The Un-Death of the TEA Party

The obituary of the TEA Party has been a regular feature in the MSM since about 5 minutes after the movement started. A good deal of the motivation behind this is the ardent desire on the part of the Ruling Class – and thus 90% of the MSM – that the TEA Party be dead.  The TEA Party is very much not wanted for the simple reason that if Congress ever has a working majority of TEA Party politicians – or, my goodness!, a TEA Party orientated President – then the game is up.

It cannot be over emphasized just how much of America’s rich and powerful are rich and powerful simply because they are juiced-in to Washington, DC.  The life of Harry Reid is an excellent illustration of it.  Harry Reid really did come up from nothing.  His life story would be an inspiring rags-to-riches story except for one thing:  he got rich by the power of government.  He really was the son of a hard rock miner and a woman who took in laundry to make ends meet.  He really did walk miles to school (I’ve driven over the rout; it simply must have been a long, hard hike when Reid did it way back when).  From that background of grinding poverty, Reid is now fabulously wealthy – but he’s never actually done anything.  All he’s been is a government office-holder on one level or another since he graduated from law school (I’ve talked to some who do advise that for a short period Reid was in private law practice…but I don’t see much evidence of it, and it certainly wasn’t enough to build up Reid’s current level of wealth).  Using his connections and his political power, Reid has managed to engage in various financial schemes to get rich – some of which were clearly legal, others a lot more questionable, but in every case greased along by the fact of Reid’s membership in the Ruling Class; none of these deals, bottom line, are open to people who are not juiced-in with government.  And Reid is legion.  There are millions of people like him at the federal, State and local level, in and out of government, but all sharing one thing in common:  the ability to tap into government to get rich.

There are several rules regarding membership in this Ruling Class:

1.  Never attack the Ruling Class, as an entity (its ok to turn on individual members who get caught in a jam, but no attacks on individuals must be allowed to spread to an understanding that the problem is systemic).

2.  Never defend the traditional forces of the Republic.  You can make noises about supporting the troops and such – especially for the Rubes on the 4th of July, etc – but never defend that which actually made America great.  The reason for this is simple: defending what made America great means attacking what is now making American small – the Ruling Class. Stern, republican virtues and emulation of people like Washington and Madison are kryptonite.  This goes doubly so for the Judeo-Christian underpinnings of American morality – go ahead and be Catholic, Evangelical or Orthodox Jew all you want, but for crying out loud, when it is time to choose between defending that morality or destroying it, make some insipid statement about being opposed on moral grounds but not justified in defending it on legal grounds.  It is a requirement, you see, that the Ruling Class destroy traditional forces and the old morality – in their view, it is the only way they can guarantee their power indefinitely.  Demoralized people will submit to be ruled.

3.  Never, ever, ever, EVER agree to reduce the size of government.  Doesn’t matter if you ran as a small-government conservative.  That was just for the hill-apes back home.  Once in the Ruling Class, your job is to keep government large and growing larger.  How else are the new-comers to the Ruling Class to gain their wealth?  The Ruling Class must judiciously bribe and corrupt small sections of the people in order to ensure that things remain as they are, and this can only be done by an ever larger government. At best, you are permitted to pretend to slow the rate of increase in the size of government.

You do all that, and you’ll get along fine and the rest of the Ruling Class will defend you, even if they are allegedly in opposition to you.  They’ll be your buddies.  They’ll ensure that you, too, are given your opportunities to increase your wealth via government-greased deals. They’ll write laws so that you and they can pretty much be openly bribed (and they’ll call it “campaign finance reform”, into the bargain!). True, some of you might have to be thrown to the wolves from time to time, but most of you never will – and even if you do have to lose your particular office, there will be book deals, television shows, etc to keep you on the gravy train.  Just be true to the Ruling Class and all of this will be yours.

And then along comes the TEA Party.

Its not that TEA Party types are particular against any person – individual members of the Ruling Class do become lightening rods of TEA Party criticism, of course, but it really isn’t a personal thing.  TEA Party types are those people who hold to the old morality and the stern, republican virtues of our Founders.  And thus they see that, in a sense, it doesn’t matter if someone like Reid never broke a law – he simply should not be rich.  The fact that he is rich proves the system corrupt. And from there comes the requirement that the system be radically changed.  This is bull in a china shop kinda stuff…and it crosses party lines, which really irritates the Ruling Class because they hope to keep it a party vs party thing and thus have us divided….but if the people get united in a general desire to change the system, then everyone in the system is cooked.   And, so, the Ruling Class unites to destroy the TEA Party – and continually writes the TEA Party’s obituary, only to have it come surging up again like it did in the Virginia-07 House race on Tuesday.

