Tuesday, June 7, 2011

Re: The Tea Party Is a Brown-Shirt Movement, Mostly

My Lord and Savior, is a Jewish Rabbi.

Thanks, man

On Jun 7, 10:34 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have changed the title, however, to be slightly more nuanced
> ---
> the jews will love you for it
>
> OMy Lordn Jun 6, 7:52 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The Tea Party Is a Brown-Shirt Movement, MostlyPosted byAnthony Gregoryon June 6, 2011 12:55 PM
> > It was obvious in the beginning when all of a sudden they sprung up crying out for their liberty, after years of silence under the fascist Bush administration. They focused on culture-war hot buttons and symbolic battles while ignoring the programs that actually threatened fiscal catastrophe: Medicare and Social Security, which the older demographic behind this movement tended always to support since they guaranteed their status as tax feeders. Meanwhile, most of the Tea Party types complained that Obama the alleged Marxist Muslim wasn't murdering enough people abroad, torturing and detaining enough Muslims and enemies of the state, or deporting enough people for the crime of crossing the border -- although in every case, Obama has actually been like Bush but more so.
> > Now a big Tea Party leader says, on behalf of her movement, thatthey will support any Republican in 2012-- even Mitt Romney, the socialist who doesn't even have a better position on free market health care than Obama. This is a partisan and hypocritical movement, as many on LRC warned from the beginning (Ryan McMakenandI sounded the alarmmore than two years ago;Laurence Vancewarned about it consistently, even up to the 2010 election;Lew Rockwelltold us to brace ourselves for betrayal). Regime libertarians have been praising this movement for two years, but LRC writers always saw through the subterfuge.
> > Is this to say there was no one decent in these protests? That no libertarian impulse was there? That no good-faith, everyday Americans frustrated by the status quo jumped on the bandwagon for understandable reasons? Of course not. But in the main, the Tea Party was always even more of a disingenuous coalition than the antiwar movement of 2003, which has turned out to be an anti-Bush movement more interested in electing Democrats and socializing the economy than stopping the slaughter of innocents overseas.
> > How do we identify a mass movement that's actually for freedom? The Ron Paul movement, especially its youth, is a great example of one: It is passionate about war, opposed to the central bank, jealous of all civil liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, opposed to the federal police state, wants to end the income tax outright and looks at the entire national leviathan as the enemy, not as savior or an extension of the national will. In short, it loves personal liberty, economic liberty, and peace with all foreign nations, and hates government. If you want to know if someone is serious about freedom, ask him about the last president, U.S. war, or major federal program that he admires. If he names anything from the last sixty years, he is obviously not serious about the short-term threat and long-term struggle for liberty.UPDATE: Am I being far too harsh? After all, there were pro-Ron Paul "tea parties" in 2007. And grassroots organizers are true patriots who seek libertynot just Republican victories. Sure, but at some point, whether in 2008, 2009, or 2010, the movement became hijacked. When almost anyone thinks about the Tea Party, they don't think about the antiwar Ron Paul movement of 2007they think of the Palin/Bachman/Gingrich movement of the last two years. Maybe it was a good movement thatwas hijacked sometime ago. But today it is not a pro-freedom movement, just a pro-Republican one. I have changed the title, however, to be slightly more nuanced.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Save America by kicking all political rituals in the ass!

Reasonable to assume?
----
yes

How about some factual evidence?
---
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/86467-1
start listening at 6:50

