Top Ten Signs From the Gateway Arch September Tea Party Rally

• @Kenny Powers Two words: proportional response

• Also, I got so caught up in the comments section that I forgot to say what actually came to mind when reading the article (if you can call it an article). I haven't see such a lame attempt at bashing people in my life. Did the editor make William Melton tone down the language, or is he accustomed to showing up to gun fights with pepper spray? I'd feel a lot better if he said that someone made him take down the photos of the really nasty signs and clean up his language, because they were so bad that they weren't even suitable in a publication that generates ad revenue from trannie call-girls (boys?).

• Food for thought: ED- You said that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration developed the internet, which may be, but it was INVENTED by Al Gore! Give credit where it is due! In my humble opinion, if you are someone who is trying to marginalize the Tea Party as a group of insignificant morons, then you are making a mistake. These people go to these rallies on their own time/dime, and they ARE the tax base. These aren't people who are sucking the system dry, they are pushing the pistons that allows our government to operate. If you alienate them, good luck with having an EPA, DOT, DOD, etc. Because the truth is, if the tax base decides they have no reason to work (for any reason... monetary, representation, or otherwise) then this country is screwed beyond belief. The Mexican govt. will be the one building the wall and arresting illegal immigrants, because the idea of prosperity in America will be gone and there wont be ANYTHING to hand out. I'd also like to point out that the Tea Party doesn't seem to me to have a Democrat vs. Republican stance. From what I have seen, the Tea Party has equally attacked Republicans. For example, several Republican incumbents lost their job in the primary elections (i.e. see what has occurred in Delaware & Alaska)... so I don't see your basis for that claim. I think it is more accurate that they are tired of the "Status Quo" of our Federal Government rewarding the people who deserve the least reward through social welfare & bailouts. Party alliance doesn't seem to have anything to do with it. I should note, to be fair to both sides, that I have never attended a Tea Party function of any sort.

• Initally I think the sign was lettered "CUNT PONGRESS".

• I AM AN AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food and Drug Administration. At the appropriate time (as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory), I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school. After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department. I then log on to the internet which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and post on freerepublic.com and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.

• @CHUCKtheFED "Leo Strauss from University of Chicago fathered neoconservazatism." Besides being spelled wrong, this is factually inaccurate. In fact, Nathan Tarcov (The Director of The Leo Strauss Center) wrote the following article demarcating Strauss' political policy from the Bush administrarion's neocon foreign policy: http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=166 Again, you're mistaking influence for inception. However, as Michael C. Williams notes in the European Journal of International Relations, "In recent discussions of neoconservatism, much of this debate has concerned the influence of Leo Strauss, and there is little doubt that Strauss�s thinking has been influential in many aspects of neoconservatism...but it is equally important not to over-estimate the influence or the specificity of the Straussian position...for the roots of neoconservatism are broader than Straussian philosophy alone." [http://ejt.sagepub.com/content/11/3/307.full.pdf+html] And Steven B. Smith, professor of political science at Yale, contends that the links between Strauss and neoconservatism are absolute bunk, going as far as to state: The association of Strauss with neo-conservatism has been repeated so many times that it leaves the mistaken impression that there is a line of influence leading directly from Strauss�s readings of Plato and Maimonides to the most recent directives of the Defense Department. Nothing could be more inimical to Strauss�s teaching. "There seems to be some debate in your arguments... as to when...exactly... "life" (ism) begins." How does making an off-handed allusion to abortion contribute to this discussion? What possible relevance does that even have? -The New Scum

• @Anonymous I did not omit Leo Strauss from my "lineage." The point was quite simple. ChucktheFed claimed that neoconservativism originated at the University of Chicago. Hence, I was merely illustrating that this claim was inaccurate. Just because a professor from U of C can be linked to neoconservative thought does not mean that philosophy originated at that University -- NYU has a solid postdoc program in Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis, but that doesn't mean they started it. Also, whereas Milton Friedman did visit the country, give some lectures, and correspond with Pinochet, he was never a full-fledged architect of the Chilean economy. Admittedly, some of the Chilean economists did receive training at U of C, but they also received schooling at the Catholic University of Chile. Again, linkage does not equate to inception. It's historically (and intellectually) reckless to claim that these links necessarily mean that U of C deserves credit as the origin of said school of thought. -The New Scum

