[Town Hall] Harassment Strategy Detailed In Memo

"Iron sharpens iron; scholar, the scholar."

My own thoughts are
Some people simply cannot be taught

**************************

Right-Wing Harassment Strategy Against Dems Detailed In Memo: ‘Yell,’ ‘Stand Up And Shout Out,’ ‘Rattle Him’

This morning, Politico reported that Democratic members of Congress are increasingly being harassed by “angry, sign-carrying mobs and disruptive behavior” at local town halls. For example, in one incident, right-wing protesters surrounded Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY) and forced police officers to have to escort him to his car for safety.

This growing phenomenon is often marked by violence and absurdity. Recently, right-wing demonstrators hung Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-MD) in effigy outside of his office. Missing from the reporting of these stories is the fact that much of these protests are coordinated by public relations firms and lobbyists who have a stake in opposing President Obama’s reforms.

The lobbyist-run groups Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, which orchestrated the anti-Obama tea parties earlier this year, are now pursuing an aggressive strategy to create an image of mass public opposition to health care and clean energy reform. A leaked memo from Bob MacGuffie, a volunteer with the FreedomWorks website Tea Party Patriots, details how members should be infiltrating town halls and harassing Democratic members of Congress:

Tea Bagger Memo

    – Artificially Inflate Your Numbers: “Spread out in the hall and try to be in the front half. The objective is to put the Rep on the defensive with your questions and follow-up. The Rep should be made to feel that a majority, and if not, a significant portion of at least the audience, opposes the socialist agenda of Washington.”

    – Be Disruptive Early And Often: “You need to rock-the-boat early in the Rep’s presentation, Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early.”

    – Try To “Rattle Him,” Not Have An Intelligent Debate: “The goal is to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda. If he says something outrageous, stand up and shout out and sit right back down. Look for these opportunities before he even takes questions.”

The memo above also resembles the talking points being distributed by FreedomWorks for pushing an anti-health reform assault all summer. Patients United, a front group maintained by Americans for Prosperity, is currently busing people all over the country for more protests against Democratic members. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), chairman of the NRCC, has endorsed the strategy, telling the Politico the days of civil town halls are now “over.”

Meanwhile, AHIP, the trade group and lobbying juggernaut representing the health insurance industry is sending staffers to monitor town halls and other right-wing front groups are stepping up their ad campaign to smear reform efforts. The strategy for defeating reform — recently outlined by an influential lobbyist to the Hill newspaper as “delay” then “kill” — is becoming apparent. By delaying a vote until after the August recess, lobbyists are now seizing upon recess town halls as opportunities to ambush lawmakers and fool them into believing there is wide opposition to reform.

Update
Amy Menefee, communications director of Americans for Prosperity and its anti-health reform group Patients United, wrote to ThinkProgress regarding this post:

 "Several blogs have picked up your post: http://thinkprogress.org/ which mentions Americans for Prosperity's efforts next to your mention of Bob MacGuffie's memo about town hall meetings. Mr. MacGuffie's memo was his own work.  I would appreciate your help in correcting the erroneous rumor people have passed around that this memo came from AFP. We have encouraged our members to attend town halls, ask questions and register their opinions about issues including health care -- as all citizens should do. We always promote civil dialogue and do not condone disruptive behavior."


*** If you have made it this far, please pay attention to the authors response to the above note.


RESPONSE.
"As noted in the post, MacGuffie is a volunteer who actively posts and volunteers with the website Tea Party Patriots.

• A review of the sponsoring organizations reveals that both FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity are sponsors of the website as "Freedom Coalition" partners.
  
  
• A few months before joining Americans for Prosperity, Menefee herself worked for the medical device/pharmaceutical industry-funded "think-tank" called the Galen Institute. end quote...
  
  
  Of course she did. Go figure.
  
