Tag Archives: tea party

GOP establishment more dangerous than DNC

If the Republican sellouts who are “the establishment” wanted to eliminate their nemeses the grassroots Constitutional Libertarian tea party — what better way than to allow the Democrat socialists/Marxists now in power to do the work for them?

If the Democrats think they can be successful in silencing us — will the Republican sellouts who have all the assets and resources (think Wall Street and big business money) stand by and be silent as we are silenced, harassed and ridiculed. Even placed on government enemies lists (some of us are already there) to destroy us?

Will the government, now inseparable from the Democratic Party, stop at silencing us or will they destroy us using their tools of tyranny such as DOJ, IRS, DHS, NSA and a host of other government agencies to even have us arrested, tried and convicted in Kangaroo Courts?

There is precedent and it is accelerating.

I believe the Republican establishment is much more dangerous to individual liberty, free market economy (not today’s capitalism), limited government and strong national self-defense (not nation building) than the socialist/Marxist Democratic political machine. see more…

( -)-(- )Comments Off

The GOP isn’t fracturing, it’s transforming into libertarians

The Week has a three-point list of divisions the Republican Party is currently squabbling over:

1. Libertarians vs. social conservatives

These two GOP strains have never gotten along with each other. One group says government should stay out of people’s personal lives while the other tries to impose its own morality on others.

2. Right wing populists vs. the pro-business crowd

Despite campaign rhetoric, pro-business Republicans are usually just fine with government subsidies, liberal immigration policies, and bailouts — as long as they help keep the profits flowing. But the populist strain in the party sees big business as no better than big government.

3. Deficit reduction hawks vs. small government activists

Though it would seem these two groups have a lot in common, real deficit hawks recognize we must raise taxes along with cutting spending to get the country out from under the debt burden. But the small government fanatics are against all tax increases for any reason.

Republicans have been able to paper over their differences for decades, mainly by uniting the party against the common enemy of “big government.” But when the GOP controlled all branches of government during the Bush years, they actually did nothing to shrink government. It just got larger, helping to exacerbate the tensions between the various factions.

Of course, the real story isn’t GOP factions fighting over these issues, but that libertarians have filled their ranks and converted minds since the the Ron Paul revolution began in earnest back in 2007. Libertarians are flanking GOP statists from all sides and enthusiastically showing the errors and results of the Republican establishment’s deviations from their core principles.

After all, it hasn’t been mainstream Republicans spearheading a Federal Reserve audit, corporate entitlement cuts (opposing bailouts) and ending foreign entanglements, but it’s something that even John Boehner can no longer ignore. The fights that once belonged to libertarians, until the Tea Party movement began forcing those issues into the mainstream, are not something party leaders are willing to come to terms with, but they will.

Now, the Tea Party brand has obviously crested and is being re-enveloped by the indefatigable libertarian brand. In its wake is a generation of liberty activists who have grown up and come of age having failed to see the Republican revolution of the 90s keep its promises. These libertarians now threaten to either: topple the Republican establishment from within towards limited government principles; Further implode it into a powerless vacuum of dissent and antipathy.

This isn’t fracturing, it’s a war of transformation back to small-government principles, and libertarians are riding a tsunami of discontent all the way to victory.

( -)-(- )7 comments

Tea Party 2.0: Fiscal cliff fiasco fuels fresh opposition

There’s growing rumors that the Tea Party isn’t quite dead, or at least the fiscal conservative anger is coming back with a vengeance. From the Daily Beast:

Until last night, the conventional wisdom in Washington was that the Tea Party was on the wane. Congressional leaders of the nascent movement, like Allen West and Joe Walsh had lost reelection, or, like Jim DeMint, had decided to leave politics altogether. House Speaker John Boehner had stripped some of the more outspoken members of the Tea Party caucus of their congressional leadership posts, a sign that the GOP establishment was no longer going to be led by its ultra-conservative tail. The big money groups backing the Tea Party were falling apart in a spate of post-election season squabbling.

President Obama thanked Speaker Boehner after the House passed the Senate’s fiscal cliff legislation.

