Monday, March 22, 2010

Hi-Jacked Tea Parties!

Democrats Hate That Tea Parties Are Peaceful
Mona Charen
20 April 2010
Former President Clinton reminds us, on the 15th anniversary of the bombing in Oklahoma City, to police our discourse so as not to incite the "delirious" and "unhinged." Timothy McVeigh, he notes, "took to the ultimate extreme an idea advocated … by an increasingly vocal minority: the belief that the greatest threat to American freedom is our government … "
This is only the latest and most high profile installment of a long-running campaign by Democrats to malign their opposition. It worked very well for Mr. Clinton in 1995 — the baseless insinuation that right-wing radio hosts had ignited murderous rage with their intemperate rhetoric — and he's reaching into that seedy toolbox again.
By citing "the belief that the greatest threat to American freedom is our government" as the chief motive of murderous terrorists, the former president implies that resistance to government overreach and encroachment is illegitimate; the province of extremists.
There are two problems with this. First, it is perfectly true that government can be a threat to liberty. This is so obvious that it hardly bears rebutting. Two examples: Alien and Sedition Acts, internment of Japanese Americans. No one understood government's capacity to constrain freedom better than the Founders, who designed a system so diffuse and balanced that power would be difficult (though not impossible) to abuse.
The second problem with Mr. Clinton's intimation is that his pious concern about a "vocal minority" protesting government threats to freedom was nowhere in evidence during the Bush administration, when many liberal commentators were caterwauling that President Bush was "shredding" the Constitution. A "vocal minority" certainly believed that the government was the greatest threat to American liberty (they thought Bush a far greater threat than Islamic extremism) — but their saying so didn't trouble Mr. Clinton.
Nor was Clinton moved to speak out when anti-Bush protestors labeled him the world's "worst terrorist" and carried posters of the president wearing a Hitler moustache.
You can delegitimize all political speech you dislike by suggesting that it may inflame the violence-prone. The press attempts this again and again. Rather than openly debate, they smear.
The 1994 election, which unseated the Democratic majority, was described by the press, without any evidence, as the eruption of "angry, white, male" voters. One fan out of 8,000 at a McCain/Palin rally was reported to have shouted "Kill him" in reference to Obama. Rafts of stories dwelt upon this revelation of the "ugly" side of Palinmania. A later investigation found no evidence that it had even happened. And of course the tea party movement, a spontaneous, widespread upwelling of grassroots dismay at the direction of government policy, has been falsely and savagely maligned as racist, violent and primitive. (The best poster spotted at a tea party rally: "It doesn't matter what I put on my sign because you will accuse me of racism anyway.")
Actually, Democrats are reduced to warning that certain attitudes can lead to violence because there hasn't been any actual violence at the tea party rallies. All have been remarkably orderly and even friendly. You can almost feel the Democrats' frustration at this.
By contrast, many, many left-wing protests and demonstrations have sparked violence. Just last year, at the G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh, rampaging protestors broke shop windows and scuffled with police, who used batons and tear gas to subdue them. A 1999 meeting of the World Trade Organization in Seattle was so badly disrupted by anti-globalization fanatics, who smashed windows and shut down the center of the city, that the governor had to declare a state of emergency and call out the National Guard. (President Clinton failed to assail those who criticize corporations as inspiring the violence.)
In 2007, several hundred protesters who descended on Washington, D.C., during the International Monetary Fund meeting turned over trash cans, smashed windows, threw bricks, and pushed a police officer off her motorcycle.
In 2008, as John Hinderaker of Powerlineblog recalls, anti-Republican protesters at the convention in St. Paul: "threw bricks through the windows of buses, sending elderly convention delegates to the hospital. They dropped bags of sand off highway overpasses onto vehicles below." The violence was only fleetingly covered in the press and went unmentioned by leading Democrats.
Republicans have been very quick to condemn violent acts or even intemperate words by right-wing individuals or groups. They've even condemned some that didn't happen — like false account of racial slurs shouted at members of the Congressional Black Caucus. While it's important to police one's ranks, it's also necessary to expose the Democrats' persistent and malignant libels.
Liberals Crash the Tea Party
by Benjamin Sarlin
April 16, 2010
Anti-government protesters took Tax Day very seriously, swarming Washington. But Benjamin Sarlin found lefty troublemakers also infiltrated the march with political theater—pretending to fit in but propagating more extreme positions.
As Tea Partiers gathered in Washington to make their anti-government voices heard on Tax Day, a rumor persistently rustled through the teeming crowds. There were liberal infiltrators in their midst, the conspiracy-minded crowd murmured—activists hostile to the Tea Party cause sneaking into rallies bearing extremist signs and slogans, bent on discrediting the movement. At times, the rumors led to paranoia: one Tea Partier accused minorities at a DC rally of working undercover for ACORN, the national community organizing group badly wounded by the hidden-camera escapades of conservative activist James O’Keefe. The accused were merely peddling flags—guilty of capitalism.
