Former Navy SEAL Benjamin Smith was speaking at the South Carolina Tea Party Coalition Convention on January 19th. He called Barack Obama a Communist and a Muslim traitor. He also dropped a Koran on the ground.
It has become obvious over the past four years that any challenge to the status quo in Washington, D.C. will be met with extreme hostility by the elites in both parties. The Tea Party’s surge in popularity among frustrated conservatives has flummoxed establishment politicians to no end, leading to countless efforts to discredit the grassroots movement.
Of course, the further to the political left an individual resides, the more hatred he or she is likely to have toward the Tea Party. Thus, it should be no surprise that deeply partisan Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer recently laid out his game plan for permanently silencing the greatest collective conservative voice in the nation.
Primarily, he advocated for the implementation of strict two-party primaries, which he claimed would relegate actual conservatives to a position of electoral insignificance.
Schumer, the Senate’s third-highest ranking Democrat, expressed his desire to see only moderate Republicans have an opportunity to face members of his party in elections.
“The way to lessen the grip of the Tea Party on the electoral process would be to do what a handful have done and have a primary where all voters, members of every party, can vote and the top two vote-getters then enter a runoff,” he said.
In his estimation, such a rule implementation would “prevent a hard-right candidate from winning with 22 percent of the vote and force even the most extreme candidates to move further to the middle….”
During the same incendiary speech, delivered in front of a receptive crowd at the far-left Center for American Progress, Schumer demonstrated his utter failure to comprehend what the Tea Party represents.
He described the Tea Party movement’s “fundamental weakness” as the difference in opinion between “plutocrats like the Koch brothers” and the average member within its ranks.
According to Schumer, a typical Tea Party supporter “likes government-run Medicare, likes government-built highways and water and sewer lines, likes government support for education, both higher and lower.”
Of course, millions of conservatives are completely disgusted with the rampant waste within Medicare and the political propaganda being foisted upon students in government-controlled classrooms. Schumer, however, apparently cannot imagine any citizen would believe the private sector could perform a task more efficiently than a federal bureaucracy.
His comments prove not only that he doesn’t understand what the Tea Party actually supports; he is also greatly underestimating the determination of conservatives working to restore America to its former greatness.
The more leftist ideologues attempt to destroy conservative movements like this one, the harder patriots behind such efforts will fight to make their voices heard.
–B. Christopher Agee
Have an idea for a story? Email us at firstname.lastname@example.org
Photo credit: terrellaftermath
FRONT ROYAL, VA — Every New Year, the usual suspects on the Left generously offer their advice on how to preserve and protect the Republican Party.
This time around, two of the liberal media’s anointed “conservatives,” Peter Wehner and Michael Gerson, take their turn.
In several recent offerings, these co-authors attack the Tea Party and insist that, to “save the Republican Party,” rational folks like them must embrace Big Government Conservatism – or the GOP will fail.
But didn’t the Tea Party save the GOP in 2010?
Ah. Be not deceived: as a preamble to their prescription, we are required to acknowledge their view that the Tea Party’s victories in 2010 were an “aberration.”
Because Gerson-Wehner consider the Tea Party to be an aberration.
Its “anti-government fervor,” they write, is “intensely felt.”
Gee. Is that a compliment?
No. Notice how the movement’s principles are reduced to emotions (“felt,” “fervor”), while Gerson-Wehner claim the Olympian summit of intellectual virtue.
Next, the Tea Party is “anti-government.”
This straw man comes right out of Obama’s lexicon, conveniently diverting the public eye from the corruption, illegality, plundering, and other incipiently totalitarian realities of the Washington’s bipartisan establishment.
It is not government, but its corruption, which the Tea Party opposes.
That’s why the Tea Party supports constitutional candidates for – yes – government office.
They intend to do exactly what the Founders expected the “virtuous people” to do: clean it up.
Next, the neocon duo insists that constitutional conservatives fail “to articulate a vision of government,” but then assert that the Tea Party’s “fervor” is “justified by an apocalyptic narrative of American life.”
Stop right there.
The “apocalyptic narrative of American life” is visionary indeed – and it inspires not the Tea Party, but Pastor John Hagee’s “Christians United For Israel,” who very fervently supported George W. Bush.
They advocated ever-wider American wars in the Middle East because, for purportedly biblical reasons, they wanted Armageddon to happen in their lifetimes.
They wanted Bush to help, so they helped him.
In fact, millions of Dispensationalist Evangelicals were indispensable to George W. Bush’s reelection victory in 2004.
Constitutional conservatives, on the other hand, were not.
In fact, conservatives rejected Bush’s war fervor (which nostalgia buffs can watch live on YouTube).
