Video: Alamogordo tea party protesters pack heat

Guns in public :) I love it. Just imagine how wanked out these same people would have been IF liberals did this!

2nd amendment is NOT a conservative issue. (Chinese gun) lol

Why carry a gun? Duh "they . . . "

Where were these folks during the eight years of little cuts on other rights? Phone taps, pats downs, ID chips- all way more limiting of freedom that some imagined 2nd amendment 'maybe.'

Well, I'm glad these folks are doing this. I hope they keep their guns well oiled and practice regularly. When the next 'bushite' gets in office I hope these same folks remember.

It's revealing to see other comments here, how few people have any least little bit of egalitarian feeling towards their fellow citizens.
Everyone's a potential nutcase ready to go off the rails and on a murder spree at the slightest pretext, nobody can be trusted. Nobody, from your own family & friends, neighbors and co-workers, they're all potentially dangerous, and must be disarmed for our protection.

I just wonder if the guy holding the flag, and wearing the shirt with the flag on/in it, realizes that it's against the flag code to wear that shirt?
It implies disrespect. No better than burning a flag disrespectfully.

I may be old fashioned but unlike those folks who just arrived from Alaska I don't hold with arming dogs, particularly those who's sense of vulnerability is such that they've got to display a firearm to bolster their sense of self-esteem. One has to remember that a dog's veneer of domestication is only a matter of socialization and even dogs that were well socialized early in life and accepting of unfamiliar people and other dogs can, even without traumatic or frightening experiences, suddenly became fearful and begin to react with threats or displays of aggression during stressful social encounters. Dogs whose socialization has broken down are easily provoked and can suddenly turn feral, so allowing them to bring their firearms to public gatherings to fulfill a need for respect or recognition strikes me as a really bad idea.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291687,00.html

According to UCLA historian Dr. Roger McGrath in his book "Gunfighters, Highwaymen and Vigilantes: Violence in the Old West", the rates of murder, robbery, rape, and other assorted violent crimes in the western United States were lower than they are today and suggests that "the young, the old, and the female - those most vulnerable - were far safer in the most wild and wooly frontier towns than they are in any American city today," because "people had arms, knew how to use them, and were willing to fight with deadly force to protect their persons or property." However McGrath points out that mining camps and towns were the exception to the rule in the otherwise relatively peaceful and well-armed society of the west at the time and admits that "while the carrying of guns probably reduced the incidence of robbery, burglary, and theft, it undoubtedly increased the number of homicides." (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry)

Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin is scheduled to headline the first-ever Tea Party Convention in Nashville, TN next month. Several "talk show hosts will kick off the convention with a reception and townhall meeting" on Feb. 4, and tickets are reportedly selling quickly. Other scheduled speakers include Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and WorldNetDaily founder Joseph Farah. http://www.nationalteapartyconvention.com/home....

Sarah Palin joining FOX 'news' http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/1...

Strange is it not, that the writer of this report admits grammatical errors and asks invited guests to clarify their comments, but NMI editors delete comments detailing the grammatical errors and don't correct the errors the writer admitted.

this is exactly what we don't need -- more sneering media polarizing the public.

"The tea party movement is a large, fractious confederation of Americans who are defined by what they are against. They are against the concentrated power of the educated class. They believe big government, big business, big media and the affluent professionals are merging to form self-serving oligarchy - with bloated government, unsustainable deficits, high taxes and intrusive regulation.
The tea party movement is mostly famous for its flamboyant fringe. But it is now more popular than either major party. According to the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 41 percent of Americans have a positive view of the tea party movement. Only 35 percent of Americans have a positive view of the Democrats and only 28 percent have a positive view of the Republican Party.
The movement is especially popular among independents. The Rasmussen organization asked independent voters whom they would support in a generic election between a Democrat, a Republican and a tea party candidate. The tea party candidate won, with 33 percent of independents. Undecided came in second with 30 percent. The Democrats came in third with 25 percent and the Republicans fourth with 12 percent.
Over the course of this year, the tea party movement will probably be transformed. Right now, it is an amateurish movement with mediocre leadership. But several bright and polished politicians, like Marco Rubio of Florida and Gary Johnson of New Mexico, are unofficially competing to become its de facto leader.
If they succeed, their movement is likely to outgrow its crude beginnings and become a major force in American politics. After all, it represents arguments that are deeply rooted in American history."
'The Tea Party Teens'. David Broder, New York Times Op-Ed, Jan 4th, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/opinion/05bro...