Were the Tea Partiers’ fears of infiltration justified?
Yes. But if the liberals were trying to keep their presence a secret, they weren’t too hard to spot. At the main Tea Party rally at the Washington Monument on Thursday night, a handful of infiltrators and counter-protesters riled up the crowd and even drew threats of violence—but mostly just laughs.
A handful of twenty-something protesters in suits—a dead giveaway in an otherwise casually dressed crowd—held up hastily constructed signs with rather obviously bogus slogans: “Jesus is my Co-Payment,” “I’m Ignorant,” and “Poor People Suck!”
Who were these fakers? They wouldn’t give their names. But they drew a swift reaction from the real Tea Partiers, several of whom stopped to argue with them.
“You know that doesn’t reflect the Tea Party,” said one white-haired protester to the man with the “Poor People Suck!” sign.
“Why not? They want our health care!” said the man holding the sign.
“Now come on, we’re pretty much all Christians here,” he responded. “I work in a school and there’s a black lady who works hard, busting her butt, and she’s a poor person.”
“But they took our money to give out for abortions!” the sign-bearer said.
“That’s a little strong,” another Tea Partier, Dave Schwarz of Derwood, Maryland, replied. “All we’re asking is that the Tea Party be built on mutual respect.” Asked about the jokers among the crowd Schwarz gave his polite disapproval: “This is serious stuff.”
A self-described libertarian counter-protester held a sign up reading “Majority Rule [does not equal] Tyranny, Violence [does not equal] Free Speech, Those Who Threaten Americans Who Write and Enforce our Laws Are Traitors Without A Cause.” A girl in a Campus Progress t-shirt, a group affiliated with the progressive think tank Center for American Progress, wandered the protest to argue with various participants.
Some of the infiltrators were just apolitical jokers—even if their humor was lost on the participants. A group of students from American University belonging to a club that mocks mass protests brandished signs reading “I Have A Sign,” “Down With King George,” and “No $ 4 Educatoin I Don’t Want It.” The group was chased across the protest by a screaming, red-faced Tea Partier in a denim jacket who identified himself only as “Spider.”
“They’re interlopers!” Spider shrieked, as the nervous youngsters tried to make their way to a police officer. “These people are not the Tea Party!”
After being pushed to the outskirts of the protests, the phony demonstrators told The Daily Beast they were terrified of Spider, who they said threatened to “kick their ass.”
“We’re apolitical and protest all protests in an unbiased manner. I’m actually pretty conservative,” Brian Mandel, a freshman at AU said, adding that he voted for McCain. “Most people think it’s funny.”
Another club member, T.J. Bollerman, said that even though he considered himself an environmentalist, his group was planning to attend climate change protests as well, toting signs saying that they wanted a “permanent summer vacation.”
Dick Armey, president of FreedomWorks and one of the organizers of the rally, decried the fake protesters.
“Of course we're concerned, we always want to protect the innocents from the vicious and the malicious,” he told the Beast. “You know the militant left, mean as they are, always attack defenseless people. These people are not professional political operatives, they’re decent, concerned, peace-loving American citizens with no experience in the travails of political sabotage. If you have these professional thugs come in among them with the express purpose of making them out to be something they’re not, it’s an obscene gesture from the liberal establishment.”
In some ways the news of phony protesters was a gift to the Tea Partiers, who could attribute any bad behavior at the rally to the troublemakers in their midst. Andrew Breitbart, founder of conservative news sites Big Government and Big Hollywood, told The Daily Beast he believed that allegedly racist and homophobic remarks by Tea Partiers in the past could be traced to crashers out to discredit the movement.
“If I believed there was a strain of racism [in the Tea Party]” he said, “I wouldn’t put myself within a city mile of this.”
The Tea Party's Phony Populism
by Peter Beinart
April 15, 2010
A new New York Times poll shows Tea Partiers are grumpy, older, well-off Americans who think white people are oppressed—in other words, Republicans.
“Populist,” like “idealist,” is one of those words reporters use when they’ve checked their critical faculties at the door. George W. Bush routinely gets called an “idealist” in foreign policy because he gave soaring speeches on behalf of democracy. Whether his actions—in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Central Asia, the horn of Africa, or for that matter, Washington, D.C.—were particularly idealistic usually escapes scrutiny. He said he was for democracy, therefore he was.
It’s the same with “populist.” Every time someone compares Barack Obama to Chairman Mao, the press garlands him with the word. But historically, the standards for what constitutes populism have been a little higher. In American history, populism has a specific meaning: It’s our non-Marxist way of talking about class. Being a populist means standing up for the little guy against ruling elites. Hating Washington isn’t enough, or else J.P. Morgan would have been a populist when he fumed that Theodore Roosevelt was busting his trusts. You have to be angry on behalf of the underdog.
