As the 2012 Presidential election gets underway (ugh, already?), it’s time for an update on what the Tea Party movement has been up to lately. The BBC has been utterly silent since begrudgingly admitting an influence on the 2010 mid-term results, so it’s well worth pointing out what they don’t think is newsworthy.
First, here’s some news which dispels the BBC’s accusations that the Tea Party movement’s primary motivation is racism:
Some Immigrants Turn to Tea Party
Lolita Mancheno-Smoak, an immigrant from Ecuador who once dreamed of becoming her country’s president, has found an unlikely home in the tea party movement.
When she launched her campaign for county school board last week at Brion’s Grille in Fairfax, Va., she was not alone — flanked by immigrants from Europe, Asia and Latin America who have joined tea party groups in the face of unrelenting criticism that the movement is isolationist and anti-immigrant.
How can this be? Mark Mardell even assured us that the whole anti-immigration issue was really about racism and nasty whites not wanting Hispanics coming in. But now Hispanics are welcomed in the Tea Party movement with open arms? No wonder the BBC doesn’t want you to know about this. This bit must especially cause a few Beeboid heads to explode:
Genaro Pedroarias, the national committeeman of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly of Virginia, said the tea party is a natural fit for many of northern Virginia’s immigrants from countries like Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua.
“Most Hispanics who come to this country come here to flee socialistic and oppressive regimes,” said Pedroarias, who is Cuban. “They are some of the most vibrant members of the tea party.”
Lin Dai Kendall, who left Honduras when she was 33, blames the U.S. immigration system for persistent unemployment among those who are here legally. She’s part Chinese, part Spanish and part Hispanic and doesn’t hesitate to call President Barack Obama a Marxist.
“These people want to call themselves progressive; I call them regressive,” Kendall said. “What is immoral to me is standing there with my hand out waiting for the government to support me.”
Oh, dear, oh, dear. The BBC just can’t report this, or their entire Narrative will be destroyed. Now for some more Tea Party news the BBC won’t tell you about.
There’s a serious legal challenge to ObamaCare in the 6th Court of Appeals, and the Cincinnati Tea Party is on the scene. The lawsuit to prove that ObamaCare is un-Constitutional is working its way up to the US Supreme Court. The BBC has been mostly silent on the entire issue, and only barely mentioned when the challenge started in the Virginia courts, prompted by the Tea Party movement there.
As the movement moves from strength to strength, it’s affecting local elections in Utah.
The Tea Party is here to stay in Utah’s political races
Even the über-partisan HuffingtonPost says that the recent Republican vote against raising the debt ceiling is a response to Tea Party concerns. The BBC didn’t mention that at all in their reporting on the issue.
Here’s another Presidential candidate poised to become a favorite of the Tea Party movement, and another slap in the face of the BBC’s lies.
Is it cos he is black?
Many in the Tea Party movement apparently support Israel. There was a Tea Party-centric event at last week’s AIPAC gathering. The BBC forgot to mention that in between attacks on Netanyahu and praise for the President’s desire to take Israel down a few notches. I guess this makes Tea Partiers even more horrific to the Beeboids.
I could go on and on, but suffice to say that the Tea Party movement the BBC hid from you, disparaged, ignored, then attacked and slandered, is very much alive and well and moving to have a major influence in 2012. And the BBC is silent.
I wish Dezzie and Scotty would make some comment about this, but maybe not as it may do their ant-brains too much damage. They will not be able to cope with anything that’s outside of the BBC ant-nest rule of thought, and may have to hospitalised if they read the article.
Dezzie and Scottie, or is it Scottie and Dezzie ( they are as interchangeable as Ant and Dec, no pun intended ) tend to disappear when the going gets tough.
But, rest assured, they will reappear to nitpick on some minor
point , studiously ignoring the big issues which, as you say, don’t fit in to the narrow little BBC group-thought.
or is it scuzzy or dottie?
that/those beeboid trollboy(z)
any chance of an ignore button on the site?I’m tired of wading through the written diarrhoea that spews forth from the lefty retard cesspit which is known as a brain in right thinking people
Sorry, I find them great entertainment and a good laugh, although very predicatable 😀
Nowhere as funny as cj, though !
I get really tired of obvious trolls
boring gits who don’t know when to eff off just boil my urine 😀
their very presence is like a metaphorical dirty protest-nothing but shit all over the place
I value their contributions. I belive it keeps this site honest. Otherwise we run the risk of it being an echo chamber. That’s as boring as it is pointless.
I’ll second that. As I say, they are just a bit of a laugh and the site can always point to them as evidence it does not censor contrary opinions, unlike a certain public sector broadcaster I can think of.
Uh-oh, now you’ve done it, Grant. Scott will be here any minute to remind you that David Vance once deleted one of his comments, and proceed to call you a hypocrite and smear everyone here as liars, claiming the entire blog is discredited as usual.
At least neither he nor Dez/Daisy accuse us of being paid by the Mossad or something to defend Israel, like John Reith used to do.