  
  XOXO
  Me
  

**************************

Entire Town Hall Memo "Rocking the Town Halls---Best Practices" can be found here. CLICK HERE (or directly below).
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/townhallactionmemo.pdf

**************************

SICK HEIL: RACIAL PARANOIA, WHITE VICTIMOLOGY AND THE HITLERIZING OF OBAMA -by Tim Wise

Good Afternoon!
Yes, I have Mr. Wise express permission to reprint this within my blog.
XOXO
Anne

********

********

by Tim Wise August 12, 2009, 1:23 pm
Tim Wise is the author of four books on race.   His latest is, Between Barack and a Hard Place: Racism and White Denial in the Age of Obama (City Lights, 2009).  

http://www.redroom.com/author/tim-wise/

If you get a chance, today or perhaps tomorrow, do yourself a favor. Look up some file footage, perhaps on YouTube, of Adolf Hitler, addressing his followers. I know, it doesn't sound like the best way to spend your day, or even a few minutes of it, but trust me, there's a point to the recommendation. While you watch, notice the unhinged shouting, the wild eyes, the veins on his neck, the psychotic bodily gesticulations. Then, take a look at footage from yesterday's town hall meeting, called by President Obama in New Hampshire, in which he sought to lay out his case for health care reform to an audience that included supporters and opponents of his plan. Notice: no shouting, no wild eyes, no bulging jugular vein, no apparent sociopathy whatsoever. Indeed notice as the President actually seeks out questions from people who disagree with him, and then thanks them for making good points and raising legitimate concerns, even when the premises of their questions are dead wrong, and largely originated in crazy town.

Then ask yourself, is this the man that much of right-wing talk radio would have us believe is a Nazi? The political reincarnation of Hitler--ya know, the lunatic I asked you to watch first? Really? Really? Wow. Sometimes, it's hard to know where to begin.

On the one hand, the comparisons seem literally bat-shit insane. Especially when considering that at the same time folks are comparing Obama to the world's most infamous right-wing fascist, they are at the same time calling him a Marxist, and a left-wing radical. Oh sure, they try and say that Hitler was really a leftist, ya know, because the Nazis were National Socialists. Of course. And hot dogs are made from puppies.

Anyway, it seems at first blush to make no sense. Any reading of the Nazi era makes it all too clear how far afield from the Third Reich the Obama administration is. After coming to power, the Nazis moved to outlaw all opposition parties, suspend the nation's constitution, round up and detain their political adversaries (or better yet, kill them), and destroy the trade unions. All this, well before initiating the murderous campaigns against Jews, Romany, homosexuals and others deemed "life unworthy of life." Needless to say, Obama has done none of this, has proposed none of this, and only the most truly unstable person could really believe such things were just around the corner. Although there are such persons to be found in the body politic, such as Ron Paul acolytes, Ayn Rand devotees and real estate agent/dentist/professional whack-a-doodle, Orly Taitz, surely even the most cynical would have to agree that the numbers of persons who seem to buy into this rhetoric far and away exceed the likely national percentages of the truly mentally ill.

And those propagating the comparisons--the Limbaughs and Becks and Savages, and Hannitys (who have the top four radio talk shows in the nation right now)--despite their fervent commitment to right-wing ideas, surely cannot believe that an American Reich is on the horizon. In short, they can't possibly be serious.

So why then, do they keep saying it? It is this question that I've been pondering for the past few days. What could possibly be the purpose of making an argument that has so little intellectual validity; so little indeed that it can be easily shot down by the average 12th grade European history student (who, it should be noted, would have as much education as either Limbaugh or Hannity)? What would be the value, symbolically speaking, of putting forth on protest signs this Obama=Hitler meme, and visually representing that meme, straight down to the little mustache, side-swept hairdo and swastika adornment?

And then it struck me. This analogy, as absurd as it is factually, and as offensive as it is historically, makes almost perfect sense politically, to a movement that is trying desperately to create a groundswell of support behind the notion that white people are the new victims of massive discrimination, the new victims of the Obama era: the ones who don't get picked first for the Supreme Court, and who can no longer take for granted their hegemonic power. And that is precisely the kind of movement they are trying to build, what with their equally facile rantings that white men, according to Limbaugh, are being sent to the "back of the bus" under Obama, because he literally hates white people, and that white men are now experiencing, to hear Pat Buchanan tell it, "exactly what black folks" experienced during the days of Jim Crow. Within a politics of white resentment and white victimology, the Hitler meme works. After all, Hitler was not just a fascist, but is understood to have been a racial fascist: one whose dictatorial and murderous schemes were directed at a distinctly racialized "other." So to make the black man atop the U.S. political system into Hitler, is to plant the idea in white minds that he too will be a racial fascist. And if that is the case, the question is quite obviously begged, which race will he be coming for? Ah yes, white man, see? Now are you scared?