Thank you for reading my piece and watching the video,
Chris Dudley

Considering that our reporter's level of knowledge about his own craft allows him to consistently omit conjunctions from noun series, to coin the phrase "issues for the event," and to miss nuance in the difference between the supposed constitutional right to carry a weapon to a public place and the right to carry a weapon in a public place, I wonder if that reporter knows enough about weapons handling to check his sources' claims (if it was their claim) that their weapons were loaded.

Did they volunteer, or did you ask them to remove clips from their rifles and show you whether there were rounds in the clip, Chris? Did you ask anyone to open the bolt of their rifle so you could see whether they carried with a round in the breach?

Did you perhaps turn your camera surreptitiously up close to a safety slide to see if members of the armed crowd tended to keep their weapons locked in a no-fire configuration? Did you perhaps ask organizers, on camera, if they had conducted safety briefings after they invited their armed neighbors to carry their weapons in a crowd of strangers?

The reporter who I want to represent my interests at an armed protest will know enough to come home with useful information about safety concerns where so many weapons were publicly displayed. In fact, if I were working in that kind of crowd, for my own safety, one of my top priorities would be to assess their firearm safety skills.

FAIL

Whatever happened to Rich Ferretti in Las Cruces? http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/09/16/Secret-S...

See comments at http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?...

"There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware
I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down"

Buffalo Springfield / "For What It's Worth" (1967)

"Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away"

Some more information: SCOTUS' 2008 Columbia v. Heller decision, according to the Washington Post, "for the first time expressly (extended) the Constitution's Second Amendment to private citizens."

It is now settled law.

We were told never to talk politics or religion, as someone’s going to get angry and throw a punch. It is safer to avoid conflict. Here is another way. Never make a statement of fact. Instead, ask a question so the opponent feels respected, and then listen. They must give predictable answers, putting their position so far out on a limb it falls by its own weight. The only way to do this, however, is to know what you are talking about, what you believe, what to ask and predict. To argue with an elitist who believes life only works when the government designs it, or the elitists few who want to rule the non-elite many, find the roots. If you go toe-to-toe with a know-it-all, without knowing your stuff, you will be embarrassed or trade blows. Know the roots of every argument. Understand what conservatives, libertarians and Marxists believe. It is easier than you think, because the root differences are simple. We may lose the America we’ve known if not mounting a good defense. Go to claysamerica.com and learn the roots of both sides before jousting in politics. You can never lose if you know the roots and debate with confidence. Claysamerica.com

"To argue with an elitist who believes life only works when the government designs it, or the elitists few who want to rule the non-elite"

These elements have nothing to do with elitism per se. Elite implies being the best or earned expertise at something. "Elite" describes an accomplished person in sport, skill or academia.

The point is, and it is not new, that the self-centered, better-than-thou folks who are "I'm OK, you're not OK" and look down their nose, are the few who join together to manage the many. It's when the page rushes into the King crying out, "Sire, the peasants are revolting," and the King replies haughtily "Yes, aren't they." It is like the two meanings of pride, one being happy admiring your accomplishments and the other feeling you are better than everyone else. It's the latter than seem to occupy political positions.

(Chris wrote: "It's like the two meanings... It's the latter than (sic) seem to occupy political positions.")

I was not aware that meaning occupied political positions. In standard English and in most newswriting, we refer to people with the humanized subordinating conjunction "who" rather than with the inanimate subordinating conjunction "that." (misspelled in Chris' hasty unedited comment as "than")

When were reporters issued licenses to categorically insult their sources? I think I didn't get that memo?

(Chris wrote" "It's when the page rushes into the King crying out "Sire, the peasants are revolting," and the King replies haughtily "Yes, aren't they.")

What is it when the page does that? Unless offered in response to a question or relevant statement, it reads like a sentence fragment or a non-sequitur.

(Chris wrote: "better-than-thou folks who are "I'm OK, you're not OK" ...)

People are not what they say. (folks are "I'm OK). Grammatical errors do convey meaning, in this case the meaning described as the fundamental attribution error, which fallaciously supposes that people are what they say. It is a socially disruptive error that can damage civil discourse. The correct and civil way to write the above phrase would be to write "It's when folks say "I'm okay, you're not okay."

By consistently committing grammatical errors under the authoritative banner of a supposed news outlet, one represents that they are okay with their non-standard approach to language, while they represent the vast majority of English speakers as not okay for having established standards though centuries of study in liberal-arts academies. If this continues, I plan to approach the Obama administration to advocate that the president champion a "Violence Against Language Act." that would criminalize persistent and indifferent use of poor grammar and faulty vocabulary.