And it will keep surging up – it won’t go away until the system is changed or the United States is destroyed as a nation by an unchanged system.  As long as there is any body of people in the United States who can bother to read what the Founders wrote, who heard stories about grandpa and great-grandpa or who just understands that only people who work hard at a productive trade should be rich, there will be a TEA Party.  And as the Ruling Class shoves America closer and closer to dissolution as a nation, the TEA Party will just get more vehement:  time is running out, after all.

Cantor’s defeat caught all of us by surprise – but it really, in a sense, shouldn’t have.  Cantor is a nice guy and he’s not some wild-eyed liberal.  He’s a rather conventional GOPer of the Ruling Class.  His opponent wasn’t and ran a campaign which spoke to the public desire for leadership which would challenge the Ruling Class, rather than make deals to increase the debt limit or an amnesty program without any realistic border security provisions. Most of the time, unknown and unfunded TEA Party candidates will fail – simply for not being able to get their message out there.  On the other hand, some times they will win – and so the GOPers who are part of the Ruling Class better take note: you have a decision to make.

You can either dig your heels in to defend the current system, or abandon it and thus, perhaps, become instrumental in the reform and revival of your nation.  True, if you turn against the Ruling Class, as an entity, you might lose – you might be tossed out on your ear.  The TEA Party impulse in the United States might not be victorious and America might be doomed.  On the other hand, if you join with the forces of reform, then they just might win…and while you’ll have no way to make any money off the deal and the Ruling Class will treat you with disdain, you might be able to save the United States and go into the history books with the fame of an honorable name.  You’ll also be able to look yourself in the mirror.  But come what may, what isn’t going to happen as long as the Republic endures is the death of the TEA Party.  It isn’t an aberration – it is America trying to save herself.

Update: Mickey Kaus notes Brat’s last-minute pitch for votes:

The entire amnesty and low-wage agenda collapses if Cantor loses — all the billions of special interests dollars, all the favors, all the insider dealing — all of it is stopped in its tracks tomorrow if the patriotic working families of Virginia send Eric Cantor back home tomorrow. 

Tomorrow, the middle class has its chance to fight back. 

Tomorrow, the people of Virginia can show up to the polls and defeat the entire crony corporate lobby. 

Tomorrow, we can restore our borders, rebuild our communities, and revitalize our middle class.

Yeah, that sort of thing is precisely what the TEA Party is all about.
Advertisements

19 thoughts on “The Un-Death of the TEA Party

  1. Retired Spook June 11, 2014 / 3:57 pm

    A number of people on both sides of the aisle, but particularly on the Democrat side, are portraying David Brat as a right-wing extremist. To show you how far we’ve come, here’s what Brat ran on that, today, is considered by many to be extreme:

    We Believe…

    That the free enterprise system is the most productive supplier of human needs and economic justice,

    That all individuals are entitled to equal rights, justice, and opportunities and should assume their responsibilities as citizens in a free society,

    That fiscal responsibility and budgetary restraints must be exercised at all levels of government,

    That the Federal Government must preserve individual liberty by observing Constitutional limitations,

    That peace is best preserved through a strong national defense,

    That faith in God, as recognized by our Founding Fathers is essential to the moral fiber of the Nation.

    It seems to me that the key to further success is to figure out a way to paint those as extremists who value power over country; who desire an ever more powerful, more far-reaching federal government; who believe that a government that lives, not just beyond its means, but trillions of dollars beyond its means, is a good thing; and who believe that making up the rules as they go along is in line with the Constitution. I’m not sure exactly how that can be accomplished, but, then, I didn’t think David Brat had a prayer against Eric Cantor.

    • Amazona June 13, 2014 / 9:17 am

      I’d like to point out that the “faith in God recognized by our Founding Fathers” is not necessarily confined to the Christian faith. Some of the Founders were deists, or people who believed in a Higher Power and the moral imperatives that accompany such a belief, while not necessarily subscribing to any Christian doctrine. They did not demand a specific kind of faith, or a specific concept of God or this Higher Power.

      They did, however, recognize that a man who believes there is nothing in the universe more powerful or significant than he is a man without an external moral authority and therefore is a man whose entire moral code is going to be dependent on what is best for HIM, and who believes that the only judgment of his actions is his own. These are not people who should be trusted with the reins of power, with authority over others.