Which is why we now have scientific proof that Tea Partiers don’t deserve the label. According to a survey in Thursday’s New York Times, Tea Partiers are wealthier and better-educated than average Americans. They’re not today’s version of the Nebraska dirt farmers who rose up against the railroads and the banks more than a century ago. They’re today’s version of the California suburbanites who rose up against their property tax bills in the late 1970s rather than pay for decent schools for the Golden State’s black and Hispanic kids. They’re the second coming of what Robert Kuttner called “the revolt of the haves.”
The Tea Partiers aren’t standing up for the little guy; they’re standing up to the little guy. We’ve long known that their leaders, like Sarah Palin, opposed against real regulation of Wall Street. Now we learn that what the Tea Partiers dislike about Barack Obama’s economic policies is that they don’t do enough for the rich. According to the Times, Tea Partiers are more likely than other Americans to think Barack Obama’s policies favor the poor, and they’re mad as heck about it. Not exactly William Jennings Bryan stuff.
The Tea Partiers aren’t too fond of racial underdogs either. They’re more likely than other Americans to believe that the Obama administration favors blacks over whites, and that black people’s hardships have been exaggerated. America does have a history of right-wing, often racist, populism. Segregationist Alabama Governor George Wallace called his party the Populists in 1968. But at least Wallace’s economic views were reasonably progressive. The Tea Partiers favor the economically and racially privileged. They fail the populism test on both counts.
So the press has a problem: what to call this intriguing new force in American politics? What kind of adjective suits older, grumpy, well-off Americans who believe Democrats are communists, the poor have it too easy and white people are oppressed? The term “Republican” comes to mind.
At Last, the Truth About Tea Partiers
by Tunku Varadarajan
April 15, 2010
The New York Times poll forces the mainstream media to admit it: They’ve been building a story line about this grassroots movement based on their prejudices, not the facts. PLUS, Benjamin Sarlin’s dispatch from the Tea Party Express.
The Tea Party movement is beyond the pale no more.
It is now safe for metropolitan Americans to say—without fear of pillory, or of being waved away as wing-nuts—that the Tea Partiers are not a bilious, lunatic, unschooled, racist rabble out to sabotage our first African-American president, but are, instead, passionate, educated, middle-aged, middle-class and relatively prosperous critics of the Obama administration.
Permission to cease fire, and to refrain from abuse, has been granted by The New York Times, which—over a year after the Tea Party movement began to make its distinctive imprint on American politics—has finally mustered the decency to put aside its reflexive distaste for the movement, and bestirred itself to enquire (by way of a poll) into the precise demography and ideology of Tea Partiers.
Responsible journalism would have dictated, of course, that the Times embark on an objective parsing of this nationwide discontent a long time ago. Instead, until now, that newspaper mostly gave us a series of impressions and reports designed to inflame the prejudices of its own (largely pro-Obama) readership. The most egregious example of this was a piece by David Barstow, which weighed in at four-and-a-half thousand words—and was titled “Tea Party Lights Fuse for Rebellion on Right”—and which spun the movement as one comprised of “birthers,” militias, John Birch Society types, and the like. (For a critique of the Barstow piece, read Andrew Ferguson, in Commentary.) Also, the Barstow piece led David Letterman to have Pam Stout (a woman he mentioned in the first paragraph of his story) on his show, and she turned out to be entirely reasonable.
Other news outlets, such as CNN, have been just as predisposed to disparage the Tea Party movement—until now. Proof that the mainstream media has begun to kick the habit came, most clearly, earlier this month when the estimable Shannon Travis offered, in a “Reporter’s Notebook,” an account of “What Really Happens at Tea Party Rallies.” The first four paragraphs of his piece deserve to be quoted in full, as a de facto confession that coverage of the story has, to date, been biased:
“When it comes to the Tea Party movement, the stereotypes don't tell the whole story. Here's what you often see in the coverage of Tea Party rallies: offensive posters blasting President Obama and Democratic leaders; racist rhetoric spewed from what seems to be a largely white, male audience; and angry protesters rallying around the Constitution.
Case in point: During the health-care debate last month, opponents shouted racial slurs at civil-rights icon Georgia Rep. John Lewis and one person spit on Missouri Rep. Emanuel Cleaver. The incidents made national headlines, and they provided Tea Party opponents with fodder to question the movement.
But here's what you don't often see in the coverage of Tea Party rallies: Patriotic signs professing a love for country; mothers and fathers with their children; African Americans proudly participating; and senior citizens bopping to a hip-hop rapper.”