The elite intelligence to be born to rich parents who can afford Ivy League schools and who enjoy sufficient elite skills to be socially connected by centuries of marriage and birth among other elite families?

Interesting that the ads which currently appear with this story are for the following:

Advanced Body Armor Plate (Tactical Body Armor Plate High Quality Defense Technology) www.Ceradyne.com
Bulletproof & Combat VEST (bullet proof body armor combat vest We make them all, buy the BEST vest) www.Zfi-Inc.com
Bulletproof Vests (German Police Body Armor Vests original german police equipment) www.army-shop-versand.de
Gator Hawk Body Armor (Concealable and Tactical Armor Body Armor State Contract Holder) www.gldistributors.com
Body Armor (Concelable [sic], Police, and Military NIJ 0101.04 Level II and IIIA) www.armorusa.com
Tactical Body Armor (Looking for Tactical Body Armor? See our Tactical Body Armor guide.) UsMilitarySurplus.com

Perhaps "they" own stock in armor?

...setting off a paranoid stampede can be good for business - see http://www.slate.com/id/2233154/ for an example

Perhaps Chris Dudley knows no more about keyword management than he knows about grammar, use of conjunctions, run-on sentences, keyword ad associations, because the ads are placed according to words in his story, because that's the way New Mexico Independent makes up for lost revenue from ads they can't sell to local businesses, Google ads.

@lodious Now there's some useful bipartisan camaraderie. If you and t-baggers team up on this, maybe I (and my friends from south central LA) can buy a 2,000 sq ft home in Alamogordo for, oh, maybe $7,000. Open a dental-floss farm. No reason we can't all get along, no? I'd better be getting along now, too much dreams of war, thinking of always war.

That's funny, isn't the main employer in Alamogordo the socialist Federal Government? Maybe the Feds should pull out, donate the Missile Range and White Sands to the Sierra Club and leave a ghost town in their wake. It's obvious that's what these racist libertarians want to happen.

Wow! I have never thought of libertarianism as being racist in the least! They may be Social Darwinist elitists but not actually racist. Libertarians probably think that government control and ownership of land and resources is a bad idea but that has no connection to "giving" anything to anybody much less the Sierra Club.
You need to read up on the philosophy of Libertarianism.

You are 100% correct, but the irony is lost on these thugs since they do not have to think this through in any serious way. They receive their wisdom predigested from the leaders of their various hate groups.

And what about all that "socialist" Medicare these old boys are receiving? Why aren't they burning their Medicare cards?

@n_mxcan... really, really?

because the editor of this blog is like on the board of directors of the New Mexico chapter of the society of professional journalists, so she's like an editor, and a director, and a professional journalist, a blogger and Executive Order 12425 is a secret, because an international police organization will take control away from local police departments, because Obama will know your ISP, the referrer, amended Dec. 16.

Funny......

...more like totally creepy. Get ready for the rant about census takers using GPS so 'the government " can target you with a hellfire missile.

Maybe the protesters wrote the story, edited the story, dictated the grammar. Some schools teach English as the language, because they teach students that proper grammar builds trust, because it makes content easier to read, educates the public what manner of speech to use to public discourse. Don't think that I'm anti-NMI or anti-Obama because of some issues for a comment, the way it is edited, the grammar.

As originally published (really. yeh,yeh,yeh, no, I mean, really, really):

By Chris Dudley 1/2/10 10:29 PM Digg Tweet

Picture 3
About 300 people attended an anti-Obama rally in Alamogordo Saturday, and many of the protesters showed up at the rally armed with holstered hand-guns and loaded assault rifles.

Protesters cited a number of issues for the event, including the health care reform in Congress, taxes, gun rights, allegations that Obama is not an American citizen. One attendee cited his displeasure with what was described as an international police organization that will take control away from local police departments as a result of a recent Obama secret directive.

Those gathered to protest said they brought their guns because they wanted to draw more attention to the event, because they wanted to exercise their Constitutional Rights, to show responsible gun ownership. One protester threatened armed insurrection if steps are not taken to restore “Constitutional” governance.

The event was organized by the Otero Tea Party Patriots, the Alamogordo Second Amendment Task Force and the Sons of Liberty Riders, a motorcycle rights organization. Protesters were encouraged by the organizing groups to bring their guns.

New Mexico’s Constitution allows for open carry of firearms to most public places. A permit was acquired for the protest and the police were notified of the details before the event.

One protester threatened armed insurrection if steps are not taken to restore “Constitutional” governance.
The government is supposed to be BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE not by politicians for politicians. Politicians should have to live by the same laws we do! Look at all the tax cheats in Washington and ask yourself if you could get away with the exact same thing!