      • GMB June 13, 2014 / 4:17 pm

        “Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

        Can anyone identify which religion this old dead white guy was talking about?

      • Retired Spook June 13, 2014 / 5:18 pm

        GMB,

        Your quote is from Washington’s farewell address. Nowhere in that address did he reference Christianity or Jesus Christ, although, I don’t think there’s much doubt that Washington was a devout Christian, based on his own writings and the writings of close relatives, and numerous efforts by many historians to claim otherwise notwithstanding. I think more important to the founders than any specific religious faith was the belief that faith in a power greater than themselves was of paramount importance in the moral framework from which they viewed public life, both as leaders and as citizens. I share that view, but that’s just my take.

      • Amazona June 13, 2014 / 6:43 pm

        “……..reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

        I suggest that this does not exclude Jews, for example, or even Muslims whose religion was not the political movement Islam is today. It apparently included people like Jefferson who believed in a Supreme Being but did not align themselves with any Christian religion.

      • GMB June 13, 2014 / 8:08 pm

        What islamic principles do you believe the Founders may have agreed with. Mind now, the qur”an has not changed very much in the last thousand years.

        If you can not think of one, do you think the Founders would have agreed with any of these?

        Quran-9:29, Fight those who believe neither in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth (Islam), even if they are of the People of the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

        Qur’an (5:51) – “O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

        Qur’an (16:106) – Establishes that there are circumstances that can “compel” a Muslim to tell a lie.

        Since the qur’an establishes the fact that Christians and Jews have to pay a tax just to live I think it is pretty safe to say islam is out as a principle our Founders wanted to emulate.

        As far as Deism goes, what are the penalties for crimes against natural law?

        .

      • Cluster June 13, 2014 / 9:20 pm

        What about Buddhists? Hindus? Shintos?

      • GMB June 14, 2014 / 9:08 am

        Since Buddhism is a religion without a God I think it can be excluded even by the Deists., that “endowed by our Creator” line comes to mind.

        How much contact did our Founders have with Japan by the time of the writings of Declaration and the Constitution? If you want to argue that Shintoism relies heavily on “natural law” you might have a point however, Shintoism is a polytheistic belief system can you identify the Shitno God/Goddess that founders most likely to want to emulate?

        As far as Hinduism. Choose a God or Goddess. The cataloging is still incomplete. My favorites would be Kali and Shiva. Kali is the Hindu Goddess of time/change/ and destruction. According to some Hindus. According to others she is something more akin to a Goddess of Entropy.
        She sits on a throne of skulls and wears a necklace of penisis(sp). Shiva is her husband and according to some the 1st Lord of Lightness.

        To my understanding he led the Lords of Light against the Lords of Darkness that ended up with him dead at his wife’s feet.

        Yama, the Hindu God of War is also another interesting God.

        I recommend you read up on them and tell everyone what the Founders thought we should take from them.

      • Cluster June 14, 2014 / 11:28 am

        I was just curious about your litmus test for Presidents, so thanks for that. I will remind you that in the last election, you voted for a President whose religion states that people of your religious persuasion will not enter the gates of Heaven. Did you consider that when you voted?

      • Amazona June 14, 2014 / 10:25 am

        Of course, GMB, yours is always the only right way, ever. You are so special that your truth is the only truth, and God loves you so much more than He loves or has loved so many other billions and billions of people throughout history, which is why you are entitled to be so smug in your assumed superiority. Perhaps it is this smugness, this arrogance, that lets you pick and choose among the teachings of your religion, and simply dismiss the injunction to judge not, lest ye be judged, or to focus on what you believe to be a mote in your neighbor’s eye.

        There are some who are not simply content with their own faith, but to bolster it and their own egos must also denigrate others. But there are some who have faith in God, more than in their own specialness, and therefore have faith that God will lead many people on many paths to His door. There are some who feel quite comfortable looking God in the eye and declaring “You have made a mistake…”—in this case, in allowing so many billions of people to have a faith unlike your own. There are even some whose own pathology drives them to choose to believe in a Trickster God, one who deceives people by telling them their faith is true and that by following this faith they will be redeemed, only to laugh at them on Judgment Day and say “Gotcha!!!” But there are many many more who simply thank God for the faith with which He has blessed them, and acknowledge that He has blessed many others with different beliefs, all of which will lead to Him if they result in lives of goodness, humility, and redemption.