And conservatives actually turned against Bush’s Big Government debacles in the elections of 2006 and 2008.
Which brings us to another curiosity: Wehner and Gerson insist that “intellectual honesty is the first requirement of self-renewal.”
Well, gentlemen, let’s be honest, then.
Both of these distinguished authors held important and influential positions in the George W. Bush Administration.
Yet, in well over ten thousand words written to save the GOP from the Tea Party, these two scions of the Bush legacy never mention President George W. Bush!
Perhaps that was unavoidable. After all, in offering to “Save the Republican Party,” they tout the same “Big Government Conservatism” that destroyed the GOP under their old boss.
Alas, with characteristic neocon amnesia, they’ve consigned poor “W” to the Memory Hole.
So what’s the honest truth?
Frankly, the Tea Party has already saved the GOP – from George W. Bush!
Gerson and Wehner, steeped in denial, apparently long to put the party back in the permanent minority – but firmly under Establishment control.
“Intellectual honesty,” indeed.
And yet, there’s a lesson here: Gerson and Wehner are featured favorites of the liberal media precisely because they represent the “Republicanism of Losers” – the “Me Too!” tradition that goes back all the way to Wendell Willkie and Tom Dewey, and runs right up through John McCain and Mitt Romney – losers all.
That’s why Washington loves them.
Caution: Left Turn
Ironically, it’s a wily leftist who comes along to blow their cover.
E.J. Dionne graciously announces that Gerson and Wehner are wasting their time. When it comes to party differences, he writes, there really aren’t any: we all agree already!
And when it comes to Gerson-Wehner, he’s right.
“Why,” Dionne teases, “are we arguing about issues that were settled decades ago? Why, for example, is it so hard to extend unemployment insurance at a time when the jobless rate nationally is still at 7 percent, and higher than that in 21 states?”
“Don’t criticize,” he implies. “You’re one of us!”
The florid prose of Gerson-Wehner cracks at the edges as the stiletto draws near: “It was not some socialist,” Dionne smirks, “but a president named George W. Bush who declared: ‘These Americans rely on their unemployment benefits to pay for the mortgage or rent, food, and other critical bills. They need our assistance in these difficult times, and we cannot let them down.’”
Gerson and Wehner might want to forget Bush, but Dionne won’t let them.
He borrows their own Big Government argument and rubs it in their face.
“We’re all liberals now!”
Well, who could possibly oppose the Bush-Obama consensus then, Dionne asks?
“A substantial section of the conservative movement is now determined to blow up the national consensus that has prevailed since the Progressive and New Deal eras.”
And who is the common enemy of that consensus of the Left and the “Big Government Conservative” neocon “Right”?
The Tea Party.
And how inhuman they are!
“This bipartisan understanding meant that conservatives such as Bush fully accepted that it was shameful to allow fellow citizens who had done nothing wrong to suffer because they had been temporarily overwhelmed by economic forces beyond their control.”
So Gerson, Wehner, and Dionne agree: the Tea Party is indeed a “shameful aberration,” because it rejects what Dionne has generously revealed to us: a “hidden consensus” on “core questions involving social justice” that unites all thoughtful people.
Namely, the welfare state.
Here, however, a sidebar is in order:
Dionne hijacks “social justice” – a legitimate principle of Catholic social teaching – perverts it, and then slaps it gaily on his vision of the welfare state.
Where it becomes a deadly sin.
“Envy used to be just a human failing,” writes economist Thomas Sowell, “but today it is a major industry. Politicians, journalists and academics are all part of that industry, which some call “social justice.”
By turning moral language upside down, Dionne and Co. would have us believe that anyone who disagrees with their ideology is not only unjust, but craven, selfish, and un-Christian.
After all, it would be “shameful” not to embrace their left-wing agenda – right?
And thus, the anointed among us have every reason to condemn the backward, taxpaying naysayers.
This irresponsible bombast stokes not only envy, but its dangerous companion, resentment.
“There are nearly unlimited opportunities to pander to people’s sense of injustice, victimhood and entitlement,” Sowell writes. It’s part and parcel of “the politics of our time – the politics of envy and resentment.”
Dionne’s farcical “hidden consensus” aside, his hidden agenda plainly encourages envy, resentment, and, ultimately, hatred of those hard-hearted Tea Party taxpayers who would callously allow women and children “who had done nothing wrong to suffer.”
Madame DeFarge, call your office. And bring your knitting.
The Not-So-Hidden Consensus of the Neo-Left
Both Dionne and Gerson-Wehner are united in their desire to distract and dissemble. Dionne is as desperate to distract us from the disasters of Obama as Gerson and Wehner are in disowning those of George W. Bush.
