It is such a treat to receive comments that are ill informed and that try to make a connection between the Tea Party and those calling for immigration enforcement. They are not one and the same, and up until recently the Tea Party has not ventured into addressing immigration in any meaningful way. Actually from what I've seen they've tried to avoid it like the plague. Mainly because there are those within the Tea Party movement like Dick Armey of Freedom Works and Sarah Palin who are pro-illegal alien. There are also those in the Tea Party that are pro-business at any cost, including allowing cheap illegal alien labor into the country.

The Tea Party is jumping on the immigration enforcement bandwagon because it is a hot topic. Some in the Tea Party might have agreed all along, but they surely haven't scrambled to run to the forefront to address this issue, until now.

So, I received a comment from someone calling themselves "Montana" on my article on the preparation for the Phoenix Rising Rally in Arizona.

"Montana" is just smart enough to hurt themselves. He's absorbed just enough information from the TV to run around spouting it, without actually having to think for themselves and realize that their arguments are self-sinking. While they criticize the Tea Partiers for blindly following Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin, their statements below are almost verbatim of what Keith Olberman or Rachel Maddow repeat every night on their shows.

Let us go over some of these "ground breaking" and "original statements" that "Montana" puts forth (and let us not criticize too much that Montana refuses to provide their real name while slinging around wild accusations):

The Tea Bag Party are just “haters not debaters” or as others have dubbed them “screamers not dreamers”, with their failed attempts at stopping Healthcare reform, they say they respect the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence but they do not mind passing laws, through weak Governors (no one voted for this crazy) who only cares about getting elected Governor, on the backs of undocumented workers, that will not pass Constitution muster.

We shall see if the law stands up to Constitutional muster. As for her becoming governor, unfortunately for yourself that is the way the law is in Arizona. It's not like she overthrew the government of Arizona and appointed herself.

Brewer signed into law;

1. S.B. 1070,
2. No permit conceal weapons law,
3. The famous Birthers law,
4. Banning Ethic studies law,

5. Could she be behind the Mural in Prescott, Arizona, ordered to be whiten,
6. On deck to pass, no citizenship to babies born to undocumented workers,

7. If she can read she should look up Arizona’s House Bill 2779 from two years ago (which was un-constitution and failed when legally challenged),
8. The boycotted Martin Luther King Day, what idiots don’t want another holiday? Yes, you guessed it Arizona.

Well Arizona, you can boycott new holidays and keep passing crazy laws and the rest of us will continue to challenged them in a court of law and continue to add cities to our Boycott of your state.

As always, people like "Montana" just don't get it.

1) SB1070 does not surpass the federal law, it works within it. Therefore is within their right.

2)No permit conceal carry. The criminals already use this, why shouldn't citizens be able to defend themselves? Or are you saying that criminals wouldn't be concealing weapons if it wasn't for the law?

3) "birther law" whatever. I'm not sure why Obama just doesn't open up all of his records. Until then, I would expect a portion of this country to always question. It's amazing how people like "Montana" call others haters, yet the vileness that comes from their mouths for people questioning things far surpasses anything those questioning have said. Since when should people shut up and not question? What kind of society does "Montana" want us to live in?

4) It is Ethnic studies, not Ethic studies. Maybe you should receive a little course on ethics, as your entire comment is an attack on a group of people as racists who have done nothing racist except call for enforcement of the laws. You have no ethics.

5) Nice insinuation of an unproven claim that Brewer has anything to do with some far flung mural.

6) Birthright citizenship. Yes, we should continue to allow our 14th Amendment, written to guarantee slaves citizenship in the United States when freed, to be usurped by law-breaking illegal aliens and their supporters so that they can receive taxpayer funded benefits. I mean everyone is for that right? The black community in particular should be outraged at this. Americans support legislation in poll after poll that clarifies the 14th Amendment and stops the continued influx of birth tourism and "anchor babies". There is not hate, there is simply a demand that our constitutional amendments be properly interpreted and enforced. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is quite clear in its statement.