But after 85 House Republicans joined Boehner in raising taxes without spending reductions during the end game of Monday night’s fiscal-cliff negotiations, Tea Party leaders and conservative activists from around the country are dusting off their tri-corner hats and “Don’t Tread On Me” signs, and now say that their members are as energized as they have ever been since the first Tax Day protests in 2009. And the Republican Party, they add, had better beware.

“We now have 85 members of the House who have shunned their noses at us,” said Dustin Stockton, a Texas- and Nevada-based operative and the chief strategist of The Tea Party.net. “Our job now is to recruit and inspire and motivate people to run against those Republicans who did it.”

Anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist — during a Meet the Press panel with financial commentator Jim Cramer in early December — was among the first to sternly warn the Republican establishment that fiscal cliff and tax hike negotiations would breed dissent among conservatives:

“Tea party two is going to dwarf tea party one if Obama pushes us off the cliff,” Norquist said. “Let’s not pretend who’s pushing us over the cliff.”

Thanks to his anti-tax pledge, Norquist has been a prime target since fiscal cliff discussions picked up steam in November. Democrats have gone so far as to create an online petition against Norquist.

Whither Ron Paul? He’s taking a new tack in his rhetoric, hinting at the end of fiscal reform and the begin of a much more turbulent stage of America history:

“We have passed the point of no return where we can actually get our house back in order,” Paul begins, adding that “they pretend they are fighting up there, but they really aren’t. They are arguing over power, spin, who looks good, who looks bad; all trying to preserve the system where they can spend what they want, take care of their friends and print money when they need it.” With social safety nets available to rich and poor, there is no impetus for change and “the country loses,” but Paul concludes, the markets are starting to say “there is a limit to this.”

When the shoe drops on the next credit rating cut (and it will), I believe it will be the spark that ignites the whole powderkeg.

( -)-(- )1 comment

HBO’S Newsroom Finale: Republicans in name only

Newsroom, starring Jeff Daniels as anchor Will McAvoy, isn’t pulling punches. But with hindsight super-abilities comes the flip side of preaching to new audiences who were first unaware of any of the facts (quasi-history).

Maybe they were tuned into TMZ, I mean TMI and not the issues of deficits run up by the imperial and christian alliance. But those audiences will look at this and think: “hmm, this looks about right.” Maybe they’ll get interested in getting up and giving a damn about their country direction — realizing it’s they who control that course.

Or maybe they’ll just hate news people a little more and realize what unhappy pathetic people they also are (fictional: feeling sorry for yourself after a hit piece in New York Magazine, oh boo hoo don’t console yourself with your millions… swallow pills).

Sadly enough, Sorkin has done a terrible job giving Ron Paul any credit for his true role as godfather of the tea party (before it was hijacked by every interest group and became a reactionary nationalist movement), relegating him to brief quips on economic issues and once again trudging through the racist views of others that were published under his banner without his knowledge. In a recent episode, going so far as to ironically have the only black man in the newsroom play Paul during a mock debate. The humor and jabs at everyone in the truth industry is indeed the most ironic thing about this show.

Still, I love them for trying to understand the republican narrative that’s developed since the 2008 crash and Obama’s presidency, but that’s the power of a hindsight fictional show far flung from the actual power centers covering the screwups in the news: even they won’t get the story right.

Newsday reviewer Verne Gay writes on the season’s finale:

But I was struck in a couple of instances by what some viewed as the series’ chief virtue — that it offered a candid look at how editorial decisions are made in the newsrooms of major television networks.

I didn’t have the heart to tell those readers, but . . . no, that is not the series’ chief virtue. That doesn’t even belong on the list of virtues. “The Newsroom” is a fairy tale, almost wholly disembodied from the real world of television journalism, even with its real world takes on newsmakers as diverse as Casey Anthony and Grover Norquist.

But Aaron Sorkin, in his defense, isn’t seeking verisimilitude as much as (if I may coin a new word) quasi-similitude, in which viewers are lulled into thinking this is a real world when in fact all Sorkin wants to do is mount an entertaining series and score a few points at the same time.

“The Newsroom” is kind of a Trojan horse of a series, ingratiating itself and then — once inside your head — unleashing its hordes of Sorkian notions of fairness, Democracy, the Tea party, threats to American life (as he sees them), and so on. Verisimilitude be damned.

