But a passing reference to an unrelated rumor was more interesting. And it said a lot more about the way the Tea Party rank-and-file gets worked up over things that aren’t even happening.

This week’s baseless rumor apparently is that President Obama is planning to ban protests on the National Mall. “Treason,” one Tea Partier responded when he heard that. Another yelled something about “revolution.”

Here’s the video. Below’s my explanation of why the rumor appears to be totally baseless.

The actual cap-and-trade portion of the meeting was boring. A retired CEO of the local electric membership corporation offered a one-sided account on climate change legislation: a lot of suspect numbers and scary misrepresentations. Of course, it was a article of faith that climate change actually isn’t actually happening. Basically, it was the climate change briefing you’d expect at Tea Party meeting.

But then an audience member asked for more information on “the plan to, quote, shut down all gatherings on the Washington Monument mall after this year, not allowing any more demonstrations or protests or whatever on the Washington mall after this year.”

Whoaa, I hadn’t heard that one! And, judging from the howls, neither had a lot of the audience members.

Jim Richter, who led the meeting, told the crowd the rumor was true: “Trust me. It is in the works. By executive order by our, uhm, great leader, he’s going to try to push it through. I’ve already seen a copy of the proposed regulations. … It’s against our First Amendment Rights, but they don’t give a damn what we think.”

That really got the crowd going. “Treason.” “Revolution.” And lots of jeers and cheers.

One problem, of course. There’s no evidence for the rumor.

I sent an e-mail to Richter two days later: “Do you have any more information about the ban on National Mall protests. I’d love to get a copy of that Executive Order.”

His answer: “I sent a question to the National group yesterday to see what the status of this is. I will pass the info on as soon as I receive an answer.”

So I did my own research. I sent my note straight to the source — the National Park Service, which manages the National Mall. Here’s the answer I got from an NPS spokesman:

We have no idea where that rumor came from.For nearly 100 years, it has been the mission of the National Park Service to not only preserve and protect our nation’s natural and historic resources, but also to make those areas available for use by all Americans.

On occasion, that use transcends mere education or recreation, as evidenced by the numerous First Amendment activities on the National Mall. National Park areas provide a forum in which citizens can exercise their constitutional rights, including the freedom of speech and assembly. The United States Constitution guarantees everyone the right to speak freely and to assemble peaceably, regardless of the content of their message.

In approving requests to demonstrate on the National Mall, the National Park Service is not condoning the message being delivered by their members. Rather, we are providing an arena in which they can deliver their message, the validity of which will ultimately be decided by those who hear it.

And of course we are providing the opportunity for those with a dissenting point of view to make their beliefs known as well.

The National Park Service hosts hundreds of First Amendment activities each year at nearly 400 sites across the country. Though the messages delivered are as diverse as the parks that host them, the one constant is that each of those assemblies is a living, breathing example of our nation’s democratic ideals and freedoms.

We host numerous first amendment demonstrations on the National Mall each and only ask that organizations obtain a permit and abide by the various rules and regulations.

We have no restrictions or “bans” on any groups.

Gee, that sounds pretty unequivocal. When I sent Richter a copy of the spokesman’s note, however, the story changed. This time, he wrote back that, “If I remember correctly it was the Capitol police that were proposing this restriction and I was told they report to Nancy Pelosi!”

OK, so Bogeyman #1 (Obama) isn’t involved because he’s in the Executive Branch, right? So it’s gotta be Bogeyman #2 because she supposedly controls the Capitol Police.

Richter now says he’s waiting for information from “the source” — but he’s not saying who that source was. We can all form our opinions about where the rumor came from. Somebody could have made it up whole. Somebody could have misunderstand some innocuous document somewhere. Who knows?

What’s more disturbing is the crowd’s gullibility. Two-hundred or so people left a meeting on climate change this week convinced that President Obama was signing an executive order designed to shut them up, and they were pretty darned incensed about it. It never seemed to occur to them that they were basing their fury on no evidence.

Will they ever be told their anger was founded on a baseless rumor? Would anything ever convince them it was a baseless rumor anyway?

Related posts:

1. Copenhagen Day 1: EPA sends a message I’m closely following the the Copenhagen climate change summit at...
2. Top 5 tall tales by climate change deniers in 2009 t was a banner year for myth making about climate...
3. The top 9 non-climate-change eco-stories of 2009 My wife, my editor, my family, my dog — they...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.