7) Arizona's 2279, better known as the Legal Arizona Workers Act would have made it mandatory that businesses ensure they have a legal workforce or have their business license yanked. The issue with the bill was that it did not contain any non-discriminatory language in it, a fact that allowed it to be challenged. While legally they could challenge it, any challenge would simply be because they didn't want a legal workforce, not because of any discrimination.

Being legal in the United States has no race, color or ethnicity. Those challenging it were doing so because they want an illegal workforce here and for no other reason. Trying to compare 2279 to SB1070 is laughable because SB1070 include non-discrimination language in it. This is what is known as a "straw man" argument. Comparing two totally different things and trying to come to the same conclusion, not by logic, but by a simple want or desire.

8) Now as for the Martin Luther King Jr. and banning of ethnic studies, they go hand in hand. "Montana's" argument is laughable because Martin Luther King Jr. would have been against ethnic studies, which teaches racial pride as opposed to being part of a history course. Martin Luther King Jr. would have signed into law a ban on ethnic studies and declared that all children should receive the same equal schooling, where one race or ethnicity wasn't given a superior position.

And you call others the racists? You argue that others should be forced to worship at the altar of race and ethnicity. You couldn't be more clear in your racist position.

"what idiots don’t want another holiday?" and my point is proven. "Montana" could give a crap about Martin Luther King Jr. They are not going to buy a book of King's writings and ruminate over them on the day off and realize that he stood against everything that they are proclaiming. It's all about a free day off with pay! I mean what idiot doesn't want that? Who cares what the holiday stands for or is about? This is what you call laziness. Also "Montana" attempts to smear the state of Arizona as racist because they want the holiday so they can be lazy. It's called playing the race card.

I oppose new holidays as well. I believe people like King should be honored in our everyday life. All citizens working together for a single goal regardless of race, ethnicity or background. People like "Montana" would try to paint me as racist for such a statement, but you know what? I would oppose a John F Kennedy or Ronald Reagan Federal holiday (a day off with pay) as well even though I agree with them on some issues and outlook, and they're white! I'd be fine with a JFK Day or Reagan Day, but spare me the "day off with pay" argument for implementing one.

I real cannot believe anything that comes out of Brewer’s mouth, in an interview she first said her father had died in Germany fighting the Nazi in World War II (war ended 1945) but of course we find out the truth that father was never in Germany and died in California in 1955. But we are suppose to believe everything else she says, right!

She can fight her own battles on this one. As for Brewer, I'm not a sheep either. When she is right I'll agree, when she is wrong I won't. Unlike "Montana" though I'll actually tell you logically why I disagree rather than just making a list with no reasoning arguments. "Montana" starts off with calling people “haters not debaters” and “screamers not dreamers”, but their entire comment is exactly that. Attempts to slam people as racists by making a list and not debating the issue on why things were passed into law or even brought up is the epitome of a "hater not debater".

Case in point with the rest of "Montana's" rant, which is just a diatribe with no argument, about Tea Partiers. I'm not sure why they went in this direction after posting the "list of hate" above, the Phoenix Rising Rally was not part of a Tea Party (a sponsor of the event was Tea Party Nation, but their contribution was simply sending a message to their members that a rally was happening, they provided no logistics, cash or organizing). I won't rebut it all as most of it is just statement with no basis in fact.

As for the Tea Bag Party, their phony patriotism is sickening; they are just racists going by another name. We all know you are just itching to put a sheet on their head?

No proof to any of this.

Let’s face it the Republicans had eight years to deal with health care, immigration, energy (remember Cheney’s secret meetings with oil companies where loosening regulation and oversight were sealed), climate change and financial oversight and governance and they failed.

They had 6 years. The last two years of Bush's presidency, Congress was controlled by the Democrats. So there's the first lie. The second lie is that health care needed to be "fixed". "Montana" has bought into the fallacy that the whole system is broken and needs to be destroyed rather than to have some issues addressed. Same with the other topics noted. On immigration they tried to change the law to give an amnesty to illegal aliens. It failed because the people didn't want it en masse. No argument from "Montana" that the laws already on the books are not being enforced and that if they would have been for the past decades we wouldn't even have to address the issue of illegal immigration as there would be no problem.