This is their common cause. There is an elephant in the room, as well as a donkey.
Nothing happening here, folks – move along.
All three of these characters write for the Washington media establishment – which pays well, but can exact a high cost in character.
Their common purpose is clear: to foment scorn, condescension, and contempt for taxpayers outside the Beltway who have had enough of “Republicans” like Gerson and Wehner and Democrats like Dionne and the bipartisan corruptos they shill for.
Which goes to show that, when the chips are down, the bipartisan liberal establishment will forget its partisan “differences” in the name of that “hidden consensus,” and unite to defend itself against the efforts of people from the rest of the country who want to unplug the Beltway Hot Tub.
So much for “intellectual honesty.”
From Under the Rubble is copyright (c) 2013 by Christopher Manion. All rights reserved. This column is sponsored by the Bellarmine Forum, and distributed by Griffin Internet Syndicate and FGF Books, www.fgfBooks.com.
Christopher Manion, Ph.D., is Director of the Campaign for Humanae Vitae , a project of the Bellarmine Forum. See his biographical sketch and photo: http://www.fgfbooks.com/Manion/Manion-bio.html
Photo Credit: Donkey Hotey (Creative Commons)
In 2010, millions of American tea-party constitutionalists, to include the GOP’s Christian base, united in a remarkable grass-roots effort to rein in our unbridled federal government and return it to its expressly limited constitutional confines. As a result, an unprecedented number of counter-constitutionalist lawmakers (read: liberal Democrats) were swept from office.
The Obama administration wasn’t going to take this lying down. Whether it was by tacit approval or via direct order remains largely immaterial. The president quickly and unlawfully politicized the Internal Revenue Service, using it as a weapon against his political enemies. In an explosive scandal that continues to grow, the Obama IRS was caught – smoking gun in hand – intentionally targeting conservative and Christian organizations and individuals for harassment, intimidation, and, ultimately, for political destruction.
Not only has Obama faced zero accountability for these arguably impeachable offenses, he has since doubled down. With jaw-dropping gall, his administration has now moved to officially weaponize the IRS against conservatives once and for all.
Despite the furor over the IRS assault on conservative groups leading up to the 2012 elections, this man – a despotic radical who’s turned our constitutional republic into one of the banana variety – has quietly released a proposed set of new IRS regulations that, if implemented, will immediately, unlawfully, and permanently muzzle conservative 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations and their individual employees. (The 501(c)(4) designation refers to the IRS code section under which social welfare organizations are regulated).
The new regulations would unconstitutionally compel a 90-day blackout period during election years in which conservative 501(c)(4) organizations – such as tea-party, pro-life, and pro-family groups – would be banned from mentioning the name of any candidate for office, or even the name of any political party.
Here’s the kicker: As you may have guessed, liberal lobbying groups like labor unions and trade associations are deliberately exempted. And based on its partisan track record, don’t expect this president’s IRS to lift a finger to scrutinize liberal 501(c)(4)s. Over at Obama’s “Organizing for America,” the left-wing political propaganda will, no doubt, flow unabated.
These Orwellian regulations will prohibit conservative 501(c)(4) organizations from using words like “oppose,” “vote,” or “defeat.” Their timing, prior to a pivotal election, is no coincidence and provides yet another example of Obama’s using the IRS for “progressive” political gain.
Although these restrictions only apply to 501(c)(4) organizations for now, under a straightforward reading, they will also clearly apply to 501(c)(3) organizations in the near future.
Mat Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel Action – one of the many conservative organizations to be silenced – commented on the breaking scandal: “One of the core liberties in our constitutional republic is the right to dissent,” he said. “But desperate to force his radical agenda on the American people, Barack Obama and his chosen political tool, the IRS, are now trying to selectively abridge this right, effectively silencing their political adversaries.”
Specifically, here’s what the proposed regulations would do to conservative groups and their leaders:
- Prohibit using words like “oppose,” “vote,” “support,” “defeat,” and “reject.”
- Prohibit mentioning, on its website or on any communication (email, letter, etc.) that would reach 500 people or more, the name of a candidate for office, 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election.
- Prohibit mentioning the name of a political party, 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election, if that party has a candidate running for office.
- Prohibit voter registration drives or conducting a non-partisan “get-out-the-vote drive.”
- Prohibit creating or distributing voter guides outlining how incumbents voted on particular bills.
- Prohibit hosting candidates for office at any event, including debates and charitable fundraisers, 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before the general election, if the candidate is part of the event’s program.