On Jun 6, 5:17 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> Reasonable to assume? How about some factual evidence?
>
> John made a claim which he has as yet been unable to back up with
> evidence. (This happens regularly, I might add.)
>
> Choose sides carefully.<g>
>
> On 06/06/2011 02:53 PM, plainolamerican wrote:
>
>
>
> >   you contention
> > that Secret Service agents shall be bound by Article VI to support
> > the
> > Constitution is incorrect.
> > ----
> > a naturalized citizen is required to swear an oath to protect and
> > defend the constitution ... thus, it is reasonable to assume that a SS
> > applicant, who is required to be a citizen, would be bound to support
> > and defend the constitution
>
> > On Jun 6, 2:34 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
> >> John,
>
> >> It is obvious you want to fight the good fight. It is also obvious you
> >> are not equipped to do so. You continually infer that which does not exist.
>
> >> Secret Service agents are not "executive or judicial officers" of either
> >> "the United States or of the several states." Therefore, you contention
> >> that Secret Service agents shall be bound by Article VI to support the
> >> Constitution is incorrect.
>
> >> By the way, Article VI, paragraph three (properly quoted) states, "The
> >> Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the
> >> several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers,
> >> both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by
> >> Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test
> >> shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust
> >> under the United States."
>
> >> On 06/06/2011 11:32 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>> Dear J. Ashley:  I don't have the "existing Constitution" committed to
> >>> memory.  So, I had to scan such to locate Article VI.  "... all
> >>> executive and judicial officers, both of the USA and the several
> >>> states shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this
> >>> constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a
> >>> qualification for any office or public trust under the United
> >>> States."  That OATH requires supporting that the USA is a REPUBLIC.
> >>> As soon as Barack Obama started appointing czars and making executive
> >>> orders pushing the USA toward socialism and communism, all officers,
> >>> such as the Secret Service, are bound by the Constitution to ARREST
> >>> his skinny ass for treason!  Tens of thousands in our military have
> >>> died fighting socialist and communist nations.  So, why won't any one
> >>> fight the grave enemy bastard who is in our midst?  It's because
> >>> people in government value their identity with... power.  Doing WRONG
> >>> makes one seem more powerful than doing right, "because the glory in
> >>> doing right must always be shared with its unspoken moral
> >>> imperative."
> >>> Jonathan, for a shallow anarchist like you, you seem incapable of
> >>> understanding that the spirit of the overall Constitution has
> >>> deference over any "authorization".  The Founding Fathers erred, big
> >>> time, when they just assumed the laws and procedures passed and
> >>> approved wouldn't run counter to this most simple premise: "Fair play
> >>> and democracy shall have supremacy in the USA!�  Think about the
> >>> simple premise, guy.  So far, you can't see the forest for the trees!
> >>> � J. A. Armistead � Patriot
> >>> On Jun 4, 7:49 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> John,
> >>>> You have certainly lived up to your moniker this time.
> >>>> Article III, Section 1: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall
> >>>> be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the
> >>>> Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
> >>>> How can something specifically enumerated in the Constitution be
> >>>> unconstitutional?
> >>>> On 06/04/2011 03:37 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>    >    Dear plainol...: The Federal Government, especially the court system,
> >>>>> has been disregarding the Constitution for over a century.  If there
> >>>>> is a disagreement, the only thing the Supreme Court is authorized to
> >>>>> do is to send things back to CONGRESS to be resolved.  Nothing in the
> >>>>> Constitution grants one justice more total power than Congress!
> >>>>> Therefore the Supreme Court is Unconstitutional... by RITUAL.  ï¿½ J. A.
> >>>>> Armistead �  Patriot
> >>>>> On Jun 3, 3:11 pm, plainolamerican<plainolameri...@gmail.com>      wrote:
> >>>>>> Does the federal government's
> >>>>>> authority to regulate interstate commerce rule, or does the powers
> >>>>>> granted to the states clause rule?
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>> what states rights?
> >>>>>> that was resolved in 1865 ... sorta
> >>>>>> it's time for another showdown since it's obvious that the feds pick
> >>>>>> and choose their responsibilities and powers
> >>>>>> On Jun 2, 3:11 pm, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net>      wrote:
> >>>>>>> No, MJ!  Every day, the US Supreme Court is finding interpretations
> >>>>>>> that will allow this, but not "that".  Does the federal government's
> >>>>>>> authority to regulate interstate commerce rule, or does the powers
> >>>>>>> granted to the states clause rule?  That, supposedly, will determine
> >>>>>>> the constitutionality of Obama Care.  As I've explained: The Senate
> >>>>>>> was included ONLY because of the small states' extortion (blackmail).
> >>>>>>> A Representative Republic is PURE; an oligarchy, such as the US
> >>>>>>> Senate, is unfair, undemocratic and thus UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  Like our
> >>>>>>> Manchurian Candidate... "President" (gag!), Obama�s being in the White
> >>>>>>> House makes him no less a TREASONOUS bastard!  If you want 100 senile,
> >>>>>>> career politicians to run things, then why not propose a constitution
> >>>>>>> without a House of Representatives?  For running a government, I'll
> >>>>>>> take the fair and democracy-like House, over our drag-on-government US
> >>>>>>> Senate every time!  Harry Reid should be out of a job!  ï¿½ J. A.
> >>>>>>> Armistead �  Patriot
> >>>>>>> On Jun 2, 9:25 am, MJ<micha...@america.net>      wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Perhaps we have highlighted (again) yet another of your difficulties. When you ignore common definitions of words, it is difficult to convey your message in any meaningful way.
> >>>>>>>> Constitutional, as noted previously is of or by the Constitution. The Senate is constitutional -- by definition.
> >>>>>>>> Regard$,
> >>>>>>>> --MJ
> >>>>>>>> "[Democracy] is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive" -- Westbrook Pegler, popular columnist of the 1930s and '40s.At 08:38 PM 5/26/2011, you wrote:MJ:  What "definition" is that?  That an anti-democracy and anti-
> >>>>>>>> Republic oligarchy has more power than the former two?  The US senate
> >>>>>>>> is THE most corrupt band of career politicians on planet Earth!  We
> >>>>>>>> could do better by just giving the vote to the first 100 people to
> >>>>>>>> cross Main Street!  ï¿½ J. A. Armistead �  Patriot
> >>>>>>>> On May 26, 1:32 pm, MJ<micha...@america.net>      wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Again, Constitutional is of or by the Constitution.
> >>>>>>>>> The Senate is constitutional -- by definition.
> >>>>>>>>> Until the removal of the check with Amendment 17 (not properly ratified per Article V), the Senate was the 'representative' of the States -- those entities forming the United States (plural).
> >>>>>>>>> Contrary to your insistence, the Constitution does not create this idea of mob rule to which you are so enamored and believe will *magically* correct ills.
> >>>>>>>>> Regard$,
> >>>>>>>>> --MJ
> >>>>>>>>> Democracy: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic ... Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based on deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, or impulse, without restraint or regard to the consequences. Result is demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
> >>>>>>>>> -- U.S. Army training manual No. 2000-25 (1928-1932)Dear MJ:  The Founding Fathers were BLACKMAILED into including a
> >>>>>>>>> senate, because small states feared being exploited by larger states.
> >>>>>>>>> The senate is an oligarchy that slaps-in-the-face our Representative
> >>>>>>>>> Republic.  Since principles of FAIRNESS are so evident throughout the
> >>>>>>>>> main body of the Constitution, then, the VICTOR in disputes has to be
> >>>>>>>>> the side favoring fair play and democracy! The mere fact that the
> >>>>>>>>> senate was included in the Constitution doesn't make that
> >>>>>>>>> constitutional!  Just because 'laws' are passed doesn't make those
> >>>>>>>>> constitutional, either.  The US Senate has been a drag of fair play
> >>>>>>>>> and democracy from day one!  For the record, the US Supreme Court,
> >>>>>>>>> wherein one justice has a power greater than Congress, or the People,
> >>>>>>>>> is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!  Learn, if you can, MJ.  So far you seem
> >>>>>>>>> committed to a lifetime of taking-over your flunked courses in how to
> >>>>>>>>> think.  ï¿½ J. A. A. �
> >>>>>>>>> On May 25, 9:43 am, MJ<micha...@america.net>      wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> The US Senate, which was originally selected by the legislatures of
> >>>>>>>>>> the several states, was an ill conceived OLIGARCHY.  Since there has
> >>>>>>>>>> never been a parity of the population served by each senator, that
> >>>>>>>>>> means the USA has two conflicting political systems, and the oligarchy
> >>>>>>>>>> is the one which isn't FAIR.  Giving undue power to smaller population
> >>>>>>>>>> states slaps REPUBLIC ideas in the face.  So, the US Senate is and
> >>>>>>>>>> always has been, unconstitutional.The Senate -- by definition -- cannot be unconstitutional.
> >>>>>>>>>> What you (continue) fail to grasp is that the Constitution is/was an agreement
>
> ...
>
> read more »