• @ steve 2) Your intellectually weak attempt at snark completely missed an obvious one. The picture of the sign with a Ron Paul sticker next to one that reads, "Save America, buy American". A protectionist message next to a candidate who abhors protectionism. Bumper stickers are usually aimed at the most commo denominator, and so, the weakest link. But I think that as long as we are buying from offshore, ONLY because it is cheaper, then the end result, is that our own wages necessarily have to chase that price down to the bottom. Protectionism? No more so than when Webster issues "Webster Bucks" that benefit the buyer with discounts, and the sellers with local trade. If you will not support your self, then you will NEED protection(ism) from somebody. Your bumper sticker geiger counter is still in the 70's. @ the new scum. Leo Strauss from University of Chicago fathered neoconservazatism, and mentored Wlfowitz on his doctorate. Chile is an apt example, but with lots of help from Milton Friedman, an economist from? University of Chicago. There seems to be some debate in your arguments... as to when...exactly... "life" (ism) begins.

• @ the new scum You have omitted Leo Strauss from your lineage of Neoconservatism. Wolfowitz did his doctorate under Strauss. And though Chile is an apt example of Neoliberalism, it did happen with quite a bit of support from Milton Friedman, an economist from....(gasp) the University of Chicago. My whole point WAS that terms are complicated, and that to associate "bits" as matches, just doesn't hold water. So I ask then, are you then endorsing the RFT primer in political diversification?

• &#64;Wasabi From Wikipedia: "The definite article in English is <b>the</b> denoting person(s) or thing(s) already mentioned, under discussion, implied, or familiar." Meaning that the phrase 'the right to' in the Bill of Rights is an acknowledgement of something predating that statement. Since the specific rights have not been outlined before that statement, it is understood that the rights are implied or familiar, meaning predating the law at hand. Since it is not in reference to any previously established governmental or religious body, it is implied that it comes from somewhere else; IMO that points to natural rights and natural law. I admit that this is not an ironclad proof of natural law, but I would submit that that is proof of an acknowledgement that wherever rights come from, they predate government and are not to be granted by government, only protected.

• &#64;CHUCKtheFED Do you really think that neoliberalism is the best example? Liberalism is a complicated term due to its various meanings; on one hand, it's contemporary use tends to describe people on the left, i.e. a liberal. However, it can also refer to classical liberalism, which is more of a free market and limited government ideological base and this philosophy is precisely what the neoliberalism revival derives from. Consequently, neoliberalism does fall under the umbrella of liberalism when using the word in that (its proper) context. Also, I'm not sure where you got your information, but the neoliberalist movement did not begin at the University of Chicago. Admittedly, their school of economics is largely entrenched in that mindset and has helped spread the ideology, but the modern movement is typically traced back Chile's Augusto Pinochet (see: Neoliberalism: a very short introduction by Manfred B. Steger or this article - http://hir.harvard.edu/agriculture/neoliberalism-and-its-discontents) (By the way, I see nothing wrong with classical liberals like Judge Richard A. Posner who teaches at U of C's School of Law. I'm actually quite fond of his work and his book "Law, Pragmatism and Democracy" is one of my favorites.) As for neoconservative, well, I'm not sure how that originates with the University of Chicago either. According to Jonah Goldberg in an article for National Review, the phrase originated in Dissent magazine as an insult, i.e. the writer was trying to bash his colleagues and friends that had moved to the right. (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/206955/neoconservative-invention/jonah-goldberg) Hence, in its first usage the phrase was used to describe people who had become more "conservative." The term was later embraced by Irving Kristol (hence the reference to him) and he's considered the grandfather of neoconservatism. Granted, Albert Wohlstetter later came into the fray and he was a U of C professor. However, Kristol's founding of The Public Interest magazine probably did more to disseminate the neocon ideology than anything Wohlstetter did. Anyhow...the real point is simple, whereas neoconservatives and traditional conservatives may share some differences they are ultimately sharing an ideological zip code. Hence, the comment about the small tent party, i.e. your sign was broadcasting an exclusionary mindset that doesn't welcome differences within the same general ethos.