- Restrict employees of such organizations from volunteering for campaigns.
- Prohibit distributing any materials prepared on behalf of a candidate for office.
- Restrict the ability of officers and leaders of such organizations to publicly speak about incumbents, legislation, and/or voting records.
- Restrict the ability of officers and leaders of such organizations to make public statements regarding the nomination of judges.
- Create a 90-day blackout period, on an election year, that restricts the speech of 501(c)(4) organizations.
- Declare political activity as contrary to the promotion of social welfare.
- Protect labor unions and trade associations by exempting them from the proposed regulations.
Continued Mat Staver: “We would be restricted in promoting conservative values, such as protecting our constitutional rights against these very kind of Executive Branch infringements.
“We would even be prohibited from criticizing the federal bureaucracy. If this new set of regulations goes into effect, Liberty Counsel Action – all conservative 501(c)(4)s for that matter – will be forbidden to ‘oppose’ or ‘support’ anything in the political arena and we’ll be prohibited from conducting our ‘get-out-the vote’ campaigns or issuing our popular voter guides.
“Further,” continue Staver, “individual employees of conservative groups will be banned from speaking or messaging on incumbents, legislation, and/or voting records – or speaking on the nominations of judges or political nominees being considered by the Senate. This also includes taking on state and local politicians.”
“These are the same tactics used by the Obama administration to illegally target conservative 501(c)(4) organizations during the last two election cycles, only now the strategy has been greatly intensified and formalized.
“You may recall that former President Richard Nixon was famously forced to resign for improperly using Executive Branch assets for political purposes.
“Rather than preparing a solid defense to confront these serious allegations, a brazen Barack Obama has chosen instead to reconfigure his illegal tactics into a set of ‘regulations’ on nonprofits, opening the door for an IRS crackdown on select organizations,” Staver concluded.
Indeed, once caught abusing his executive authority to target the very U.S. citizens he’s sworn to serve, even a nominally honorable man would immediately reverse course, resign, and accept the consequences of his illegal actions.
But we’re not talking about an honorable man.
We’re talking about Barack Hussein Obama.
Freedom-loving Americans are asked to file a public comment in opposition to this proposed IRS regulation at Regulations.gov. All comments are due by Feb. 27, 2014.
Also, please sign this petition to the Senate Committee on Finance, Taxation, and IRS Oversight to ensure that all 501(c)(4) organizations formed to promote conservative values will be treated fairly by the IRS.
Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an author, columnist, cultural analyst and an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. Having retired as an undefeated heavyweight professional boxer, Matt has taken his fight from the ring to the culture war.
Abortion is murder; but don’t tell that to Jennifer Wexton, candidate for the Virginia state senate. She believes that opposing abortion is tantamount to rape, and she is proud that she has put a lot of rapists in jails. The coy message here is that she wants to put the Tea Party in jail as well for their beliefs, especially that belief that says a baby in the womb of its mother should be protected from the brutality of abortion.
An unborn child is the most delicate and fragile form of human life that there is, but the proponents of abortion have to hide that fact in a lie (or, rather, several lies.) The first lie is that most abortions are terminating pregnancies caused by rapes and incest.
When I looked at it, 57 million abortions had been performed since that Supreme Court decision; and if last year’s statistics are an indicator, less than 1% of all abortions performed in the United States are from rape and incest.
All the rest, or 99%, are retroactive birth control by women (and men) who either forgot to perform preemptive birth control or didn’t even try to prevent a pregnancy; and for the opposing of this American genocide, members of the Tea party are likened to the foulest sort of criminals because they want to stop the slaughter of innocents in the womb.
The driving force behind obortions in America was a woman by the name of Margaret Sanger, but you probably already knew that.
But have you ever heard her speak on why she wanted abortions, or read her views on eugenics and minorities?
We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.
By the abortion clock, 17 million African-American babies have been killed by abortions. There are only 44 million African Americans in the United States; abortions have killed off a third of the black population of the United States. Liberals, particularly Democrats, are the champions of abortions, especially for the poor black population of our country; and the Tea Party opposes abortions. It is safe to say that the Tea Party places a higher value on human life than the liberals do.
The Tea Party is being portrayed as rapists because they oppose abortions, but the actions of the Democrats and the words of the proponents of abortions are every bit as heinous as those of Adolph Hitler and Josef Stalin.
We are in the midst of an American Genocide, and yet Conservative are portrayed as the criminals for wanting to end these crimes against the most defenseless of our humanity.
Jennifer Wexton wants to be a Virginia state senator so that she can fight for the right to kill children in the womb and stop the Tea party from defending those unborn children regardless of their race, creed, or national origin.