Readers should note that the allegations that racial slurs were directed at Rep. Lewis have never been proved, as the irrepressible James Taranto writes in The Wall Street Journal. Yet the charges have stuck in the metropolitan consciousness, largely because they accord with the narrative of the Tea Party that has been peddled so far by the mainstream media: to wit, that it is a racist movement whose animus against Obama is fueled not by his politics, but by his blackness. Such a distortion of the movement’s defining temper was necessary in order to render its members unworthy of polite company; their portrayal as intolerant racists allowed the media to send Tea Partiers to political coventry, to confer on them the status of picturesque (yet repulsive) pariahs. Opponents were transformed, by cultural diktat, into “wing-nuts.” Ideological passion came to be seen, with a certain elitist aesthetic distaste, as “anger.” And the movement’s emphatic brand of libertarian-conservative politics was belittled as of the “fringe.”
This distortion-by-hyperbole could not be sustained forever. Facts have an inconvenient way of asserting themselves in a democracy as raucous as ours; and facts, in the end, catch up with even the greatest of newspapers. And so it came to pass that the Times took a closer look at the men and women who comprise the Tea Party movement. And what do you know: 37 percent have college or postgraduate degrees (compared with the national adult average of 25 percent), and 20 percent have a household income greater than $100,000 (compared with a national average of 14 percent).
What’s more, 75 percent are older than 45, suggesting that Tea Partiers are not unthinking hotheads, but have had many years’ experience of national politics—and, inevitably, a fond memory of an America that wasn’t so steeped in entitlements. Maybe that’s why they oppose Obamacare with such eye-catching vim.
Pirates of the Good Ship Tea Party
By Marilyn M. Barnewall
March 22, 2010
How “They” Do “It”
Last week, when NewsWithViews was unable to send email notices about new stories for a few days, Kelleigh Nelson wrote a very interesting story titled “Beware of Infiltration by ‘Controlled’ Opposition.”
Her story provides information about how various people’s celebrity is used to prevent We, the People from making needed political changes.
The following article hits closer to home. It covers an actual takeover of five (5) Tea Party groups and how it was done – so subtly that some members of these groups do not yet realize how they have been manipulated. It offers a warning.
When your Tea Party group decides to support a political candidate, who makes the decision? Tea Party members? Or, a majority of the group’s Board of Directors – a handful of people?
My March article about the hijacking of the Tea Party movement by Republican and Democrat party pirates got some interesting responses.
I found out how Tea Party groups lose control. If you’re a Tea Party member, the information might help keep your enemies on the radar screen.
First, let’s deal with a definitional issue. ‘Control’ and ‘Power’ are two words that are quite different and are frequently used incorrectly. Since these words are important to this article, let me offer my definitional differences.
Control happens behind your own nose – in your own body. It is internal. You control what you think and eat, when you sleep, what clothes to wear, how often you brush your teeth, what city and state you live in, who and when you marry, and a lot of other things. You still have the right to control these things.
That “right to control” leads to the definition of “power.” As control is exercised behind your own nose, power is exercised behind the noses of others.
Power is external. Others exercise it over you. You control what you eat (really?). You can sleep when you want – but your employer tells you what hours to work. You wear clothing you like (can afford). You can live where you want – if jobs are available. You marry when and to whom you choose – provided someone says “yes.”
When you hear “they are trying to control you,” what is really meant is “they are trying to exercise power over you.” No one controls you unless they hold power over you.
The more “advanced” our society becomes the more difficult it is to control our own destiny. When a law is passed saying you must have a prescription to buy certain dosages of vitamins (as has been done in many European cities), you have a choice. You can accept the law and obey ‘them’. Or, you can do without vitamins; or, you can buy vitamins unlawfully. If you’re caught, you’ll be punished. Power is usually accompanied by force – or, the threat of it.
You have a choice to make. Comply? Or, disobey?
Is this control? Or, does external power motivate your decision? If someone holds no power over you, they can’t control you.
When an outside entity ‘controls’ your behavior using the power of employment, imprisonment, life with no mate, or if you live in a city you dislike because jobs are available there – it is power, not control, influencing your decisions.
The difference between the two words is very subtle, but it makes a huge difference in how we react to things.
It is the subtlety of how power is exercised by entities that want control over others that causes freedom to slip into a dark fog one inch at a time.
I was surprised when someone shared with me the Bylaws of a Tea Party consortium – an alliance of several Tea Party groups that joined together under the umbrella of a single organization. I was even more surprised when I read the changes made to Bylaws by their newly elected Board. They established a group name, but each Tea Party group was to maintain independence.
First, the Board changed the title of the consortium’s “Constitution” as written by members of the individual groups. The Board re-named it ‘Bylaws’. It’s a little like the attitude politicians have toward the Constitution. Like politicians, this Board knows it, on its own, can change ‘Bylaws’. A Constitution, however, requires the will of members to change it.
Under the consortium’s Constitution, members had to be American citizens to join. Board members didn’t wait long to change that. Now, anyone who is a resident of the State can join, legal or illegal.
The old Constitution of this Tea Party consortium used to require a quorum of one-fourth its total membership for a legitimate group vote. Well, the Directors couldn’t have that so now all it requires is a quorum of Board votes. As few as four (4) people can vote – to support specific political candidates, for example.