        I notice that you employ one of the favorite tactics of the Left, in restating what was said (or simply inventing something that was not said) in your need to dominate an argument. In this case you say “Since the qur’an establishes the fact that Christians and Jews have to pay a tax just to live I think it is pretty safe to say islam is out as a principle our Founders wanted to emulate.”

        No doubt you are quite proud of that little gem, but I will point out here than no one said anything all about “emulating” anything.

        I think it is pretty safe to say that none of the Founders wanted to “emulate” Old Testament edicts regarding bloody sacrifice, or stoning, or other elements that are not part of (I hope) your own Christian faith.

        Washington’s speech referred to “religious principle” not to any specific religious belief, and I contend that this was a purposeful statement reflecting his belief that the basic principles of religious beliefs—-that is, the principle of there being a Higher Power, the principle of having an established moral code and discipline, the concept of having to follow that code and that discipline to achieve redemption—-are essential to good government as well as to good living.

        Yours is not the only religion that has a moral code or a discipline. Yours is not the only one that requires a belief in a Higher Power and a conviction that we will be judged by it. I consider it one of the greatest gifts of God that He did not have people like you writing the foundational documents of this nation, but instead chose men of wisdom and tolerance and understanding, humility and a faith so deep it did not require them to consider themselves to be at the center of all religious belief.

  2. J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) June 12, 2014 / 11:32 am

    good deal of the motivation behind this is the ardent desire on the part of the Ruling Class – and thus 90% of the MSM – that the TEA Party be dead.

    That motivation actually works both ways.

  3. Retired Spook June 13, 2014 / 8:37 am

    It looks like there’s room in this thread for an OT comment: A former Obama State Dept. official nailed his entire foreign policy in one tweet yesterday:

    Rosa Brooks @brooks_rosa
    Follow
    US respnse 2 Syria,Russia,Iraq:
    1)Huh?
    2)We’re watching this closely
    3)With concern.
    4)Hey, stop-
    5)We won’t tolerate that!
    6)Mmm. Whatever.
    9:04 PM – 12 Jun 2014

    Anyone else getting the sense that the perfect storm of bad events is about to take place?

    • Amazona June 13, 2014 / 10:02 am

      This sense of apprehension started to build once I realized that people were actually
      seriously considering a demagogue from Illinois with no personal history and a political history rife with radical Leftist allegiance as a potential presidential candidate. At that time it was more of a concern about the degraded intelligence of the American voter and the increased skill and ability of the Leftist propaganda machine, but it was a sense of something really bad on the horizon.

      Watching the ease with which the American public has been manipulated, gulled, and tweaked into a mindless echo chamber for the Left has been a disturbing experience. What has been more disturbing to me than the prospect of manipulation of political thought has been the manipulation of emotions, the crafty and callous appeal to the ugliest aspects of the human psyche and then the careful nurturing of these hatreds and resentments and angers. The New American Left hasn’t even tried to have much effect on political thought, correctly assessing the levels of political awareness of the average American, and has just skipped right over it to the far easier and more productive tactic of planting, nurturing and harvesting blind raw emotion. Changing the way people THINK is hard: Changing the way they FEEL is simply a matter of playing on emotions, manipulating them and amplifying those that make people more controllable—-that is, the emotions of fear, anger and hatred.

      These three emotions now DEFINE the American Left, and keep the Ruling Elite in positions of power. This is, to me, the worst development of American politics over the past few years—–the careful nurturing of the mob mentality so that it now dominates our very political identity.

      The result of this, the placement and retention of ardently anti-American elements at the highest of all possible levels of American government, and the national and international repercussions of having these people handed nearly unlimited power, is becoming more and more obvious. I see only two outcomes: One is that we crumble and become completely defeated, which would be a defeat for the whole world as then there would be no place to go to flee oppression and misery, and the other is that the counter-reaction will be (will have to be be) Draconian and severe.

      There is still hope. Many Americans are awakening from the hypnosis of the Left’s constant drumbeat of why they should fear, hate and resent the Right, and are seeing what happens when they hand the reins of power to the Left. Many Americans are seeing that Identity Politics is a trap, and that the letter after a politician’s name is not a guarantee that he subscribes to the official position of the party he claims to represent, so politicians are now being evaluated on who they really are, not on the identity they have assumed. But that is a slow process, and in the meantime those in power see the possible crumbling, or at least erosion, of their power, and they are scrambling to inflict as much damage on this nation as they possibly can, while they can.