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Obama down the drain

Comment in Boston Herald regarding Palin and Revere

by Vince Pac on Tuesday, June 7, 2011 at 1:00am

Well here's some reading, from your commander in chief.......

1. Promising to "publish all non-emergency legislation to the website for five days... before the President signs it," then breaking that promise over and over again.

2. Despite promising to keep lobbyists out of his administration, Obama has broken his word again and again (making 17 exceptions to this promise in his first two weeks).

3. Obama promised to eliminate income taxation for seniors making less than $50,000 a year. He has broken this promise despite numerous opportunities to keep it, including the economic stimulus package and his administration's first budget proposal.

4. The President also boasted during his campaign that "During 2009 and 2010, existing businesses will receive a $3,000 refundable tax credit for each additional full-time employee hired," and has failed to keep his word.

5. Obama made it part of his agenda to "allow withdrawals of 15% up to $10,000 from retirement accounts without penalty (although subject to the normal taxes). This would apply to withdrawals in 2008 (including retroactively) and 2009," but didn't include this measure in the stimulus package or his budget proposal.

6. Obama broke his promise to recognize the Armenian Genocide.

7. Obama did a shameless 180 degree turn on earmarks by sharply criticizing them (and bragging that he would pass legislation without a single one) and then signing a spending bill with literally thousands of them.

8. Obama promised a $4000 tax credit for college tuition, but backpedaled when he signed a much smaller $2,500 college tax credit into law.

9. Obama called presidential "signing statements" (letters of interpretation and recommendations attached to Congressional legislation) unconstitutional... then attached a signing statement of his own to a $410 billion spending bill.

10. Obama promised a different tone in Washington D.C. and a move past bitter, partisan rhetoric. It took him less than a week as president to berate Republicans and sully the dignity of his office by picking a very public rhetorical fight with a private citizen, Rush Limbaugh.

I'm not done yet, there sooo much BS......

11. In his first private meeting with Congressional Republicans, instead of "reaching across the aisle" and seeking earnest dialogue, he smugly told them that he should have his way because "I won."

12. The White House violated the custom of keeping private meetings private by leaking this comment to the press.

13. Taking a page out of the Bush Administration's playbook, Obama applied shrill, frantic, fear-mongering rhetoric to assure passage of his stimulus package.

14. Obama revealed the duplicity of his rhetoric and the arrogance of his character when he took off on a ritzy Valentine's Day vacation in Chicago for the weekend instead of signing the stimulus bill that he said needed to be passed as soon as possible to avert an irreversible economic meltdown.

15. Obama did not criticize Congress for its secrecy and closed-door committee meetings in crafting the stimulus package despite his calls for greater transparency in Washington.

16. Obama's appointment of Hillary Clinton to the office of Secretary of State was unconstitutional.

17. His movement of the United States Census out of the Department of Commerce and under the direct control of the White House was unconstitutional, politically motivated, and a dangerous, undemocratic expansion of executive power.

18. Obama's decision to continue Federal funding for religious organizations that discriminate on the basis of religion is unconstitutional and just plain unseemly for a "liberal" Democrat.

19. One promise Obama has kept is in his distribution of TARP II funds to non-financial institutions, which is contrary to the stated intention of those funds in the legislation passed by Congress, making his action illegal, unconstitutional, and an expansion of unlimited executive power.

20. Despite the buzz surrounding Obama's closing of Gitmo, indefinite detainment and torture are alive and well under Obama's administration with his chilling executive order to continue the practice of "CIA renditions" -secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to other countries where they are detained indefinitely and their interrogations are outsourced to other governments.

Still not done yet, much more BS to come.

21. Backing "the continued imprisonment of enemy combatants in Afghanistan without trial."

22. Asking "the Supreme Court to overrule long-standing law that stops police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights."