It is that corporations have been granted person-hood by our right-leaning Supreme Court that has undermined the power of the people. The politicians are just paid off middlemen by the rich and powerful which does not include everyday working people. You mis-direct your wrath on government when the people's government does not wield the wealth or power. It is the massive multi-national and national corporations that seek to make a profit beyond all morality or loyalty that has become the problem.

Thank you for reading my piece and watching the video,
Chris Dudley

NMI insiders have twice removed comments in response to ChrisDudley's explicit request that the commentator clarify a comment. The following was the most recently removed. I suggest anyone reading quickly right "select all" copy and save, or otherwise, click "Save this page" and document the highly politicized site operators' interference with calm, rational, focused civic discourse, apparently to protect their sneering reportage of a vital community concern:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment previously deleted:

As my previous comment pointed out before it was deleted, NMI's editorial dredges, as you infer your editors' job to be, seem not to be working. The copy associated with this headline story on the front page of NMI still contains the following sentence:

"Protesters cited a number of issues for the event, including the health care reform in Congress, taxes, gun rights, allegations that Obama is not an American citizen."

And you seem to argue that you have no obligation to readers or to editors to write coherently because you deign to be a video producer, not a writer. Do I correctly understand the apologetic of your reply?

Beyond the flawed grammar, you commit the social and political fuax pas of not affording the President of the United States the dignity of referring to him by his title and full name even once in your essay. For many people, calling the president by his last name and never referring to him as “President Obama” to distinguish him from all the other Obamas in his family and in the world is as much an insult as carrying weapons to a political rally where his policies are opposed.

But never mind the indignity you afford our president, since you acknowledge one error (though neither you nor your editors used the edit button to correct it ) I’ll reward you with some more free grammar lessons. Let's address two phrases in that still-mangled sentence:

“the health care reform in Congress”

A direct article (“the”) is not appropriate in reference to multiple objects. At least two reform proposals are pending on Congress – those in the House and in the Senate. Among those, a multiplicity of reforms remain under consideration. An article is not needed to add more specificity to the phrase “heath care reform” but a plural noun is needed to accurately describe the objects.

"issues for the event"

This is an atypical usage problem, but I must apologize that I'm not enough an academic to explain in fine detail why it is flawed. I recognize the error from my experience as an astute reader. Skilled readers and writers tend to recognize atypical usage when it is unique among the vast stores of literary experience we hold in our minds and which comprise our vocabulary. Google now provides technical means to assess typical usage. Once upon a time, scholars pored over countless volumes of texts and developed massive databases to study customary usage.

Google points to 99 occurrences of the phrase "issues for the event," the first of which is the NMI posting about which I am commenting. Congratulations on getting number one on a Google search result, but I would not be proud that my atypical phraseology earned me such rank.

Among the other 98 occurrences, none uses the word “issues” alone to refer to concerns around which an event was organized. Sorry, my free research service does not go as far as to count, but several of the other 98 are reposted occurrences of the atypical usage originating in this post at NMI.

If we isolate only those phrases most consistent with the atypical usage here, each time "issues for the event" is used, it is always used with an adjective to modify and expose the meaning of "issues."

"...coordinate all safety related issues for the event"
"...about parking issues for the event"
"...delegated to coordinate all safety related issues for the event"
"...largely coordinated the key organisational issues for the event."
"...Duran spoke regarding parking issues for the event "

In the billions if not trillions of documents Google searches, among the millions of writers throughout history whose documents are exposed to Google's search engine, you are the only writer who used the phrase "issues for the event" as a synonym for the much more typical phrase "reasons for the event."

Now, that phrase occurs a mere 56 million times in Google search results. So we can assume that the phrase “reasons for the event” would better convey meaning to many more people, because many more people have had the experience of hearing or reading the phrase in contexts where it conveys meaning. That, by the way, is the primary means by which we learn to recognize and convey both meaning and reason – by experience.

I could go further to explain why "event" is a vague noun to describe a protest rally. But I'd need to see a nod of your head, or dilation of your pupils, maybe loosening of the furrow between your brow to indicate that you are receptive to my instruction before I invest much more time in this direction. Based on my observations of consistent parochial usage, I would just as well expect to see constricted pupils, throbbing blood vessels in the neck and temple, maybe stretching of the skin in the forehead indicative of anger.