By playing upon white fears--fears of a black President with a funny name, fears of a country that within about 30 years will no longer be majority white, fears of the inability to take for granted that our Leave-it-to-Beaver, Norman Rockwell, Boy Scout-approved national narrative will continue to predominate--the right hopes to prove resurgent, and the GOP hopes to remain a living entity. They have all but abandoned any hopes of attracting large numbers of people of color. The writing in that regard is on the wall and they seem to very much know it. So they have retreated into the laager--South African imagery very much intended here--and decided to go all in as the party of nostalgia, a white nationalist party, in effect, whose only hope is to claim that the nation has lost its greatness, and that everything that made America, well, America (ya know, back in the days of segregation) has been lost. And that such a transformation, from a formal white supremacist state, to a multicultural society, is of course a bad thing.

In addition to rallying the troops of white backlash, the Obama/Hitler analogies also serve another function, one that would be immediately recognizable to most any psychologist. That function is called projection: when someone recognizes a trait within themselves, and then, ashamed of that trait seeks it out in others and locates it there, displacing the shame and self-hatred that might otherwise manifest onto someone else.

For these right-wing louts to accuse President Obama of being a racist, let alone a potentially genocidal one at that, is the ultimate in projection. After all, it is the right whose authors regularly publish books with hateful and prejudicial comments about racialized others, not Obama, whose own writing reveals a deep and abiding love for his family--all of it, including the white half.

It is the right that channels Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebells, every time they spew lies about the health care bill's euthanasia provisions, or about how Obama is going to confiscate all the guns, or casting doubt on Obama's citizenship, or about how Mexicans are looking to "reconquer" the American southwest, or about how illegal immigrants are a major source of leprosy and disease. All of these things have been debunked, time and again, and yet they are repeated daily, as if facts don't matter. Because to anti-intellectual brownshirts, they don't.

It is the right channeling the thuggishness of the Nazi bullies by sending folks to public forums to shout and disrupt, and to intimidate people by carrying weapons.

It is the right that would like to smash the trade unions.

It is the right that stood by while the last president circumvented the Constitution on such matters as wiretaps, torture, the primacy of international treaties to which the U.S. is a party, and the suspension of habeas corpus for suspected "terrorists."

It is folks like Michael Savage--perhaps the most truly psychotic of the right-wing radio set--who has staked out positions of overt racism and even murderous intent. To wit, his comments of May 11 and 12, 2004, to the effect that Arab Muslims are "non humans," who should be either forcibly converted to Christianity or slaughtered. Or his statement of April 17, 2006, to the effect that the United States should kill 100 million Muslims. Or his more recent comment to the effect that he hopes "far extreme, violent motorcycle gangs" show up at the health care town hall meetings around the country. Or his statement about liberal advocacy groups, suggesting "they have no place in America," and that he would like to "round up every member of the ACLU and of the National Lawyers Guild and...put them in a prison in Guantanamo and...throw the key away" Or his pithy paraphrasing of a statement previously made by Nazi leader Hermann Goering, to the effect that when he "hears that someone is in the civil rights business," he "oils up (his) AR-15," and presumably not so as to have an intelligent conversation.

And speaking of Nazis, it was Pat Buchanan who said, in a 1977 column that the early Adolf Hitler--the one who suspended civil liberties, murdered his political opponents inside Germany, and set about to invade surrounding countries so as to broaden the boundaries of the Reich--was for all intent and purposes, a model leader. Prior to initiating the Holocaust of European Jewry, Hitler seems to have done little with which Buchanan could find fault, thus his claim: "If Hitler had died in 1937 on the fourth anniversary of his coming to power, he would undoubtedly have gone down as one of the greatest figures of German history." Hitler was, to hear Pat tell it, "an individual of great courage, a soldier's soldier in the Great War, a political organizer of the first rank" whose "genius" was in having such an "intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path."