• I made the sign in picture #8. I am glad that at least one commenter realises the difference between NeoCons and Conservatives, but for the RFT, let's set a task shall we? Since NeoConservatism, and well as NEOLIBERALISM both spawned from the same place that our President lectured on the Constitution...John D.Rockefeller's University of Chicago, let's see if we can come to "TERMS" Is NeoLiberalism..... Liberalism? I'll wait while you google... cause I'm thinkin' the caption genius on these pics is NOT a poli-sci major, and may not realize neoliberalism to be globalism. And while you're at it.. look up "certain unalienable rights" from the Declaration of Independence. THIS is the source for where our "rights" come from. The Constitution and Bill of Rights enuimerate them. And those government pamphlets? the Constitutions? I'm pretty sure that those particular versions are from the Heritage Foundation... and NOT free government stuff" from and for folks that hate "free government stuff". I really am disappointed that a newspaper of your deprth in our community does not realize the importance of a well informed constituency. You remind me of Robin Carnahan's voter's instructions to the masses under the Arch when candidate Obama was here. Look THAT up and report on it... Mark Ogier Campaign For Liberty

• Fred, I was wondering how long it would take for someone here to play the race card. Nice try, but no I'm not a racist and that political assault weapon is out of bullets so put it away. Quite a few people were asleep while Bush was president. I'll let them speak for themselves. I wasn't one of them so I don't feel the need to apologize. I was complaining about Bush and the Republicans in congress doing the same thing that Obama and the Democrats are doing now. Making government bigger and more intrusive in our lives. You've been convinced that the TeaParty is about Democrats and Republicans. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact the best sign that I saw at a Tea Party was "We need a second party!". It summed up my feelings exactly. There is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. They are just taking control of different areas of our lives. But the end goal for both is the same. BIGGER GOVERNMENT! Nonfat White Guy

• &#64; Steve How does the word "the" definitively support the natural law position?

• Pathetic. 1) There is no cognitive dissonance in the handing out of documents. These usually are handed out by groups (like Cato) who actually want people to read the documents and include requests for donations in the back. They are used to promote groups and messages and are funded through many sources, one of which is donations solicited through these types of handouts. 2) Your intellectually weak attempt at snark completely missed an obvious one. The picture of the sign with a Ron Paul sticker next to one that reads, "Save America, buy American". A protectionist message next to a candidate who abhors protectionism. 3) You thought the tea party believed rights came from the Constitution? Do you pay attention? If you read the bill of rights, each right is outlined as 'the' right..., acknowledging that the rights outlined are natural and predate the constitution. 4) Most of the remainder of your comments are simply pathetic attempts at humor at the expense of people who, even if you disagree with their politics, are mostly just good, working people. I'm don't take part in the Tea Party, and I know that there are a lot of people there who are fodder for humor, but this attempt was pathetic.

• Hey Nonfat White Guy, If you would simply apologize for being off your game and not paying attention during the Bush administration, the rest of us might think you are legit. Very few Tea Partiers would cop to being sleeping at the wheel the prior 8 years, and the rest who would frequently appeal to the "I thought I trusted the guy" (except that you waited 8 years to wake up and decide he wasn't worth your trust). So you still want to pretend you are not racist?

• Sonia, I've been to several tea parties and have not heard anyone advocate for or against unions. Not even once. Did you have an answer to the question of why the unions have remained silent while GM is shipping jobs overseas? Personally if I were in a union, I'd be pretty ticked off about it. How do you know that the hero of the Tea Party movement is Ronald Reagan? I think by the very name "Tea Party", you would realize that most of the people they would use as hero's are a little further back in history than Ronald Reagan. I think he did some great things, but he also allowed congress to spend way too much money. I couldn't disagree more that the have nots don't have any opportunities in this country. I think that's a cop out. I had nothing and worked full time to pay my way through school. Yes it was tough, but nothing worthwhile is easy.

• DH - aren't the tea party conservatives AGAINST unions? I believe they are. And their hero, Reagan, was one of the first to start shipping jobs overseas and creating a rift between the wealthy and the poor. For some, the "american dream" is that the have-nots have just as much opportunity as the haves. And it is not so in our country, and is not something the Tea Party is advocating for.

• > Shouldn't a religious person believe that morals come from God, not paper and ink? Morals are rules of living which God/god advises you to do. He/he did not make up the rules. They are inherent. The idea that God just randomly makes up rules is a distraction to de-legitimize religion wholesale, which is very unfair. (I'm not religious, in case you were wondering.) > All Americans should realize that our rights are inherent. Exactly. The point of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is to recognize something you have no control over. It simply exists. You can claim it comes from some bigger entity (God/god/whatever), but it simply exists. Absolute capitalism is very much the same recognition that there are simply behaviors that exists, and here are some simple rules to get the best results.