But I would only expect an angry reaction because many people who lack skills of reasoning react in anger when exposed to reason. I don't have any reason to believe, at this point, that you Chris are not receptive to reason, other than that you seem not to have absorbed the language skills typical of those who have been liberally exposed to literature, which tends to promote reasoning skills.

You might have been exposed to literature but for whatever developmental or biological reason have not developed an extensive capacity to recall and process patterns in the literature you've read. If that's the case, I don't mean to demean the unique persona your particular biological framework has let you develop, but I would encourage you to find means to make up for the deficit in so far as it causes social impairments. A good editor is the best remedy for a person who might be dyslexic or has a condition that impairs their ability to recall patterns in language yet who still cares to pursue work in public discourse.

But just as likely, your grammatical deficits result from a lack of discipline among those who have instructed you in language skills. That's why I posted the phrase "really, yeh,yeh,yeh, no, really, really." It is a good humored reference to colloquial constructions now frequently used among students at many academies of higher learning when families, communities and secondary-school teachers have not promoted discipline in pronunciation or phraseology used in casual speech.

That and other colloquialisms I used were references to the disruption of language patterns we are witnessing as digital media replaces more traditional media sources. Consistently poor grammar almost invariably accompanies poor reasoning. It doesn't mean the conclusions of a written work are wrong when the reasoning is flawed, but it does mean we as a society are losing our ability to articulate reasons for our conclusions.

Without a consistent capacity to articulate reasons, we begin to think and act like those around us. Were you a resident of Alamagordo whose parents had not educated you in other means of expressing dissent, you might very well be among those out there carrying guns to make a point. Liberal readers who follow this site, if not instructed in effective ways of making a point, could as well become proponents of armed insurrection as a way of resolving conflict.

Promotion of effective language skills can be a remedy for angry, unfocused, ineffectual dissent among almost any political faction. Were I exceptionally generous, I would cite peer reviewed literature to that effect, but I'll save my best for more deserving markets.

For you, here today, I'll cite one of the other errors in construction that remain in your post, which also contains the same uncorrected sentences where you originally omitted conjunctions then implied here that fixing your grammar is not your job, but your editor's job.

"The New Mexico Constitution allows for open carry of firearms to most public places."

No, Chris, that’s not true. Our state's constitution is silent on the matter of how we get our firearms to public places. The language of the constitution addresses what we may do with our firearms upon arriving and while in many public places. Correctly stated, the New Mexico Constitution allows for open carry of firearms in most public places.

I suggest you find a linguistic approach to testing my reasoning, because a field test could get you in trouble, especially if you asserted at an airport gate a right to carry a firearm, exposed or otherwise, by making the argument that you have a constitutional right to carry it because you are on your way to a public place.

Chris, grammar is not rocket science, and I’m not a college graduate. Yet I cranked out some 1,500 words in my spare time, using more or less flawless grammar. Don’t you think you can afford your readers and the financial supporters of NMI the courtesy of cranking out a mere 200 words without committing a half-dozen obvious grammatical errors?

Language can be a strong tool for conflict avoidance and for conflict resolution. I respectfully request that you make some effort to systematically improve your skill in that regard if you care to be a leader of public discourse in my community.

...what the hell's going on with the disappearing act and why are so many comments suddenly evaporating?

I replied. You or your peers ungraciously removed my reply. In your writing style here, you appear as yet another inarticulate follower of leaders, which provides the basis for the comparison with Tea Party activists. Its more than obvious you are not a member because

A. There is no "Tea" party of which to be a member and
B. Your politics, at least in their orientation, are diametrically opposed to those conservative ideologues who rally at events they describe as Tea Parties,

Your written words on this foundation-funded blog and the rhetorical style represented in those words, however, is almost indistinguishable from the language and rhetoric of "tea-party" activists, the slight difference being they chose weapons as symbols in ineffectual, inarticulate statements whereas you attempt to use words when you make equally ineffectual statements. Further, you and the tea-partiers each appeal primarily to your own narrow set of politically charged followers and you each alienate broad groups of potential voters with your ineffectual, inarticulate commentary. You both seek to polarize rather than to build bridges. You are both dangerous forces in society.

In standard English, the final object in a series of objects is almost always separated from the other objects in the series by a conjunction. I can cite several other vocabulary and usage problems in your blog posting but I have no evidence that you hold any appreciation for standard English, or that you recognize the power of adhering to shared standards in language, despite your whole-hearted support for political ideology that most liberally imposes standards by force of law.

