an outdoor gathering in Santa Clarita where they plan to dress in colonial attire, complete with a Bill Reynolds side show. My advice? Stay home. You’ve seen this before.

A Tea Party rally by any other name…

Comments (49)

  1. JayceSeptember 16, 2011 at 1:09 pm
    Why don’t they just call it what it is sheesh.
  2. PackfanSeptember 16, 2011 at 1:26 pm
    Imagine if these extremists win power and decide that every citizen in America needs to be re-educated in our founding. As of now, parents voluntarily take their kids to be brainwashed with hyped up half-truths. Like any good government takeover, the children must be indoctrinated. They also must drool over the 2nd ammendment. Gotta arm the kids! These people scare the hell out of me! America is scaring me! The truth is irrelevant.
  3. Come to SCVSeptember 18, 2011 at 1:04 am
    This is all nonsense but the truth to anyone is relative. Were you there at the Constitution Day Summit? Because if you were, you would laugh and enjoy a day of non-partisan fun with everyone else and clearly see that your fear based irrational comments had nothing to do with the children’s education from the days events; it was not taken out of context but quoted from the founding fathers and others of historical nature. Heck there was even a Thomas Paine! Not one thing was politically charged and there were people there to make sure of it which I appreciated. This was a day of celebration for The Constitution and how can anyone Hate The Constitution? Maybe you too should remember that you are allowed to post such things in this nation because you have the freedoms that were given to you because of people that stood up and fought for your rights(and they didn’t even KNOW YOU. ) Try to be more amendable and not so polarized in convictions when speaking about such things you do not even try to research or be a part of. It’s just as shame on all sides.
  4. JeffSeptember 16, 2011 at 1:40 pm
    I’ll probably be first up against the wall when the Teavolution comes to SCV
  5. SFC PerezSeptember 16, 2011 at 2:43 pm
    You, me, and Nate can hold hands together at the wall since Bill doesn’t want me armed
  6. LindaSeptember 16, 2011 at 1:45 pm
    Were I not concerned about the possibility of violence, I’d be more inclined to take my kid to participate in the Day of Rage on Olvera Street ( http://usdayofrage.org/public-announcements/110-us-day-of-rage-los-angeles-sept-17-2pm-usdorlosa-usdor-sept17-usdayofragelosa.html ) than the “Constitution Day Summit.”
  7. PetzSeptember 16, 2011 at 1:56 pm
    Really a bunch of cheap shots by friends who know better. Jeff was entertained at the Minuteman event with Nathan (who was dressed in some military jacket with faux patches ) and was not acosted. Please do not discourage folks from bringing their children to learn about the greatness of America. Petz will be quite disappointed if Jeff does not make a cameo appearance. At this point he better ride his bike because parking will be in short supply. Mike-he’ll probably be around some BBQ with sauce all over his face.
  8. MikeSeptember 16, 2011 at 2:07 pm
    You should know, having enjoyed four kinds of BBQ at my house, that I’m primarily in the dry BBQ school.
  9. SFC PerezSeptember 16, 2011 at 2:44 pm
    Dry rubs make a juicier piece of meat.
  10. MikeSeptember 16, 2011 at 2:08 pm
    John C. Calhoun is not part of the greatness of America. #historyfail
  11. PetzSeptember 16, 2011 at 2:40 pm
    Yale University has retained Calhoun’s name on one of it’s colleges. Why not condem the Constitution itself for allowing slavery-make a frontal attack on the foundation of our Republic-chicken.
  12. MikeSeptember 16, 2011 at 3:29 pm
    The Constitution’s accommodation for slavery is certainly regrettable, but the most charitable explanation that it was a series of compromises necessary for ratification. Many of our founding fathers wrestled with the issue, yet did not ultimately force its abolition, while others advocated for it, outright. Calhoun was of the next generation, and was an unapologetic, un-conflicted advocate of slavery. He’s due no special honor, much less to be quote reverently as though he had something to do with our nation’s founding. Rubbish.
  13. PetzSeptember 16, 2011 at 3:41 pm
    Tell the truth damn it. Calhoun did not sign the Constitution….the eventual demise of slavery is in the original text.
  14. MikeSeptember 16, 2011 at 3:56 pm
    Are you pulling a Bachmann on me? Be careful, or I’ll inoculate you against HPV. As for Calhoun – of course he didn’t. Then why is this video treating him like he did? And more to the point, why is this supposed non-partisan event endorsing this video?
  15. JeffSeptember 16, 2011 at 4:00 pm