• Kevin, I don't meet your criteria of being fat, but since you chose to refer to me by my race I'll answer your question. 1.)At the time I type this, our national debt is $13,451,265,737,624.90 and our elected officials are choosing to not only ignore the problem, but add to it with more programs we can't afford. This saddles us, our children, and our children's children with a life of servitude to our debtors. 2.)The few manufacturing jobs left in our country are continuing to move elsewhere. Take for example GM (Government Motors) which is using stimulus money to build more manufacturing plants in Mexico. Where are the unions on this one? 3.)Our government is intruding more and more into areas they have not been granted authority to do so by the constitution. Nationalized health care is the most obvious, but other offenses such as the over use of eminent domain are becoming more and more common place. 4.)Our tax system is inherently unfair and unsustainable. This Robin Hood mentality that government can reallocate wealth by robbing from the rich and giving to the poor is patently ridiculous. Don't believe me, ask yourself when was the last time you got a job from a poor person. I never have and my guess is that you haven't either. There is plenty more to be upset about, but I have to go back to work. The rich person I work for has ridiculously high taxes to pay so I need to gin up some business. Nonfat White Guy

• Captions are plain stupid. Shutup and just show the pics.

• fat white people angry at nothing in particular. "take our country back!" honestly fat white people, what specifically are you so mad about?

• I just like that in #7 the sign is talking about "cleaning" things up and the lady looks like she's smoking a cigarette. "Clean" is not really what I think of when I see someone smoking.

• Last Pic... 'Our rights are given to us by God not government and this large liter of Diet Coke that is obviously not working for me'

• No - our rights do not come from the Constitution. Our basic human rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc) come from our Creator. The Constitution was created to PROTECT these rights, not to create them. That is what the members of the Tea Party are saying. We wouldn't want these rights to come from the Constitution or government. Because whatever they can give you, they can just as easily take away.

• &#64;Crab If they were protesting the Arch as a symbol of the federal government, then you'd be 100% correct. However, they were not protesting the Arch; they were enjoying it. If you were protesting say, Mcdonalds, would you also eat lunch there? @Slonob From a legal perspective, your rights derive from the Constitution. Hence, you can challenge legislation based on its Constitutionality; you cannot challenge legislation based on whether or not it harmonizes with the state of Nature.

• Which of your captions are stupid and why. 10: Isn't protesting the federal government on federal land a really logical thing to do? If you were protesting say, Mcdonalds, would you not do so in front of Mcdonalds? 8: If you don't understand the difference between neo-conservatism and actual conservatism than you have simply fallen for the neo-con ploy like every one else. (This one might actually be intellectually dishonest on your part.) 5: Last I checked the tea party movement wasn't protesting against constitution pamphlets. 3: What you're saying here makes no sense. The American dream has absolutely nothing to do with collectivism/socialism. It's supposed to be about individuals working hard and earning their own way. So really, the American Dream is very much in line with what the Tea Party is doing. (This one might actually be intellectually dishonest on your part.)

• > rights derive from the Constitution Ah no. The Constitution describes how we will be governed. Your statement shows an ignorance of the document. I also bristled recently when I heard a religious person state that morals come from the bible. This strikes me as a similar philosophically dense statement. Shouldn't a religious person believe that morals come from God, not paper and ink? All Americans should realize that our rights are inherent. Whether you believe inherent means from God or by birth does not matter. The Constitution did not create them. In fact, it states which inherent rights the government, that it creates, shall not attempt to compromise.

• Love the fat guy drinking Diet Coke. Otherwise some clever signs from a movement that lacks any critical thinking. Communism? Taking your liberty? Czars? Give me a break. Obama is no radical, even though FoxNews and Rush tell you he is. What I look forward to, is the look on the faces of these smug and ill-informed folk after the November elections. This will be when their candidates for the most part fizzle and why? It's because you aren't "the voice of the American people". At best you're 20% of the right wing, repackaged. Democrats will lose seats, but not the wave you expect. You may be disproportionately louder than libs and moderates, but you still only get one vote. Obama is unlucky to have the economy still hanging over him. When it turns, and it will, you know-nothings will have nothing to whine about. Another day to look forward to.

• Cognac, that is exactly right, the constitution is a clearer definition of what is already afforded to us. Keeping the word "God" out of this is easy anyway. The rights are not "afforded" to us, they are inalienable you can not take them away. Without any reason right or want, you can not take away a right that is inalienable. Thanks for playing. The "state" of Tejas (Texas) is a Republic under treaty of annexation, a treaty that was never signed by congress and due to this we still reserve the right to secede. Please be aware this can and will occur if socialist type mentalities keep pushing for the basic deterioration of the union that once thrived on a free market prior to the manipulation and poor judgment of the ever growing and all watching government. I don't believe in god in any basic sense. I have a feeling we have something around us or ...above whatever, but who cares...live life as you would want to live so long as others are not harmed or infringed. Thanks, Picalo

• And the declaration of independence mentions "Nature's God". This phrase does not refer to a christian God that most Americans follow. Jefferson was not a man who believed in Jesus, although he respected his teachings. This term probably refers to a god in the deist sense then the standard view of God in our current society. More as a creator and not a overseeing all-knowing deity.