This group, supposedly representing responsible freedom, doesn’t know how to define it, do they? Definitions differ. When some say “freedom” they really mean “tyranny.” If this sounds to you like a conservative group, you do not understand the definition of a Conservative when compared to party politician, Liberal, Republican and Democrat.
Among the “powers” the Board claims on behalf of its members is to establish and oversee activities approved… by the Board, of course. It can adopt and amend the Bylaws by a two-thirds vote of the Board. Tea Party members needn’t worry about such things. Sounds like this Board doesn’t want to be hampered by member participation in the decision-making process? Isn’t that the precise problem people have with our political process now? Why bother joining a group to get what you already have?
As in much of the country last week, members of both primary political parties in America went to their local precincts to elect delegates who will nominate their Party’s candidates. This ‘conservative’ group of ‘Board members,’ not its members, voted for its preferred candidates. That’s not conservative behavior.
As one might predict, it gives a boost to candidates when the general public reads newspapers and internet articles of a Tea Party group announcing ‘its’ support.
Did the Board of Directors of this group inform the public that it only took the votes of a handful of Board members to gain this consortium’s support? Gee, I don’t recall reading that in its release. It was probably a mistake… yes?
You will contain your surprise to learn the nominees the group supports are the same ones supported by – I’ll be doggoned: the Republican Party! The same political hacks with an arm poised to stamp legislative seals of approval on anything the GOP asks of them. The people: Who are they? Stunning news!
At the group’s Web site, members have access to resources galore. Members are told to go there for help. They are the same old resources that have been giving advice to the GOP for years. They help members contact government offices, the State Republican Party, Republicans at national levels – I thought the purpose of the Tea Party was to reject the “same old thing.”
The Republican Party in this town hijacked the consortium of Tea Parties. This scenario is likely being replayed by both political parties in all states with active Tea Parties.
Are the GOP and Democrat Parties aware of this? Who, other than an old friend named Common Sense (who died recently), will say?
How does this happen? Why do people elect to office those who are driven to attain power?
First, anyone not driven by power doesn’t want to immerse himself in managing a group of political activists. It takes time. All people have better things to do with their time – but we must also be careful how we define ‘better’.
What’s ‘Better’ than independence? ‘Better’ than freedom? ‘Better’ than maintaining control of groups capable of bringing principled leadership back to your country? Is withdrawing from the political process ‘Better’ than losing your health care, and our Constitution, and our country?
The ugly truth is, conservatives do not need touchy, feely forms of group therapy to have a sense of purpose and meaning. That’s why so few conservatives run for political office. They do not need a ‘power’ rush that comes from ‘controlling’ the actions of others. Political groups do that.
Conservatives have leadership traits. They also have no personal desire for power or to do what must be done so “control” can keep “power” caged. Liberals, on the other hand, are driven by the need for power over others. The best of examples of this kind of arrogance head the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, pushing unlawful health care legislation through the process – and doing it unlawfully, to boot!
After 20 years of research and the conclusions reached, I've often asked why, throughout history, there was one group of people motivated to control their own destinies and another that needed to exercise power over the destiny of others.
Since human beings walked out of the cave, they have fought to either control their own destiny or sought the power to control the destiny of others. The “control my own destiny” group lacks the desire for power, and the “must have power” group lacks the discipline to use it wisely.
Individualists who love personal freedom and accept responsibility for it know better. They become activists and join Tea Parties. They become leaders who use power wisely: for the people rather than against them.
Beware of Infiltration by "Controlled" Opposition
By Kelleigh Nelson
March 13, 2010
I wondered how long it would be before the tea parties and grass roots’ efforts were infiltrated. It didn’t even take a year. By now all of you know about the Tea Party convention in Nashville,TN last month at the Grand Ole’ Opry Hotel. Tennessee’s own Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn backed out, as did Minnesota’s Michelle Bachmann along with the American Liberty Alliance and National Precinct Alliance. Why? Because when word of profiteering by Nashville attorney Judson Phillips hit the news, and he decided to form a FOR PROFIT organization rather than a grassroots non-profit event, the rest of the speakers backed out. Left holding the bag was their lone top guest Sarah Palin. Ticket prices were $550 and the leftover ones were sold at the last minute for $350. Needless to say, that in itself eliminated most grassroots patriots and left the event to those with money.
CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) is headed by none other than long time secretive Council for National Policy (CNP) member, Grover Norquist, whose Americans for Tax Reform is a major sponsor of the Tea Party launch event, and Tea Party Patriots’ manifesto. Tea party patriots would run away from Norquist if they truly abhor anti-Semitism, anti-Israel activism, and Muslim extremism. But they aren’t running the other way. Even key Tea Party leaders, organizers, and activists in every state, whom he’s traveled to meet and who also embrace him and are asking him for guidance. Norquist is founder and board member of the Islamic Institute (which operated out of his offices for ATR), was on the take from Gulf state emirates and laundered money for his Council for National Policy buddy Jack Abramoff. He employed Khalid Saffuri, an admitted funder of “the martyrs”–he adopted HAMAS homicide bombers’ families and funded them. And he and Islamic Institute accepted cash from several “charities” which laundered money for the Saudi government to Al-Qaeda. Norquist married a Muslim woman in 2005 and has since converted. His involvement is anathema to the tea party grassroots movement, and he is an obvious infiltrator and “controlled” opposition. Norquist has his fingers in many pies, but we’ll discuss his other involvements in another article.
Many tea party patriots believe in the 10th Amendment Center efforts. Unfortunately, few realize that a state RESOLUTION is non-binding and is basically only a suggestion. Unfortunately the 10th Amendment Center is run by Judge Andrew Napolitano, Judge Roy Moore, and Ray McBerry. Justice Roy Moore speaks across the United States and is funded by the secretive Council for National Policy members. Judge Andrew Napolitano, long time Fox News commentator and guest host for Glenn Beck, is strongly pushing a constitutional convention to rid us of the 16th amendment and his 10th Amendment Center even wants to get rid of the 17th amendment. I’m all for that, but we don’t need to take down the entire constitution to rid ourselves of amendments. The 18th amendment (prohibition of liquor) was repealed by the 21st amendment without a constitutional convention. Please see my article WOLVES IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING? For even more information on the constitutional convention plans click here.
Even in the small tea party group in Knoxville, TN, a man named Doug McCormick is pushing for a constitutional convention by telling his people that the federal government can be controlled by having a con-con. He has been told and warned of what can happen should 34 states agree to call a convention, and claims our warnings, including those of Chief Justice Warren Burger and James Madison are purely “scare tactics.” When a constitutional convention was suggested just one year after the adoption of our constitution, James Madison said, “Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention, I would tremble for the result of the second.” Once the constitution is taken down for a con-con, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to hold it to one subject as the proponents tell us. Imagine this happening today without the type of great statesmen our founders were!
In a recent article on Council for National Policy Joseph Farah’s WorldNetDaily, he featured his fellow CNP member, Richard Viguerie selling his LEADERSHIP TEA PARTY CLASSES. He says he will make YOUR TEA PARTY MORE SUCCESSFUL, PROSPEROUS, AND LEGALLY SECURE. Unfortunately, several of the original tea party organizers are involved, including Michael Patrick Leahy, who is featured quite often with Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fox News especially when he’s substituting for Glenn Beck, and both Napolitano and Leahy are calling for a constitutional convention. Beware of this because as I wrote in the above News With Views article, another constitution has been written and is waiting in the wings and there will be NO unalienable rights, but only privileges granted by the federal government. As for Richard Viguerie, he is a charter member of the secretive CNP and did direct-mail fundraising for now deceased fellow CNP member Paul Weyrich’s Free Congress Foundation (Weyrich wrote in the 80s that we needed an elite shadow government running the country) as well as being a candidate in the 1976 presidential nomination of the neo-fascist, Klan infested American Independent Party of George Wallace. In 1986, Viguerie was rescued from near bankruptcy with an account for distribution of the Unification Church owned INSIGHT magazine. In 1987, Bo Hi Pak, a former Korean military intelligence officer and Moon’s top U.S. operative, paid $10.06 million for Viguerie’s office building.
Also, in 1987, Viguerie became Secretary, strategist and fund-raising genius of the newly created Moon-controlled and funded American Freedom Coalition (a CNP organization). Viguerie serves on the board of the Moonie dominated American Freedom Coalition which is one of his biggest direct mail clients. Viguerie’s company is a major nexus for conservative organizational activity via direct mail and he’s worked for many of his fellow CNP members.
Here’s what fellow CNP member Alan Gottlieb of Citizens’ Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said in his 1993 book about how to get people to donate via direct mail fundraising. In Trashing the Economy, the 1993 book he and his co-author, CDFE Vice President Ron Arnold writes with startling frankness that:
"The message of the direct mail letter must appeal to three base emotions; Fear, Hate and Revenge...
"[The] fund raising mailer must present you with a crisis -- a problem won't do...That crisis must frighten you...If you are not frightened, you won't send money...
"Then the direct mail letter must present you with a bogeyman against whom to focus your anger...
"Once you've been frightened and made to hate the bogeyman, the successful direct mail appeal must offer you a way to get revenge against the bogeyman -- the payoff for your contribution. The more soul-satisfying the revenge, the better the letter pulls.
"All this must be dressed up in an appeal that appears to have a high moral tone, but which -- without you realizing it -- works on your lower emotions."
Gottlieb and Arnold are describing environmental direct-mail pitches but Arnold in an interview on Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, also told us that "in direct mail, fear, hate and revenge go a long way."
