Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Last evening I watched the Rachel Maddow Show.  Maddow, via her producers and writers, commented at length about the recurrence of disruptions at Town Hall Meetings.

While the world was markedly different during the American Revolution and resultant U.S. Constitution, I thought about the First Amendment.  I contemplated, how the Founding Fathers would have felt about organized and guided disruptions of deliberations and meetings related to the developing Constitution (and subsequent government).  My mind went to "dissent'.

Dissent is defined by Webster's dictionary as "to differ in belief or opinion."

Our right to dissent is assured by the first amendment.

It states,

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So, the Tea Party town hall meeting 'disruptors' are very much within their rights to dissent. (Let me state up-front that most people who associate with the Tea Party Movement are not 'disruptors'.) The next question in my mind?  "How can the disruptors feel it is within their rights (to dissent) to show up at open forums with the intent to drown out dialog and information?

Other questions. Where are we headed if the nation segments into camps based in socio/political dogma - RIGHT AND LEFT?  Is it truly democrat to practice emailing guidelines,and hiring professionals, to possibly agitate an already concerned and maybe angry audience. (death panels!!! was the battle cry. from the RIGHT).

After a brief set of words related to a town hall meeting in a St. Louis, MO suburb, I have posted the actual Right Principles (a guide to disrupting town hall meetings). The following exert is not related to boisterous disruptions; it is an exert of an article that focuses on one Republican Congressman's 'flip' conducting of his meeting as he states intended humorous remarks about how other legislators were treated in their meetings.

http://www.examiner.com/x-15877-Kansas-City-Young-Democrat-Examiner~y2009m8d7-Orchestrated-outrage-fake-protesters-disrupt-healthcare-town-hall-meetings

At a town hall meeting in St. Louis, where he did not take questions, Representative Todd Akin (R-MO) joked that democratic lawmakers "almost got lynched" by angry protesters. The audience responded with applause. Representative Akin added that the GOP does not "approve of lynchings" while making a choking motion that prompted laughter from the crowd. Clearly in bad taste, the joke seems particularly off-putting considering that, Congressman Bishop (D-NY) was escorted to his car by five police officers for his own safety after a town hall meeting, Representative Brad Miller (D-NC) has received a direct threat against his life, and Representative Frank Kratovil (D-MD) was hung in effigy by a healthcare protester.

Perhaps foreshadowing fear mongering at its best, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) stated "Fear, I would say, precedes anger, and I think there are a lot of people who tell me they are scared of what they see coming out of Washington...I see real opportunities for us."

I have to ask, "What is that about". Is that democracy at work? Why should I not think back to Germany 1933 and the rise of the 'brown shirts'? My point relates to suppression of free and open speech, not the coming of the Third Reich per se.

I ask that some LEFTAKERS read the following document, and help me understand why this is the right way show opposition to health care reform (Or bills that were being developed in Congress).