• Actually, the original Pledge of Allegiance, which was penned in 1892 did not contain the words "under God." Admittedly, the author was a Christian, but he was also a socialist. The phrase "under God" was added in 1954. Oh, and the Declaration of Independence only mentions God once. Hence, the point isn't about fear; it's about the fact that our political rights derive from the Constitution - not from religious text or philosophy. At no point did this post bash God. It merely pointed out that there was some inaccuracies with the way that name was being invoked. Seriously, why is it wrong to point out these discrepancies? As for the photographer, did it ever occur to you that this person simply wanted to photograph the event and that there was no scheming taking place? By the way, you know the saying about assuming...

• Yea your right, i was wrong, i feel dumb. It is in the Declaration of Independence, Pledge of Allegiance, and on all of our money... You know that obviously, the point i was attempting to get across is that i just dont understand the fear and distaste that some people feel when the "G" word is mentioned. To me God doesnt mean a particular religion or book, just acknowledging a higher power that compels us to do better. As for Kholood, I apologize i feel like a jerk, im not sure if thats a guy a or girls name, and im not even positive if that is a middle eastern name. Regardless, by using my racist skills of deduction, im going to assume that this person is someone the RFT thought may get shit from people at a tea party. ive never been to one, so im curious if Kholood had a good experience or not... so yea. Where you see the term American Dream as homogeneous i personally see it more open ended and fluid. It can be almost anything, just as a dream at night can range from the mundane to the outlandish... But what makes it American is if you get too crazy or you hurt somebody, if the system works right, you'll be punished for it... and even more if you work hard and/or have talent you can make it... But it can be hard to take the cynicism out of that term the way things have gone the last 20-25 years...

• NO WHERE in the Constitution does the word "God." Not even in the Presidential Oath listed in Article II Section 1 of the Constitution which details the oath of office for the President. You can look it up Chapter and Verse. Anyone that says God gives us our laws apparently never heard of free will. We give ourselves whatever government we get. If anything when Adam and Eve supposedly ate the Apple the snake offered we surrendered any pretense that God gives us our laws. We are making it up as we go along.

• Actually, the word God is never mentioned in the Constitution. Not sure why you would say otherwise... However, the First Amendment clearly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." As far as Kholood goes, I'm not entirely sure what you mean. So, yeah. Finally, the comment regarding the American Dream was the exact opposite of narrow. It was highlighting the homogeneous nature of the phrase, i.e. it consolidates the nation into a singular identity and assumes that it shares the same dream. Why use such a consolidating metaphor? That's narrow. P.S. Even though God is never mentioned in the Constitution, the word welfare does pop up in the first sentence. ;-P

• Sorry I Loeshed out a lil too much on that... I think i was projecting anger from the other articles i've read here... For starters how can you not say anything about a 8 foot pair of american flag print Zubaz pants!! But for real, I think you have a very negative and narrow view of what the American Dream is all about, thats kinda sad considering alot of you people workin for the paper are prob living your own version of it. God is named often and early in the Constitution. Believe it or not theres other books than the bible that mention God too... I think an interesting side story to all of this is what the photographer, Kholood Eid, thought of the tea partiers and how Kholood was treated. It was a very interesting choice, actually really smart. I'll take the papers silence on the matter as a sign that everything went quite opposite of what you hoped. Party Time Excellent

• What exactly is intellectually dishonest about it?

• IDK why i even bother with doing this... U just dont get it. At all. Besides being intellectually dishonest.. the lil captions u put out there were lame as hell. Awful. Not funny. At all. With all the shit u guys talk, I was lookin for signs with racist comments and the prez being hung in effegy... Im sure if it was there you woulda shown it front page. But, alas, its just a bunch of old corny white people who care about our country... I know u guys feel u have to put out extra effort to try to counterbalance the ground swell that is happening in "your town" so your buddies at all the other cookie cutter mags like this around the country dont clown you... Its not working. Your bias is completely outshining your journalistic integrity... Good job. You win, i just dont know what at yet.

TotalComments: 38