23. Limiting "the rights of prisoners to test genetic evidence used to convict them."

24. Despite claiming our environment is in a state of crisis, Obama's extravagant inauguration alone emitted over 500 million pounds of CO2.

25. His lavish inauguration also cost $170 million.

26. After saying "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times... and then just expect that every country is going to say okay," journalists discovered that Obama cranks the thermostat in the Oval Office.

27. Obama's Earth Day flights burned more than 9,000 gallons of fuel.

28. The Obama Administration ended funding for Washington D.C.'s school voucher program, while suppressing a study that showed it delivered better results at a lower cost.

29. Obama's daughters however, attend a private school in Washington D.C., enjoying the freedom of educational choice that the Obama administration has denied to poor children who live in Washington.

30. Out-of-control deficit spending.

Still not done continue reading please.......

31. Blaming Bush for America's deficits, but then increasing spending by TRILLION'S.

32. This is after saying on the campaign trail: "There is no doubt that we've been living beyond our means and we're going to have to make some adjustments."

33. Made a big show of challenging his cabinet to cut a measly $100 million from the Federal budget (a .0027% cut in Federal spending).

34. Admitting that this doesn't even represent a spending cut by saying that it will free up more money for Federal spending on other things like health and education.

35. Moving to convert U.S. Federal loans to banking institutions into common stock, effectively nationalizing major portions of the U.S. banking industry.

36. Forcing U.S. banks to accept TARP money, then attaching strings ex post facto.

37. Acting to oust corporate executives like the CEOs of GM and Citigroup.

38. Promising that the U.S. government (i.e. American taxpayers) will guarantee GM's warranty.

39. Every time Obama talks about the economy or signs economic legislation, the stock market tanks.

40. "We can't go back to a bubble and bust economy." President Obama on April 14, while touting the kind of inflationary monetary policies that cause bubble and bust cycles.

Continue reading please, as the BS still continues.......

41. "The Obama administration is signaling to Congress that the president could support taxing some employee health benefits, as several influential lawmakers and many economists favor, to help pay for overhauling the health care system. The proposal is politically problematic for President Obama, however, since it is similar to one he denounced in the presidential campaign as 'the largest middle-class tax increase in history."

42. Increasing the timetable for withdrawal from Iraq beyond his campaign promises and leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq after the "withdrawal."

43. Deploying 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan, then several thousand more on top of that.

44. Obama calling on European leaders at G20 to provide more troops for the war in Afghanistan: "Europe should not simply expect the United States to shoulder that burden alone. This is a joint problem it requires a joint effort."

45. Using Bush-era war rhetoric and tactics.

46. Officially changing the name of America's vast, expensive, and endless overseas wars to "Overseas Contingency Operation."

47. "President Barack Obama asked Congress on Thursday for $83.4 billion for U.S. military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, pressing for special troop funding that he opposed two years ago when he was senator and George W. Bush was president. This would push the costs of the two wars to almost $1 trillion since Sept. 11, 2001."

48. "President Obama's plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs for the treatment of troops injured in service has infuriated veterans groups who say the government is morally obligated to pay for service-related medical care."

49. Appointing Tim Geithner to the office of Secretary of the Treasury, even though he was a part of the problem with the economic status quo and evaded his taxes for years.

50. Selected Annette Nazareth for the position of Deputy Treasury Secretary, who withdrew after a month long probe into her taxes.

Not even half way there yet keep reading.....

51. Appointed Tom Daschle to the Department of Health and Human Services, who had to resign his nomination for the position because of tax evasion.

52. "Barack Obama has been embroiled in a cronyism row after reports that he intends to make Louis Susman, one of his biggest fundraisers, the new US ambassador in London. The selection of Mr. Susman, a lawyer and banker from the president's hometown of Chicago, rather than an experienced diplomat, raises new questions about Mr Obama's commitment to the special relationship with Britain."

53. Appointed Nancy Killefer for Chief Performance Officer, but she had to step down because she didn't pay her taxes either!