Thanks for blowing my cover. Just one point. I am not paid by Mossad, they only lend me money 😀
I have to say i value absolutely nothing about them
one of them,after all,and by his own admission has the hots for an izlamofascist terrorist
kinda kills any shred of relevance they might have pretended to have
Fair point, but don’t all Lefties have the hots for terrorists !
I am not sure most contributions do have value, but I agree on keeping things honest. I simply caution against cutting slack in rebuttal simply to keep adversarial opinion ‘sweet’ with kid gloves.
I welcome correction, if warranted. I also value politeness. A put down can be OK if witty and deserved, but over-inclusive sneers or abuse about individuals, especially when free of any other argument, seems retrograde.
And, as will be gathered, I find toe-dipping, cherry-picking vulture swoops lack credibility when a raft of demands to reply are met, yet questions in return see a quick scuttle back to the bunker.
I am thinking a great wheeze is to create my own Q-poster on another IP address to spew deranged bile at my CiF or BBC posts, and then use this to flounce off if things start getting a bit too hot to cope with.
Or ‘like’ every pearl I utter, which I in turn can ‘like’ back, like a daisy chain.
Oops. Ignored my own advice and forgot to quote the post being responded to: Asuka Langley Soryu ‘I value their contributions.’
“boring gits who don’t know when to eff off just boil my urine”
Perhaps you should lay off the ECT for a while…
Dezzie, with witty remarks like that you ought to become a script-writer for Marcus Brigstocke. He needs some new material.
Now how do you think the BBC will address this major conundrum for them.: How will they be able to accuse the Tea Party of being 100% white racists when it is obviously not the case? Do you think they will ignore them, like before, and hope they just go away? Do you think they will continue to resort to personal smears and lies like normal? What is your opinion on this?
Have you ever thought about addressing any of the real issues raised on this site rather than just nitpicking what you perceive to be easy slips.
“I’m tired of wading through the written diarrhoea…”
I’m sorry you find reading my posts so tiring. I’ll try extra hard to make them easier for you from now on; but alas I doubt I’ll ever reach the linguistic heights of “FUCK OFF INTO THE NIGHT YOU CUNT”.
Keywords: ltwf1964 – diarrhoea – cunt
Without using the nasty language you intemperatey used –
If you stand well back, and look at yourself – cannot you see you are a grovelling prat ?
You may be unaware of this, but Dez was only directly quoting a comment lwtf1964 made on another thread, which was aimed directly at me.
I’m glad you agree it was nasty language, but it came from one of Biased BBC’s regular commenters.
the retort of the sanctimonious prick
but a predictable knobhead
take a bow you left wing arse
“I wish Dezzie and Scotty would make some comment about this…”
Ok, I’ll bite; “Mark Mardell even assured us that the whole anti-immigration issue was really about racism and nasty whites”.
Perhaps you can provide a quote were Mardell says such a thing? Backing up the claim with a link back to “biased-bbc” isn’t really all that credible.
Obviously I’m paraphrasing, Dez, as there are no quotation marks. But Mardell’s point is very clear throughout his reports from the Arizona border: it’s racism masquerading as security concerns. I thought the link I provided there would go to the page of the open thread where I made the fisking of the Mardell posts concerned, but I see now it went to the top of the thread instead. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and guess you clicked through but didn’t see anything relevant and assumed I was just making it up and put in a false link thinking nobody would dare question me. So, here’s a link to the Mardell post where he says he thinks it’s about racism.
My defense of this position had to be spread over two comments due to character limits, so I can’t reproduce it again here. It’s on Page 5 of the open thread I linked to in the main post, with the time stamp of Aug. 5, 2010 @ 7:00:57pm UK time.
I make a very clear case for how and why Mardell says it’s about racism. In his reports, whenever someone tells him the concern about illegal immigration isn’t about racism, he expresses his doubts. For example:
But he suggests that one way or another it won’t change the way he does his job and it isn’t racial profiling.
I question this. Isn’t it just common sense that on this border he is going to challenge people who look Mexican, rather than, say, black or white? Not at all, he says. He’s picked up many Chinese along this border and he says, on hearing my accent, he’d want to see my papers too.
So he went in with a preconceived notion that it was about racism, and nothing anyone told him changed his mind. If you’re actually interested in debating this, I’m sure neither of us wants to start it up on that thread. As it’s not really practical to debate in this space a year-old comment on another thread either, I’d be happy to reproduce the whole thing as a new main post for that purpose at your request.
(PS: I see now there was a factual error at the end of the second comment. I had confused the 18 states which were at the time in the process of putting through an immigration law similar to Arizona’s with the two states that already had one for some time, yet nobody was comlpaining about racism about those. I remember making some correction in a further comment, but can’t find it now. If this does get reproduced for debate purposes, I will leave the error so as to prevent accusations of dishonesty, but reserve the right to include an addendum noting the correction.)
If you get confused about States in the USA, you should run for President !
Dezzie, as you see David has given you all the proof you need to answer your question.
Tell me though, why do you not answer the questions put to you? Why do you always tell everybody else to regurgitate the proof when it has been supplied over a very long time on this very site? We know that you look here regularly to see if someone has made a minor slip, so why do you try to pretend that, in this case for instance, Mardell has not said the things we all know he did say? Is it the BBC school of “thought” – if we don’t mention something then it hasn’t happened?