That’s another way of saying there’s not much accuracy, but it’s entertaining as hell.

( -)-(- )Comments Off

Tea Party Republicans betrayed liberty to pass ‘net security bill

The much despised CISPA — which has been exposed as a sham cybersecurity bill following on the heels of the failed SOPA/PIPA effort (causing mass confusion) — was finally passed by a Republican majority in the House of Representatives last week. Of note is where 47 of the 66 members of the House Tea Party Caucus voted in favor of the bill. Presumably because it has the word “protection” in the title. Who would be against protecting those cyber tubes? Unamerican marxist taliban zombies from China, that’s who. see more…

( -)-(- )Comments Off

Romney not quite winning Tea Party support

The Atlantic has a photo and coverage of a 400-person-small campaign event held in Philadelphia and reveals a stunning lack of actual tea Party support:

And so, on Monday, Romney attempted to thread the needle in Philadelphia. Before an unusually pro-Romney Tea Party group, he gave a speech that was longer on symbolism than persuasion, an attempt to show that the Tea Party is with him without necessarily showing that he is with the Tea Party.

The Independence Hall Tea Party Association, consisting of Tea Party groups from Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, was the first such group to endorse Romney, it claims. There were no “Don’t Tread on Me” flags or tricorne hats to be seen among the well-dressed, paying crowd at a downtown science museum, and many of the 400 attendees said they identified more as Republican Party activists than Tea Party members. One hesitates to generalize about a diverse grassroots movement, but this didn’t feel like the real Tea Party.

[...]Sam Rohrer, a Tea Party-aligned former Pennsylvania state legislator now running for U.S. Senate, said it wasn’t a representative Tea Party crowd. Most of the grass-roots Tea Party organizations in the state supported Rick Santorum before he suspended his campaign last week, and are now somewhat adrift as they try to assess where to go from here, Rohrer said in an interview.

“Ultimately, they’re not going to pull the lever for Obama, but there’s movement within the movement right now,” he said. “Mitt is going to have to woo them. Getting their vote is one thing; getting their impassioned commitment is another thing, and the impassioned commitment is what it takes to win.”

It’s starting to become something of a running joke with Romney’s crowd sizes as the media morons keep beating the inevitability drum and praying the voters will be blind to the Ron Paul revolution.

Since his campaign is now trying to claim he has some Tea Party groups supporting or endorsing him — the only question to ask is why won’t they come out to these campaign events in full force?

Update: Independence Hall Tea Party PAC — the Tea Party group that will be the first of many of these kinds of announcement — boasts on their website “On 8/28/10, the Independence Hall Tea Party sent 28 buses carrying over 1500 Patriots to Glenn Beck’s Restoring Honor Rally. No other group sent more.”

I’m betting barely a fourth of their members bothered to show up to the rally they hosted for Romney, and that’s right in their own town.

Update II: Anonymous “Jack” in the comments said the event was sold out, but… The National Franklin Memorial has a reception capacity of 700… so uh, argument over. Thanks for daring to impugn upon Hammer of Truth’s reputation and failing.

Again, that’s 700 capacity… 400 showed up. Reality is that Ron Paul’s supporters would have easily packed that place and had people overflowing outside regardless of “symbolic” whatsit.

( -)-(- )15 comments

Ralph Nader: still way left, but right

Being a libertarian, I’m sure someone will engage in wiseassery and suggest that it must be the drugs. Or perhaps it is braggadocios to assume anyone actually cares enough about my ramblings to comment either way. But there are times I question reality. And no, not just because I still see fresh Obama stickers on high end, late model vehicles indicative of the driver’s financial success. People, as a group, no longer surprise me.

But certain individuals still possess the power to gobsmack; to make me wonder if I’m really awake. I know I’m a day late on this, but I had to fall asleep and wake up again to make sure I was truly conscious. And I’m only reasonably sure of the fact, still.