Yet Pat Buchanan, who also called for the U.S. to annex parts of Canada back in a 1989 column, so as to expand the size of our nation's "white tribe"--an idea that Herr Hitler would have no doubt found exhilarating--remains a commentator in good standing on major networks. And so the right, which regularly espouses ideas resonant of the very fascism they would ascribe to Obama, gets a free pass, as they project their own darkest authoritarian desires onto others, with whom they cannot intellectually compete. And so they must bully. They must shout. They must drown out reason with volume.

And beneath it all, they hope that just enough people will listen. Just enough to build a movement rooted in white anger, white fear, white victimology, and the reassertion of white nationhood that they feel has been taken from them.

The question is--and it may be the only one that matters right now--what are we going to do about it, and by "we" I mean especially those of us called white? Are we going to let the hateful throngs define us, for us? Are we going to sit back while they seek to organize a politics of racial backlash in our name? Are we going to merely laugh at them and then move on, figuring that the threat they pose is minimal? Or will we stand up, demand that there are other ways to live in this skin, and choose to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our black and brown brothers and sisters who are, as they have long been, under such attack in this nation? Will we choose the road of antagonism or allyship?

Make no mistake, the future of the country may very well depend on how we answer.

Thank you Mr Wise.

The Pledge of Allegiance - A Short History

http://oldtimeislands.org/pledge/pledge.htm
The Pledge of Allegiance
A Short History
by Dr. John W. Baer

Copyright 1992 by Dr. John W. Baer
A Revised History and Analysis, 2007 by Dr. John W. Baer.
Copyright 2007 by John W. Baer



Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).

..................................................................................................................................... Illustration by Roxanna Baer.

Francis Bellamy in his sermons and lectures and Edward Bellamy in his novels and articles described in detail how the middle class could create a planned economy with political, social and economic equality for all. The government would run a peace time economy similar to our present military industrial complex.

The Pledge was published in the September 8th issue of The Youth's Companion, the leading family magazine and the Reader's Digest of its day. Its owner and editor, Daniel Ford, had hired Francis in 1891 as his assistant when Francis was pressured into leaving his baptist church in Boston because of his socialist sermons. As a member of his congregation, Ford had enjoyed Francis's sermons. Ford later founded the liberal and often controversial Ford Hall Forum, located in downtown Boston.

In 1892 Francis Bellamy was also a chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association. As its chairman, he prepared the program for the public schools' quadricentennial celebration for Columbus Day in 1892. He structured this public school program around a flag raising ceremony and a flag salute - his 'Pledge of Allegiance.'

His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]

Dr. Mortimer Adler, American philosopher and last living founder of the Great Books program at Saint John's College, has analyzed these ideas in his book, The Six Great Ideas. He argues that the three great ideas of the American political tradition are 'equality, liberty and justice for all.' 'Justice' mediates between the often conflicting goals of 'liberty' and 'equality.'

In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.

In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.

Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.

What follows is Bellamy's own account of some of the thoughts that went through his mind in August, 1892, as he picked the words of his Pledge:

It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution...with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...

The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?

Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity.' No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all...

If the Pledge's historical pattern repeats, its words will be modified during this decade. Below are two possible changes.

Some prolife advocates recite the following slightly revised Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, born and unborn.'

A few liberals recite a slightly revised version of Bellamy's original Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all.'

Bibliography:

Baer, John. The Pledge of Allegiance, A Revised History and Analysis, 2007, Annapolis, Md. Free State Press, Inc., 2007. Available on Amazon.com.
Miller, Margarette S. Twenty-Three Words, Portsmouth, Va. Printcraft Press, 1976.

For more information about the history of the Pledge, be sure to also read the other online chapters of The Pledge of Allegiance, A Revised History and Analysis, 2007 by Dr. Baer:

o The Youth's Companion's Pledge
http://oldtimeislands.org/pledge/pdgech2.htm

o American Socialists and Reformers
http://oldtimeislands.org/pledge/pdgech3.htm



Do you have other questions or comments about the "short history" or about the chapters shown above?
Please contact:
Dr. John W. Baer
10 Taney Ave.
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 268 - 1743