We would be interested to hear your thoughts on various other subjects on here, such as the BBC’s attitudes against Israel, and what motivates them to support the anti-semitic, homophobic and mysogynistic opponents of Israel so vehemently. There are many other items to which you never address your comments as well. It would be nice for you to engage with the meat of a subject rather than just try and score points on trivialities.
If Sarah Palin does nothing else but draw the hatred of Womans Hour sisters, and drive the BBCs men of a certain age into self loathing lust and confusion then we will all have cause to thank her.
The more the liberal elite throw their bile and spite at her(with comments from Toynbee etc that will get her a good duffing up by the Pankhursts, as she descends!); the more I respect her as my enemies enemy-so therefore my friend.
I agree entirely.
The BBC has SPDS – Sarah Palin derangement syndrome.
I agree. Sarah tends to grate on me personally , but , if she gets up the noses of the Lefties, she gets my full support. Anyone who annoys them has to be a good thing.
anybody who can get that old harridan Toynbee’s blood pressure through the roof is allright by me!!
The disgrace here is not the predictable BBC take on anything connected with the Tea Party – or anything else in US politics for that matter – it’s the failure simply to report on events and personalities. This behaviour is straight from the Richard Black/Roger Harrabin School of Reportage: school motto if we ignore it, if it’s not reported, it never happened (and, with luck it’ll go away). Richard and Roger think it works for any evidence contrary to their religious beliefs and Mardell thinks it works for anything contrary to the Democratic belief in the holiness of the Redeemer – and community organizer – in the White House.
it’s the failure simply to report on events and personalities
Agree 100%, Umbongo.
BBC selective reporting, bias by ommission, one-sided views only, scarcely concealed loathing for their “opponents ” – sceptics, T-partiers, Republicans, anything to do with GWB, the Israel lobby, Christians, Palin …. Its a long hatelist for an impartial international news boadencaster.
“As the 2012 Presidential election gets underway (ugh, already?)”
And just think ! We, too, could be enjoying 18 month long election campaigns if the idiot proposal to bring in fixed terms for parliaments gathers any legs.
I can’t wait.
Another brilliant post from David P, talk about letters from America 😀 .
For around a billion quid BBC news we get an error riddled censored gap filled mush of pro democrat spin emanating from the likes of Mardy and that silly cow wassername. Fortunately for us we have a bridge to the land of the free and a source of information that the democreeps do not control.
Just imagine Cain West or either of them with Bobby jindal as VP a right wing partnership going in to the elections, it would make the beeboids have a collective mental breakdown. How would they cope with it? It would be worth it just to witness the beeboid meltdown. No bleedin wonder the beeboids are talking up the loser candidate Romney pimped by the establishment Rebublican elite. Bound to lose against Omahabama and he is white and male,a perfect attack target for the bin diver smear merchants of the left.
As far as the BBC are concerned a loser candidate they can easily pigeon hole and smear is gold to them. Romney would almost guarantee that Obama has a chance of winning re election.
Interesting times ahead I think, Romney is the choice of the old guard, the vested interests, the elites who are used to having their elite establishment at the centre of political life and he is white and has about as much vote appeal as a bad case of halitosis. Imagine the US black vote that was rock solid Obama having a choice between two black candidates, it would break up that block vote like a sledgehammer cracking a egg and that is the democreep and by extension the BBCs greatest nightmare. Smash that block vote and the democreeps are toast.
As for the tea party and the BBC, the BBC need us to believe they are redneck KKK inbred hillbilly good ole boys just itching for a lynching. It is an essential part of the narrative. As Cain progresses you can be sure the BBC have some very nasty tricks up their sleeves and then we will get a true insight into the real BBCs ugly rancid soul.
“that silly cow wassername” doesn’t exactly narrow the field among Beeboidesses !
Its a photofit of them all really, I cant be arsed to remember their names. I really should be more disciplined in my approach but I really cant be arsed 😀
There is something pretty creepy about the BBCs mindset when it comes to the USA.
The BBC and their like never seem to question why it is that Mexicans will give their lives to get into America-Eritreans will risk being shot by Egyptian borger guards just to try their luck in Israel. That we are a Euro soft touch still says that there are many Muslim countries that no one wants to go to-and certainly not stay in. Seeing as so many Muslims are not staying in the umma countries like Algeria, Morocco etc says something about the West that the BBC types hate…unless we try to send the fakes and criminals back, where the rule of law gets dumped-and the nasty West is to blame for splitting up families.
The west can never win as far as the BBC etc are concerned. Obama certainly won`t allow it-Jimmy Carter without the peanuts as far as I can tell!
Still, it`s the greatest nation on earth-and only wish that the Americans would stop BBC personnel going there…let them try Saudi or Sudan instead!
America deserves better than Obamarama-and really should be scraping Mardells, Kitty Litter etc off its shoes. Send our sillies back to ussend some people out on a gap year who might yet have a future to make!