Energy is only an issue in certain portions of the country and it is mainly because of self-imposed regulations they have placed on themselves.

Climate change is bullshit. Just another thing "Montana" is stating as a fact that needs to be addressed when his whole stance on the issue has been debunked due to the junk science they came up with to state that there was a climate change problem that was impacted dramatically by humans. This is the arrogance of man shown in full force. That some think we are so powerful that we can control nature. Give me a break.

Financial oversight I'll agree on. Those who were supposed to be watching were not. But financial oversight cuts both ways. In the private sector it went out of control, but what "Montana" probably wouldn't agree with is that government spending went out of control as well and should have been reigned in long ago. That's the type of financial oversight we truly need.

It appears that the Republican Party is only good at starting wars (two in eight years, with fat contracts to friends of Cheney/Bush) but not at winning wars as seen by the continuing line of body bags that keep coming home.

Every death of our fine men and women is a tragedy, but "Montana" would have you believe this is the most horrific war the United States has ever been in. More people have been killed along our southern border in Mexico during the last few years than in the entire wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but you don't see "Montana" outraged at that. It's also nice how it's just the "Republicans" who got us into Iraq and Afghanistan, when the Democrats voted along with them and have now been in charge in Congress (since 2006) and the presidency.

The Republicans party will continue turned inward to their old fashion obstructionist party

To "Montana" there should only be one party and they should all agree.

(and their Confederacy appreciation roots)

The confederacy was Democrat. Lincoln was a Republican. Don't tell "Montana" that though because it doesn't fit into his "toothless hick" "right wing agenda" of racism and slavery.

because they continue to allow a small portions (but very loud portion) of their party of “birthers, baggers and blowhards” to rule their party.

The first Tea Party was held in April 2009. There have been no mass elections since the Tea Party began. I'm not sure how the Tea Party has been in control of the Republican party for the past 10 years, but that's what "Montana" would have you believe. Not sure why "blowhards" are simply considered in the Republican party, because "Montana" clearly fits the definition.

As for "Birthers", they are a fringe element. Nice of "Montana" to try and continue to lump everyone into the same grouping. It's like trying to compare an apple and an orange. On some things they are the same, they are fruits, on other things they differ. If you like oranges you may not like apples. In "Montana's" world if you like oranges, you must like apples and vice-versa.

I will admit that this fringe is very good at playing “Follow the Leader” by listening to their dullard leaders, Beck, Hedgecock, Hannity, O’Reilly, Rush, Savage, Sarah Bailin, Orly Taitz, Victoria Jackson, Michele Bachmann and the rest of the Blowhards and acting as ill programmed robots (they have already acted against doctors that perform abortions).

One guy shot an abortion doctor, so all Tea Party people are violent murderers. Nice stretch there. As for "follow the leader", how is Olberman doing these days "Montana"? The truly independent do not follow anyone, yet by these statements it is quite clear that "Montana" is what he accuses others of. A regurgitating robot.

The Birthers and the Tea Bag party crowd think they can scare, intimidate and force others to go along with them by comments like “This time we came unarmed”, let me tell you something not all ex-military join the fringe militia crazies who don’t pay taxes and run around with face paint in the parks playing commando, the majority are mature and understand that the world is more complicated and grey than the black and white that these simpleton make it out to be and that my friend is the point.

"Montana" argues against themselves here. While trying to lump everyone into some wacko, extremist grouping previously, they now come out and say that the militia is a fringe element. I agree with your statement completely "Montana", not all of the Tea Party is involved in the militia. As for the military and vets, do you really want to go there? I'll take your several hundred vets that agree with your viewpoints above and put them against the million of vets that don't agree with 90% of what you (including myself). Next time I'd stay away from the "veteran card", it makes you look like an ass.

As for "the Tea Bag Party" the Phoenix Rising Rally had nothing to do with Tea Parties, so you show your ignorance once again.