No 'Tea Party'? See C-Span interview of Dale Robertson, "President and Founder of The Tea Party" http://www.teaparty.org/ - also photo of President Robertson at a Tea Party on Feb. 27, 2009 in Huston holding a sign reading “Congress = Slaveowner, Taxpayer = Niggar.” http://houstontps.org/audio/4995.jpg

Dudley veered away from his own reporting by suggesting with apparent naivete to my humorous jab at his half-dozen or more grammatical errors in a 200 word report, that if he were an ally of protesters as I humorously alleged, he would be a "Tea Party member." His reply veered from his reporting because his report identified the rally organizers as Otero Tea Party Patriots, the Alamogordo Second Amendment Task Force and the Sons of Liberty Riders. He would need to deny membership in those groups, if denial of membership is his best defense against my tongue-in-cheek jab at his grammar.

You are somewhat correct that the one group you cite does business as "Tea Party" as well as by other names. In fact the “Tea Party Fax Project,” aka teaparty.org, The Tea Party and Tea Party, may be the ideological parent of the movement that organized the Jan. 2 rally in Alamagordo.

If denying membership in one group is how he chooses to distance himself from the protests he tried to report Dudley's denial that he is a member of “Tea Party” does not distance him from them in the least, even if if anybody had seriously alleged that he is one of them. I make no such allegation. I allege quite accurately that his grammar, and his reasoning I might add, is no better than theirs.

His legalistic claim to not be a member of one related group would not exonerate him, if that were in fact the charge I levied. Had protesters written the report, it might be as ghost writers.

I won't be surprised if he continues to litigate the humorous allegation that protesters wrote his story, rather than respond substantively to the allegation that he persistently uses no better grammar than that of the political activists whose poor judgment he attempts to expose. He would do well to explain how his poor grammar in any way improves discourse when the apparent problem being discussed is inarticulate, irrational political discourse by protesters who attended the rally.

While you correctly assert that a company doing business under the name “Tea Party” does exist, and while that group does sell “memberships” on the Web to anybody who pays $10, my inference was that there is no political party that registers voters as “Tea Party” members. My inference is somewhat flawed. With 2,422 votes, Boston Tea Party candidate Charles Jay placed 15th in the U.S. presidential election.

While I advocate crowdsource reporting, I consider it a slight by NMI against we the readers that they either did not bother to have their reporter tell us about the national roots of tea party protests, or assist us the readers in organizing our own crowd-sourced investigation in a more orderly manner than arguing in the comment section. I'm about to decide I've offered them all the free help they deserve, if they can't be more gracious in providing resources to facilitate the investigative and editorial support readers provide.

Your points concerning the 'tea party' as an organized political party are noteworthy since for the moment it's just a movement, which was originally organized and coordinated by conservative political advocacy groups such as Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks that are sponsored by corporate interests. However, reportedly "several bright and polished politicians, like Marco Rubio of Florida and Gary Johnson of New Mexico, are unofficially competing to become it's de facto leader" and it is suggested that if they succeed "their movement is likely to outgrow its crude beginnings and become a major force in American politics."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/opinion/05bro...

Assimilation is the ultimate remedy for extremism Bill. Democratic processes, even when they produce poor public policy, provide a normal forum that pulls the more reasonable voices off the street and into reasoned political discourse. Without the more reasonable leaders among them, the less reasonable members of extreme protest movements become isolated and often lack the skills to organize any protest at all.

When individuals believe they've been excluded from normal discourse, they tend toward increasingly radical street-level protests. But sometimes political parties use radicalization as a tool, such as Reagan's mandate for state defense forces that prompted a wave of unorganized militias, inspired by articles about newly organized official state defense forces in quasi-military magazines like Soldier of Fortune.

There might be times to isolate and expose extremists, but there are other times to engage dissident movements in dialogue. That is the reason for my impassioned pleas here that new media recruit reporters who have at least nominal skills in rational discourse, rather than those who appear primarily motivated by political polarization.

It's too early to assess the international impact of isolationist policies such as Gary Johnson might espouse, but from this distant view, he seems more an anti-war candidate than Pres. Obama, who proudly announced his intentions for an Afghanistan escalation even as the "Peace" movement rallied to support "anybody but Bush." Johnson also advocates, at least in principal, an end to the drug war. And unlike the New Mexico governor, he's never privatized a superpower's inventory of nuclear fuels as federal administrator of those same materials then brokered the purchase of the fuels for a private client in the months after he left his cabinet position in the federal government.

On the other hand, the New Mexico governor appeared to be the only viable candidate in the '07 primaries whose platform mandated stand-down in the current wars, and who offered a proven expereince in engaging national enemies in dialogue. Had his administration in New Mexico been steered away from the taint of corruption by an effective press corps, rather than one that caters to polarization, he might have well been the first Latino president.