      • Cluster June 13, 2014 / 10:27 am

        Just getting back to civilization after a 4 day cruise and am learning that Obama lost Iraq. I would like to apologize to the good people of Iraq. Your young democracy was encouraging and growing until our President found it politically convenient to abandon the effort. And I want to remind all American voters that you are also witnessing the result of Hillary Clinton’s foreign diplomacy as well. We have lost and alienated half the world under Obama, and if Clinton is elected, we will lose and alienate the rest.

      • Amazona June 13, 2014 / 11:19 am

        Cluster, Obama managed to not only desert the people we had, before his ascension to power, promised to help and protect on their way to self government, he also made the death of every single American in that conflict meaningless. Literally every single death of every single American in Iraq has been moved from the “Lost In A Noble Fight For Freedom” column to “At This Point What Does It Matter Anyway?” column—nothing but a waste of our best and brightest, all meaning wiped out.

  4. Amazona June 13, 2014 / 11:16 am

    Just how “dead” IS the TEA Party?

    Let’s ask Chris Mathews. (Yes, THAT Chris Mathews.)

    “So this looking down our noses at Tea Party people has got to stop,” Mathews added. “They have a message, they are as American as any liberal is, and they are really angry at the failure of the system.”

    • Retired Spook June 13, 2014 / 12:11 pm

      “they are as American as any liberal is, and they are really angry at the failure of the system.”

      Never thought I say this, but Chris Mathews nails it. And what every patriotic American should view as outrageous is the fact that the failure is not accidental. It’s part of a carefully and purposefully laid out plan, and I do sense that more and more people from both sides of the aisle are beginning to comprehend that.

      Glenn Beck on his radio show this morning was talking about how people of good character, who don’t necessarily agree politically, need to join together to defeat the dark shadow that’s descending on America. He never did say how you can tell if someone is of good character, or, if he did, I missed it. I would submit that someone who would never steal from you, threaten your livelihood, or take away your freedom, but who has no trouble hiring others to do that for them, is not of good character, and that accounts for, IMO, about 90% of Liberals.

      • Amazona June 13, 2014 / 2:28 pm

        ” I would submit that someone who would never steal from you, threaten your livelihood, or take away your freedom, but who has no trouble hiring others to do that for them, is not of good character, and that accounts for, IMO, about 90% of Liberals.”

        I agree. What we will hear, if we say this, is “Well, I just don’t believe that the people I vote for intend to do this..” Or that they have done this.

        While the Left is twanging at heartstrings with the nonstop screeching about the RIGHT !!!!!! to VOTE !!!!! they completely overlook something that is even more important. That is, the OBLIGATION to cast votes based on objective analysis of the facts and a choice of how best to govern the nation.

        What were the reasons to vote for Obama?

        He’s black (and so am I and now I can have someone like me in the White House)
        He’s black (and so am I and now it’s our turn to s**t on Whitey)
        He’s black and now we can show the rest of the world that we are such an enlightened nation we can have a black president
        He’s black and if I vote for a black man I can feel good about myself because I have proved that I am not a racist (although I did just make a decision based on race but this is GOOD racism..)
        He’s black and I as a white person owe some cosmic psychic debt to all black people in this country going backwards hundreds of years and forward hundreds of years and this is a way to help me live with that guilt
        He’s black
        He’s not a “conservative” (whatever that is)

        So no Lib has to have voted for Obama because he or she actually believed, and purposely voted FOR, him hoping or knowing he would “… steal from you, threaten your livelihood, or take away your freedom…” to qualify as a person of bad character. Merely using the power of this sacred responsibility, that of being able to choose the leadership of this once-great nation, so recklessly and with so little thought is enough.

        Just as a driver does not have to get behind the wheel with the intent of finding someone to run down and kill to be guilty of killing that person, the recklessness of texting while driving, or leaning over to pick up a CD from the floor, or looking at a passenger instead of the road, makes that driver responsible and guilty. I would go farther and say that someone who voted for Obama a second time has the same character defect as a person who gets drunk and then drives—-it has gone beyond mere recklessness into gross negligence and acting in a way that experience has shown has a very strong chance of ending very very badly.

      • Retired Spook June 13, 2014 / 3:54 pm

        I would go farther and say that someone who voted for Obama a second time has the same character defect as a person who gets drunk and then drives

        Excellent analogy, and I agree, it’s likely to end very badly, assuming we the people allow it to play out to the end. I’d like to think that we won’t, but, then, I thought Romney would be the 45th President, so what do I know?

Comments are closed.