The letters he composes are not long on subtlety or literary polish, but they are extremely adept at pinpointing the recipients' deepest anxieties and eliciting floods of righteous indignation.
Needless to say, Richard Viguerie is certainly not the person I’d choose to have anything to do with grassroots patriots and the tea parties.
What to do, what to do….Well, right now there’s only two things we can do. First we have to hound our legislators every day with e-mails, faxes and phone calls. I’ve written my RINO senators so many times that Lamar Alexander now sends me threatening e-mails stating that he’ll have “homeland security” get back to me with an answer regarding why we’re eliminating half of our border agents. Secondly, with the upcoming November elections, we must certainly search every single candidate in the primaries and back the constitutionalists over the RINOs. Once again, I’ve seen RINOs win where they shouldn’t; Perry over Medina is a prime example. But there are some great ones out there. I’d suggest everyone do their homework on who is running nationwide and help the good ones. I am impressed with Earl Sholley who is running against Barney Frank, and Tarkanian who is running against Reid, and DeVore who is running against Boxer…Allen West who is running in Florida against Ron Klein, and countless others. Without our help some of them have little to no chance.
We must be discerning and forget joining groups that will eventually be just like what we’re trying to eliminate in the congress. Unfortunately I’ve only scratched the surface on the many groups who are already infiltrated or who are leading their folks down the road to destruction by sending them to the same old RINOs who have the same agenda as the Democrats. Please, please, do research before you vote in your state primaries.
Finally, we must remember what Clinton’s mentor from Georgetown University, Carroll Quigley, wrote in his book, Tragedy and Hope on page 1247, “The chief problem of American political life for a long time has been how to make the two Congressional parties more national and international. The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers.
#Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.” In other words, both parties now have the same agenda. The original printing of this book was in 1966 by MacMillan and the plates were destroyed because the information was so secretive. Fortunately it was reprinted in full in the 70s.
And lastly, pray for our beloved America daily. We haven’t much of a chance on our own, but the King of Glory answers prayer and miracles can happen.
Tea Parties: Hi-Jacked by Political Hacks?
By Marilyn M. Barnewall
March 1, 2010
Both the Republican and Democrat Parties are trying to hi-jack the Tea Party movement. And, unfortunately, some people who sponsored the initial Tea Parties don’t have necessary arrows in their organizational planning quivers to move their pro-Constitution groups forward.
One basic Law of Nature is that nothing stands still. Everything moves. It either goes forward or it goes backward. One key to success, of course, is being able to tell the difference between “backward” and “forward.”
Some Constitutionalist (Tea Party) group leaders either don’t understand the Laws of Nature or lack organizational planning skills. Patriots they may be, but if they do not move forward to some specifically defined objective, they will fade into nothingness.
Elected officials – not all, but many – are part of the problem. Only legislative results provide a reliable guideline – and results aren’t good in most communities. So why do Tea Party coordinators invite political hacks to speak to audiences disgusted with elected officials? Why are politicians, part of the problem, given Tea Party spotlights?
It’s not all the fault of Tea Party coordinators, either. Group members are responsible for privately and politely telling organizers what they want and need.
In the beginning, professional politicians laughed when people began to gather at “Tea Party” rallies and meetings. Then New Jersey and Virginia election results shook them. Their laughter became muted. Then Massachusetts happened – and they stopped laughing altogether and both political parties began plotting how to take the movement over. In some cases, they are succeeding and Tea Party leaders and members are remiss for letting them get away with it.
We need to answer the question: “What can we do to make government stop its headlong rush to socialism? How can we force government to stop ruling and begin governing?” Those are questions Tea Party managers need to answer for members when planning future functions. People attend because they want answers. They need to know what to do and how to do it.
For those who initially sponsored local Tea Party events but don’t have required organizational planning skills to move forward, get help. Use wisely your once-in-a-lifetime chance to save your nation! Take it seriously!
Start by admitting short-comings (if you have them) and find some organizational and planning help. Call Tea Party heads in Nevada who successfully took over that state’s Republican Party. They did as I suggested in an earlier article. They got organized at numerous local levels and coordinated their groups into a statewide effort. You can find them on your Internet search engine. Just input the words Nevada Tea Party. One Google search I conducted brought 315,000 hits to my screen.
There are so many issues! What criteria can be used to identify the critical versus the important? Everything seems critical. Common Sense provides the best way to calculate how volunteer efforts can be best used. People are willing to work provided a plan has been created that tells them where they are going – but a destination is seldom reached without a map. Planning is hugely important. What are your objectives?
First – and most important – do what Nevada did. Take your state’s Republican Party back. To do that, start at the local level… from the smallest towns and cities and counties to the biggest. Make sure Tea Party attendees know when the state caucuses, Republican and Democrat, are scheduled. Get a non-Party expert to train on how to become county delegates. The Parties are part of the problem, not the solution. For too long, people have relied on the state’s Republican and Democrat Parties to select candidates. The answer to the question “How did we get into this mess?” is that state political parties gave us candidates who support the party line, not the people.