    “make a frontal attack on the foundation of our Republic-chicken.” Very well. The Constitution has failed us many times, most notably during the Civil War. It failed untold millions of Americans, generations of them, just because they had the wrong skin color or were of the wrong sex. It’s only in the last 60 years that we’ve seen a real push to make real the ideals of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. I admire that the Constitution’s purpose is to make change difficult but possible, but it also has many flaws that lead to problems in the structure of our government, namely, districting and the influence of money in politics. I revere the document and see it for what it is: a living, breathing piece of paper that should be adapted for the times we live in. *grabs popcorn, watches Petz’ head explode*
  16. Capt. GeneSeptember 16, 2011 at 4:07 pm
    Did you mean to say “leaving”?
  17. JeffSeptember 16, 2011 at 4:20 pm
    I did not. Thanks for the correction
  18. Capt. GeneSeptember 16, 2011 at 5:15 pm
    I always suspected your goal was to vacate The Constitution, just never figured you’d come out and say it out loud.
  19. FredSeptember 16, 2011 at 3:18 pm
    Me and my wife are putting on our shoes and bringing the youngins from our compound over.
  20. MikeSeptember 16, 2011 at 3:23 pm
    Fred! Long time! I’ve since forgiven you for lying to me about finding “ideolog” in the dictionary, but I’d still like to know why you did it.
  21. FredSeptember 16, 2011 at 9:48 pm
    Oh yeah. I totally forgot about that. Didn’t lie however. I may had been mistaken with the sources I saw, but that isn’t a lie.
  22. MikeSeptember 16, 2011 at 9:55 pm
    That would be a credible defense if you hadn’t doubled down: Fred: As I understand it, at least from what I can confirm online and within my own dictionaries, “ideolog” is an acceptable alternative spelling to “ideologue.” It may not be common usage, but it doesn’t warrant a . Mike: In English? [links to several dictionaries] [no response, next day's thread] Mike: Fred, off-topic, but which dictionary led you to an entry for “ideolog”? Fred: Several on-line. Search the word. You are correct that the common spelling is as you point out, but the word is used enough among writers that it doesn’t warrant that sic that Jeff gave it. It’s similar to how one spells judgment or judgement or gray/grey. Mike: Fred, Several on-line dictionaries? Could you show me one? Here’s a little exercise, have a look at these links: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judgment http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judgement http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gray http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grey http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideologue http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideolog Five of the above are spellings of English words. One is not. Wanna guess? We can try this another way, and just a taste: We google +ideologue +ideolog Every result on the first page uses ideolog in a foreign-language context. Google: +ideolog -ideologue Only one instance on the front page is using it as a variant of ideology, a school project by a Swedish student for his English class. I’m guessing he got a C-. Google “ideologue or ideolog” Google “ideolog or ideologue” Zero results on either. There is no dispute. Google “judgement or judgment” 39,100 results Fred, when you say you read this in a dictionary, were you lying to us? ————- There are no such sources. It’s impossible for you to have looked at “several dictionaries” because you won’t find it in any. You made it up.
  23. FredSeptember 17, 2011 at 9:16 am
    Mike, all I can say is that I googled and binged both words and found what I found. As I noted, (and this is hardly “doubling down”) I stated, based upon what I was looking at, that you were correct as a rule. However, the sources I found, at least two (one language usage site I located for instance) claimed the “ue” could be dropped. Now, I readily admit that is primarily a foreign language usage, if memory serves, Czech, and not English, but under the circumstances at the time, the smugness of nit-picking a blog comment by a guy you all hate, I chose to come to the defense of the guy in question. However, thanks for your diligence as a faithful gatekeeper of proper spelling etiquette.
  24. NateSeptember 17, 2011 at 11:03 am
    If it is on Google is has to be true…
  25. Capt. GeneSeptember 17, 2011 at 6:52 pm
    I wonder why Fred stayed away so long. Mike don’t be a h8r. lol
  26. NateSeptember 17, 2011 at 10:58 am
    How do you know I wasn’t accosted…? You do remember one of your speakers yelling the N word from a bullhorn and your people getting in racially charged shouting matches with cars passing by… kids should be no where near this circus.
  27. Mr PerezSeptember 17, 2011 at 5:17 pm
    Someone used the N word, seriously? I mean, I am gonna guess Snoop Dogg wasn’t in attendance but still….
  28. 4eyedsueSeptember 16, 2011 at 5:38 pm
    Me and the kiddos are gonna stop by- I’m gonna wear my “Marriage is so Gay” t-shirt.