Thanks for your thoughtful contributions to the discussion, Bill527. I don't mean to posture as a Johnson supporter, but I do care to stand up anytime political discourse dismisses the humanity of anybody involved in the political process. Your rational contributions provide such an opportunity.

Couldn’t agree with you more about dismissing the humanity of anybody involved in the political process - even when it’s difficult to comprehend the fear and hate that appears to be propelling their 'involvement'. In any case, while Rasmussen’s polling concerning the growing popularity of the tea bag movement may be suspect (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/is-rasmu...) it is as you’ve pointed out something which deserves at the very least to be reported in a coherent and meaningful way rather then just sneered at.

Thank you for reading my piece and watching the video,
Chris Dudley

Too bad... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teabagging

@guest re: wiki/Teabagging: "In 2009, groups known as Tea Parties were formed to protest against the intellegent elite and the citizens who don't believe in magic."

There you have it. Maybe I am a supporter of Tea Parties. I believe in magic. But I would never protest against the "intellegent" (sic) elite. It's the intelligent elite who sometimes get under my skin, especially those who reserve their intelligence for their private financial gain and publicly practice magic by creating money to pay back money they borrowed.

You'll need more then your guns when you go to an official tea bag party - for heaven's sakes don't forget to accessorize http://www.freedomhq.com/?gclid=CPXmqfLVi58CFSg...

Last time I checked, hacking up the US Flag and turning it into a shirt was not listed among the proper methods to display or treat a flag...

Public Law 829; Chapter 806, 77th Congress, 2nd session. Exact rules for use and display of the flag (36 U.S.C. 173-178) UNITED STATES CODE TITLE 36 CHAPTER 10 §176 (http://www.usflag.org/uscode36.html#176). Respect for flag: (d) The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. (j) No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform.

Regards flag etiquette: Although the Flag Code is U.S. Federal law, it is only binding on government institutions displaying the flag - there is no penalty for a private citizen or group failing to comply with the Flag Code and it is not widely enforced, in part because punitive enforcement would conflict with the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
[Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).]

Not only should debasing the flag be illegally disrespectful, it is extremely tacky.

Desecration is a better word for this sort of disrespectful and contemptuous treatment of the flag, which as a symbol of America continues to be defended by the members of our armed forces who are fighting and dying to preserve our freedom - which includes the broadly defined right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to The U.S. Constitution.

An armed populace is a respectful populace ...

According to UCLA historian Dr. Roger McGrath in his book "Gunfighters, Highwaymen and Vigilantes: Violence in the Old West", the rates of murder, robbery, rape, and other assorted violent crimes in the western United States were lower than they are today and suggests that "the young, the old, and the female - those most vulnerable - were far safer in the most wild and wooly frontier towns than they are in any American city today," because "people had arms, knew how to use them, and were willing to fight with deadly force to protect their persons or property." However McGrath points out that mining camps and towns were the exception to the rule in an otherwise relatively peaceful and well-armed society of the west in the 19th century and admits that "while the carrying of guns probably reduced the incidence of robbery, burglary, and theft, it undoubtedly increased the number of homicides." (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry)

On January 26, 1991, my friend New Mexico State Police officer Glen Huber went to check on Rio Arriba County Sheriff Deputy Jerry Martinez, who had gone to a residence in Chimayó to serve a restraining order. Immediately after arriving Glen was shot in the head and killed by Ricky Abeyta with a high powered rifle. In addition to having murdered Deputy Martinez, Rickey had also used the rifle to kill his girlfriend, Ignacita R. Vasquez (nee Sandoval), her 19 year old daughter, Maryellen F. Sandoval; her 6-month-old son, Justin Gonzales; Justin's father, Macario Gonzales and Cheryl Rendon, who happened to be visiting. Eloy Sandoval, the 13 year old son of Ignacita, was wounded but survived, in part due to Glen having used the door of his patrol car to shield him. http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/29/us/3-charged-...
Glen was 35 years old at the time and left a wife and two daughters.

nmobserver could also add trying to tell that to the family and friends of Ricky Martinez and Karen Castanon, who were 17 year old sweethearts when they were gunned down while on a Good Friday pilgrimage in Chimayó. Their killer later admitted he’d killed them with his .22-caliber rifle but repeatedly told police he did not know the victims or why he shot them. http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/arch...