You will never change things at the national level if you do not first change them locally.
Second, organize. Get petitions signed that put important issues on your state ballot for the 2010 election. It is the only way to put control back into the people’s hands… and some states are doing away with the petition/ballot process, so act now!
Issue Number One: State sovereignty. If you have not read the series of twelve articles Timothy N. Baldwin, JD., titled: A Concurring Opinion for Secession, make it your first stop.
Nothing would give Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid nightmares faster than election results announcing a majority of citizens in numerous states voted for state sovereignty. If your state legislature has already passed sovereignty laws, you’re lucky. The rest of us are waiting.
Make a copy of Baldwin’s articles and take them with you to your next Tea Party meeting. Share them with others. Help your Tea Party. Help them by demanding something useful! Let them know what you want when you spend time at meetings to discuss the future of your country. Stand up and speak out. Pretend your name is Paul Revere. If you’re shy, get over it. You country needs you to get over it!
Another issue Constitutionalists can get on state ballots via petition is the right of states to coin their own currency.
Though it does not deal with states’ rights to coin currency, Representative Ron Paul introduced The Free Competition in Currency Act of 2009 in the House of Representatives last December. It repeals the federal law establishing U.S. coins, currency and reserve notes as legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes and dues. If the legal tender law is repealed, control over the money supply by the Federal Reserve System is on its way to becoming history.
Representative Paul’s Competition in Currency Act is getting no traction in Congress.
Everyone talks about what a great guy Ron Paul is – and he is! So why aren’t Constitutionalists helping him? If numerous states pass legislation demanding the right to create their own currency and escape the criminal acts of the Federal Reserve System, Ron Paul’s legislation will suddenly become popular. Why? Because his alternative is less drastic than states demanding the right to create currency.
All it takes is enough signatures on a petition to get it on the ballot.
Finally, Constitutionalists need to put pressure on their state governments to create State Banks. When I was a bank consultant, I wrote numerous articles for The American Banker and Bank Marketing Magazine opposing interstate banking. The primary point is: When the McFadden Act of 1927 prevented interstate banking and when states deposited their tax revenues in local banks, the money stayed in the state. Once all 50 state legislatures approved interstate banking, the “too big to jail” banks moved into the local scene. The Riegel-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 repealed this provision of McFadden but it keeps state law in control of intrastate branching, or branching for state and national banks located within each state's borders.
State Banks keep tax deposits in a local bank, not in multi-national banks that often send deposits to corporate headquarters locales. Local deposits stimulate local economies. A State Bank can make loans to local businesses, bypassing national monetary policies harmful to independent businesses. If local industry is driven by agriculture, State Banks can render assistance to farmers even when the FDIC prohibits farm loans. State Banks have their own deposit insurance system so they won’t be closed by FDIC auditors – because FDIC auditors don’t audit State Banks.
In North Dakota’s State Bank, the Governor acts as Chairman and works with a seven-member Advisory Board appointed by him or her. The North Dakota economy is strong and stable.
The idea of state banks is becoming a major issue for 2010 political candidates in Florida, Illinois, Oregon, Massachusetts, Idaho and California. An Oregon candidate for Governor, Bill Bradbury, suggests “It is time to declare economic sovereignty from the multinational banks that in large part are responsible for much of our current economic crisis. We can achieve these two goals by creating our own bank.”
Mr. Bradbury is correct. It is far easier to get rid of a Governor who perpetrates fraud on the people than it is to get rid of the Federal Reserve or FDIC.
My personal favorite state ballot issue is simple. “The State of Colorado is an independent, sovereign state that adheres to the Rule of Law as defined by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Colorado. The citizens of Colorado will, therefore, obey laws that constitutionally flow from the United States House of Representatives and the Senate, but reserve the right to reject unconstitutional laws imposed on them by Executive Order of the President of the United States of America.”
There are numerous issues that are important. Abortion, an illegal presidency, smaller government, lower taxes, the rush to socialism complete with government-run health care, and on and on. What people don’t seem to realize is that if we lose our nation, we’ll have nothing to say about how those issues get resolved.
After reading the above, I hope it’s clear that my definition of “critical” issues involves America’s system of monetary policies that control commercial and investment banks. Bank loan policies involving independent businesses, controlling the value of our currency, and the need to push away from the federal bureaucracy and become strong, independent states is where we must plant our flag for freedom.
#We must maintain the sovereignty of our states or we will lose the sovereignty of our nation. If that happens, other less critical issues – important though they may be – will not be left to the people to decide.
Big Brother will do it for us – is already trying to do it for us. It’s time to get serious, folks.
Also See:
Tea Parties - Finally! A Message to the Government!
15 April 2009