54. Samantha Power resigned from the Obama campaign f0r calling Hillary Clinton a "monster," but was later hired by the Obama Administration for a position on the National Security Council.

55. Appointed Rahm Emmanuel as Chief of Staff, who failed to report five years of free rent at a US Congressman's property in accordance with IRS policy and congressional ethics rules.

56. Adolfo Carrion, Director of White House Office of Urban Affairs, "pocketed thousands of dollars in campaign cash from city developers whose projects he approved or funded with taxpayers' money."

57. Appointed Janet Napolitano to the office of Secretary of Homeland Security, who was clueless enough to falsely claim that the 9-11 terrorists came into America through Canada.

58. "The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today." — Department of Homeland Security intelligence report

59. Transparency: "Administration Permits Only One Question, No Follow-Ups About Extremism Report"

60. Appointing Attorney General Eric Holder, who said "Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards."

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

**JP** Need help! Please must read, and pass it on.


Removed on request of Nuzair Ahmed

by Amjad Ayub
stargth@gmail.com



Re: The Tea Party Is a Brown-Shirt Movement, Mostly

I have changed the title, however, to be slightly more nuanced
---
the jews will love you for it

On Jun 6, 7:52 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> The Tea Party Is a Brown-Shirt Movement, MostlyPosted byAnthony Gregoryon June 6, 2011 12:55 PM
> It was obvious in the beginning when all of a sudden they sprung up crying out for their liberty, after years of silence under the fascist Bush administration. They focused on culture-war hot buttons and symbolic battles while ignoring the programs that actually threatened fiscal catastrophe: Medicare and Social Security, which the older demographic behind this movement tended always to support since they guaranteed their status as tax feeders. Meanwhile, most of the Tea Party types complained that Obama the alleged Marxist Muslim wasn't murdering enough people abroad, torturing and detaining enough Muslims and enemies of the state, or deporting enough people for the crime of crossing the border -- although in every case, Obama has actually been like Bush but more so.
> Now a big Tea Party leader says, on behalf of her movement, thatthey will support any Republican in 2012-- even Mitt Romney, the socialist who doesn't even have a better position on free market health care than Obama. This is a partisan and hypocritical movement, as many on LRC warned from the beginning (Ryan McMakenandI sounded the alarmmore than two years ago;Laurence Vancewarned about it consistently, even up to the 2010 election;Lew Rockwelltold us to brace ourselves for betrayal). Regime libertarians have been praising this movement for two years, but LRC writers always saw through the subterfuge.
> Is this to say there was no one decent in these protests? That no libertarian impulse was there? That no good-faith, everyday Americans frustrated by the status quo jumped on the bandwagon for understandable reasons? Of course not. But in the main, the Tea Party was always even more of a disingenuous coalition than the antiwar movement of 2003, which has turned out to be an anti-Bush movement more interested in electing Democrats and socializing the economy than stopping the slaughter of innocents overseas.
> How do we identify a mass movement that's actually for freedom? The Ron Paul movement, especially its youth, is a great example of one: It is passionate about war, opposed to the central bank, jealous of all civil liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, opposed to the federal police state, wants to end the income tax outright and looks at the entire national leviathan as the enemy, not as savior or an extension of the national will. In short, it loves personal liberty, economic liberty, and peace with all foreign nations, and hates government. If you want to know if someone is serious about freedom, ask him about the last president, U.S. war, or major federal program that he admires. If he names anything from the last sixty years, he is obviously not serious about the short-term threat and long-term struggle for liberty.UPDATE: Am I being far too harsh? After all, there were pro-Ron Paul "tea parties" in 2007. And grassroots organizers are true patriots who seek libertynot just Republican victories. Sure, but at some point, whether in 2008, 2009, or 2010, the movement became hijacked. When almost anyone thinks about the Tea Party, they don't think about the antiwar Ron Paul movement of 2007they think of the Palin/Bachman/Gingrich movement of the last two years. Maybe it was a good movement thatwas hijacked sometime ago. But today it is not a pro-freedom movement, just a pro-Republican one. I have changed the title, however, to be slightly more nuanced.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.