Any law enforcement officer can provide examples that demonstrate the falsehood of this meaningless platitude. http://www.koat.com/news/22104760/detail.html

Yes, most police officers who've been on a force for a few years have a tale or two to share about accidental shootings. Around the station house. In the homes of unarmed citizens wrongly invaded by officers serving a warrant on the wrong house. By 27 officers who mistook a doorbell for a gun. By an officer reaching for a stun gun who grabbed his firearm instead.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29503
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1374/a05.ht...
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_...
http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-01-07/news/1719...

..as well as stories about what it's like to respond to a domestic disturbance or a 10-10 with shots fired.

indeed... dangerous service for which they collectively deserve our gratitude and support, including our respectful attention to their political concerns even when we might disagree on major policy matters. And, I humbly offer, we can make our gratitude real by affording our attention to effective conflict resolution skills that hold the potential to diffuse tension before it erupts into violence.

Number of police officer killed by guns up 24% in 2009 http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-12-13/news/1722...

Over the past decade, small spikes in gunfire deaths have been common, but experts say they are surprised by the number of officers this year who have been singled out by gunmen. Contributing to this year's rise are cases in which several officers were shot and killed in groups - the four officers in November outside Seattle; the four officers in Oakland in March; three officers in Pittsburgh in April; and two officers in Okaloosa County, Fla., in April.

The availability of guns compounds the problem, criminologists say. But Pennsylvania, the state with the most gun-related officer deaths so far this year, has among the strictest gun laws in the country, according to a ranking by the pro-gun-control Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Other states, like Louisiana, Oklahoma and Kentucky, have very little oversight and had few, if any, officer gun deaths this year.

2 federal agents just gunned down in Las Vegas NV courthouse http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/0...

Federal officials are still investigating the shooting and the motive, but all indications point to a man lashing out at the legal system over a sense of being wronged by the federal government. “Our investigation strongly indicates that Wicks acted alone and that his motive was an overwhelming anger toward the United States government,” said FBI special agent Kevin Favreau at a Tuesday press conference, according to the Las Vegas Sun. http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/jan/05/new...

According to an article in the Las Vegas (NV) Sun today (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/jan/05/eve...) one of the officers killed in the Las Vegas Federal Courthouse gun battle yesterday was Stanley W. Cooper, a 65 year old retired Metro Police officer who had been a contracted courthouse security officer since 1994 and was employed by Akal Security, the nation’s leading provider of security officers to the U.S. Marshals Service. "Based in Espanola, N.M., Akal provides security officers to 300 federal courthouses in 40 states, drawing from retired law enforcement or military personnel. U.S. Marshals Service spokesman Jeff Carter in Washington said Cooper was armed, but Carter said he did not know whether the officer had been wearing a bulletproof vest, a question that is now part of the investigation."

Try selling that to Norteños, who's most recent armed rebellion against governmental oppression took place in 1967. http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?...

Yeah, as long as none of armed folk happen to be mentally ill and off their meds.

Federal law prohibits those who have been “adjudicated as a mental defective” by a court, as well as those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, from buying a firearm - however only 17 states submit such mental health information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System used for the purchase of guns and there is no law in New Mexico requiring the reporting of mental health information to NICS.

With mental health parity included in the proposed mandatory insurance system aka "reform" the numbers of those adjudicated to be mentally defective could swell. Might depend on how Big Pharma influences medical schools, which in turn would influence doctors. "Failure to treat" anything from marginal unhappiness to uneasiness over public policy could become malpractice and those who refuse treatment could be "adjudicated" by their insurance companies, to whom doctors are required to report.

Reminds me of a line from the women's rights movement -- keep your government out of my body. But then, I don't want to be labeled a nutter just because I know a few people who harbor quaint notions that democratic societies do best to enjoy a thorough public debate before historic new mandates are imposed on my children. It's not like they're proposing racial hygiene laws, or mandatory Genetic Testing. Yet.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/31...

Without getting into Tom Cruise territory concerning definitions of mental health or the lack of it, my point was that there's little if anything to hinder someone like John Hyde (http://www.policeone.com/news/118192/) from being able to acquire a firearm.

If we don't blur the boundaries between what you call "Tom Cruise territory" and genuine medical concerns as diagnosed by a physician practicing under the authority of his well-educated mind instead of under corporate mandates enforced by hastily constructed law, we will have a much better chance of winning political support for reasonable laws restricting gun ownership by those medically adjudicated to be untrustworthy weapon handlers.

According to the the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 26.2% of Americans ages 18 and older (about one in four adults) suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in any given year.

...presuming of course the 'armed populace' isn't composed of gang members eh?

Apart from gangs of paranoid racists one assumes