Ralph Nader’s hopeless devotion to unbridled socialism usually has the effect of me tuning out his gravelly inane sputterings. But yesterday—in an apparent attempt to fill some minuscule yet requisite quota of logic—Nader, appearing on Andew Napolitano’s Freedom Watch, heaped praise on the early Tea Party movement. And he nailed it, from inception to co-opting.

Asked whether he saw similarities between the Tea Party movement and the “Occupy Wall Street” folk, Nader told Napolitano:

“Well, before the Tea Party movement was hijacked by the corporatist Republicans, yes. They were very much worried about the Wall Street bailout, they were worried about the restrictions on civil liberties in the PATRIOT Act, they were worried about bloated military budgets, and criminal, unconstitutional wars of aggression. You remember those early days. But, you know, they were taken over by groups in Wall Street—Dick Armey’s group and others. And, uh, the Tea Party now is basically the corporatist wing of the Republican Party.”

Huh? That could have been something awaiting me in my inbox from Lew Rockwell this morning. If it were a mere quote, I would dismiss it as an error of ascription. I included the video link as a remedy to the disbelief of the reader.

He continued, as did my astonishment:

“Here’s what I think is going on with Occupy Wall Street: it’s basically a kind of visceral justice movement, dealing with unfairness of the bosses in Wall Street who have violated, when they crashed, the bosses of Wall Street crashed on the workers, on the investors, and on the taxpayers, starting in 2008, as everybody knows. This Occupy Wall Street effort is basically saying, it’s really saying, ‘Look you guys, you guys are running the show, Wall Street and Washington, running the show, you’re violating basic principles of fairness between human beings that are religious principles—the Golden Rule; ethical principles, legal principles, and Constitutional principles.”

While Mr. Nader has called countless times for government to use force to alter or eliminate things he himself opposes, and would likely, in possession of his druthers, add obscenely burdensome taxation to the profits of people and companies irrespective of any receipt of bailout money, simply for the crime of success. And it is likely that he would have injected some Leninist solution to the economic mess we’re in, given the chance. Toward the end of the above quote, I was squirming with feelings of pending doom, waiting for Nader to chop the head off any respect he had earned, with a demand for some sort of state-based “justice.”

And though he sneaked in a questionable reference to “fairness,” he didn’t lose me. And the seeming lack of reality continued.

As The Judge shifted gears to the President, Nader continued to get it exactly right. And I found myself in a continuing and confusingly bizarre political alliance with the man responsible for the creation of the leviathan NHTSA.

Asked about the executive branch’s unilateral decision to assassinate Anwar al Awloki, Nader nailed that, too:

“That’s not a President, that’s a dictator. That’s a complete violation of due process, separation of powers. You don’t put in the White House—and our framers, as you know so well with your books, the founders of our Republic refused I say refused, article one, section eight, to begin with—to put the power to exercise violence abroad, and plunge the nation into war, in the hands of the President. He has done that now. He has outdone Bush in his unconstitutional behavior. Not just with what you described, but he also attacked Libya without any War Resolution, never mind Declaraton of War from Congress, without any authorization or appropriation of money. That’s the way of a dictator. He tok a billion dollars, himself, and put it on the war.”

Angrily agreeing, Napolitano interjected, “And Ralph, like a potted plant, the Congress did nothing!”

Nader replied, and here’s where I bruised myself with a final pinch, “You wait and see what someone does in the Congress, pretty soon — Ron Paul.”

I harbor no illusions about the state of the Republic. It feels a lot like what I imagine did Rome’s final days: corruption reigning supreme, despotism growing, rights trampled, and the experiment failing from the legion of enemies within the walls.

How bad must things be for Ralph Nader to champion the Constitution, to praise what the Tea Party was supposed to be about, to damn the state for interceding in the economy, and to look to Ron Paul to stride into the House on a white steed and save us from the tyranny of government?

I must be dreaming.

But is my dream a pleasant one in which even those thought far too wrong to ever “get it” are awakening to the ideas of freedom? Or is it a nightmare in which the state has grown so despotic that even life-long liberals are frightened enough of a nearly omnipotent government that they are flirting with with the idea that the state is truly the evil gang it has become?

Update by Stephen VanDyke: Here’s the video by Nader where he makes more than a few spot on observations: see more…

( -)-(- )4 comments