  29. VenturanSeptember 17, 2011 at 5:36 am
    I have a feeling this crowd is selective about their love for “freedom.” Unless the participants would like to renounce support for Prop 8, which was declared unconstitutional? Anyone?
  30. PetzSeptember 17, 2011 at 8:10 am
    Where was it found to be unconstitutional ? By a gay federal judge? Oh please spare us-what is unconstitutional is Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom refusing to defend it in the federal courts. Just don’t lie and distort.
  31. MikeSeptember 17, 2011 at 8:18 am
    Ahh, it comes out! Petz discredits a sworn federal judge on the basis of his sexual orientation. So much for equal protection under the law, eh?
  32. Capt. GeneSeptember 17, 2011 at 8:48 am
    Spare me. As if you would be defending it if it was upheld by a judge that was a Christian who had disowned his gay son. Pretty naive Mike.
  33. MikeSeptember 17, 2011 at 8:56 am
    It’s to say nothing about the ruling, just taking exception to the idea the judge is unfit. A judges faith, much less his relationship with his son, should not preclude him either. I also think Clarence Thomas shouldn’t recuse himself on racial discrimination cases. Shocking, right? In your imagined scenario, there would be plenty of people who would raise a cackle. But there are plenty of people not like them, and like like you or Petz, who simply believe such things should not be a barrier to full participation in our judicial system. It isn’t based on the situation. It’s based on principle.
  34. VenturanSeptember 17, 2011 at 10:35 am
    What lie? You gotta stop taking cues from the “other” Wilson…
  35. NateSeptember 17, 2011 at 10:59 am
    Petz please point out in the constitution and/or federalist papers were it defines marriages as a man and woman? Also show me were it says that government can tell you what a citizen can and cannot put in their bodies?
  36. NateSeptember 17, 2011 at 11:00 am
    And if it was a hetro judge are we to assume the same thing? The only fair solution is to have an asexual judge.
  37. Capt. GeneSeptember 17, 2011 at 11:04 am
    Are you offering?
  38. IndySeptember 17, 2011 at 11:18 am
    Very “funny” .
  39. Mr PerezSeptember 16, 2011 at 9:18 pm
    I have my son’s 1st birthday manana and he prefers cartoon owls and cake.
  40. Come To SCVSeptember 17, 2011 at 2:49 am
    Just so we are clear; who did anyone talk to about this event exactly or is this hyperabole? I’m just curious because I know nothing about this event and can’t yet seem to find anything of relevance in all this diatribe so I guess I will look somewhere else for information on the actual subject. It appears there are not very many people that contribute to this SCVView but I’m sure it gets a lot of money from BIG contributions to stay alive. Whew! All is now angry in the world yet fat and happy at the same time. Good for All of You?
  41. MikeSeptember 17, 2011 at 9:05 am
    I will pass this message along to SCVView. In related news, Google Translate has a ways to go, but it’s getting closer.
  42. MikeSeptember 17, 2011 at 9:26 am
    So you looked at a list of results, no dictionaries? And why did it take this long to admit it? You often endeavor to debate heavy subjects here and elsewhere. When you can’t admit to a simple blunder, even when all of the evidence is laid out, what good is a debate where the facts are less knowable? In other words, you were 100% wrong in your initial criticism of Jeff, unquestionably. Yet it took four rounds before you would admit any fault whatsoever, even concocting a story of consulting several (nonexistent) dictionaries.
  43. VenturanSeptember 17, 2011 at 10:33 am
    And the best part is the not-so-subtle belittling of you for calling him out for calling Jeff out… about a word. Did I get that right?
  44. LindaSeptember 17, 2011 at 4:12 pm
    For most words ending in “ogue” the “ue” is often dropped by Americans when spelling them. Among them: analog, catalog, travelog, videolog, decalog, demogog, dialog, epilog, monolog, and prolog. So it is quite understandable that someone might assume that the same alternative spelling for the word “ideologue” would be acceptable as well. It isn’t apparently, but such exceptions keep the pedagogs amongst us busy.
  45. Phil EllisSeptember 18, 2011 at 9:24 am
    you meant “pedagogues” didn’t you?
  46. Capt. GeneSeptember 18, 2011 at 10:25 am
    I wouldn’t jest, apparently it’s a HUGE deal for some folks…bigger than big, triple big.
  47. LindaSeptember 18, 2011 at 12:55 pm
    Are you sure that isn’t “bigue?”
  48. Capt. GeneSeptember 18, 2011 at 3:12 pm
    Honestly, I’ve never seen such a fuss over someone pulling a ue. Sorry.
  49. VenturanSeptember 18, 2011 at 3:25 pm
    Yeah, Fred ! Sheesh.

Preserved as part of the SCV Talk Archive. Text is presented as originally published; presentation has been standardised for readability. The original capture is available at the Internet Archive.

Support