"The Birthers and the Tea Bag party crowd think they can scare, intimidate and force others to go along with them" unlike the left that continues to assault people, throw bricks through windows and make other Reichstag like tactics? Paying union thugs to get on a provided bus to be brought to someone's private property to shout at them with bullhorns when the only one inside is a 14-year-old kid? You mean tactics like that?

I will not speak for the Tea Party, but all I've seen from them is standing on designated, permit-held property and exercising their rights to make their statements. The left are the ones who can't seem to follow the laws, running onto stages with red-painted hands and shoving them in people's faces,, storming university stages because they don't like what a guest of the university is saying with their first amendment rights and threatening violence if someone shows up to the university after being invited.

Your lies don't work here and just because you don't agree with lower taxes, less regulation, less intrusion into people's private lives by the government, want the border secured and illegal aliens to be stopped from entering or taking taxpayer funds - all of the sudden "they're a bunch of racists!"

Why don't you make an actual argument? Oh that's right, because you don't have one, hence the name calling.

The world is complicated and people like Hamilton, Lincoln, and Roosevelt believed that we should use government a little to increase social mobility, now it’s about dancing around the claim of government is the problem. The sainted Reagan passed the biggest tax increase in American history and as a result federal employment increased, but facts are lost when mired in mysticism and superstition. For a party that gave us Abraham Lincoln, it is tragic that the ranks are filled with too many empty suits and the crazy Birthers who have not learned that the way our courts work is that you get a competent lawyer, verifiable facts and present them to a judge, if the facts are real and not half baked internet lies, then, and only then, do you proceed to trial.

(emphasis added)

Umm, isn't that what the "birthers" have been doing? Just because someone has an opinion doesn't mean that they aren't making a case. Or are you arguing that you are not allowed to hold a sign, wear a t-shirt or write commentary about anything that has not already faced legal challenge and passed muster. Nice try on playing the minuscule arguments from Republicans that you agreed with. Let's talk about the other 99% of things they did. Just because you have 1% that you agree with isn't going to win anyone over to your argument. It is like those who argue that JFK cut taxes. Do you think that lefties came flying into the Republican party after hearing such a fact? Umm, no.

As for your 3 named leaders, I can probably find another hundred Founding Fathers and presidents who would stand against government having any hand in "increasing social mobility". What is your point?

The Birthers seem to be having a problem with their so called “Internet facts”. Let’s face it no one will take the Birthers seriously until they win a case, but until then, you will continue to appear dumb, crazy or racist, or maybe all three.

Not sure how this makes them appear racist, but whatever. You throw that word around so much that it holds no meaning. As for dumb or crazy, insulting them isn't going to make them go away simply because you don't agree with their arguments. Funny thing about "Internet facts", they don't always come in the form of a page on a website, sometimes they come in the form of comments. Like coments that claim Governor Jan Brewer is a racist along with all of Arizona. Or that Republicans controlled all of government for 8 years from 2000-2008. Or that the Martin Luther King Jr holiday was fought against in Arizona because they are racists, or that the Tea Party consists almost entirely of people with no logical arguments or debate in them and are just a bunch of dumb, crazy robots following some leaders. Funny how those "Internet Facts" are spread in the comment areas of webpages.

I heard that Orly Taitz now wants to investigate the “Republican 2009 Summer of Love” list: Assemblyman, Michael D. Duvall (CA), Senator John Ensign (NV), Senator Paul Stanley (TN), Governor Mark Stanford (SC), Board of Ed Chair, and Kristin Maguire AKA Bridget Keeney (SC), she wants to re-establish a family values party, that is like saying that the Catholic Church cares about the welling being of children in their care, too late for that. Yee Haw!

Wow, you heard that about Taitz? I didn't. You know why, because I think for myself. I look at facts and reason and logic and don't just going around chasing some individual whom I claim holds no standing, yet I continue to pay attention to as if I fantasize nightly about her.

Now get back to your MSNBC "Montana", before I whip you with my belt.