Those Tea Party Nut-Jobs Won't Shut Up!

When I was thinking last night about what I might post today, I decided to make a prediction for the new year. I wanted to talk about the inevitable waves of Tea Party antipathy that would come crashing down when it finally becomes obvious that the Tea Partiers are serious about holding the newly elected Republicans accountable.

Okay, I know ― easy prediction...

But I thought the emm-ess-emm would at least wait until after the new congress was sworn in to begin forcefully pushing the "Please ignore crazy Uncle TeaBag" meme.

I have to say the New York Times is totally awesome. They never take a moment to rest from their relentless crusade. The new waves are cresting already.

Complete with a carefully selected picture that makes leading Tea Party activists look like they're suffering from some kind of psychoneurological disorder, the Times is ahead of schedule in their campaign to marginalize the post-election Tea Party movement.

While grudgingly pointing to some early Tea Party victories, the Times celebrated the orgy of lame duck legislation that flouted the results of the November elections. One of the New York Times' statist handmaidens summarizes the prog perspective:

...the people in the grassroots are failing to recognize that they are walking into the 112th Congress with unrealistic expectations and a complete misunderstanding of how things work in Washington. With a Democratic Senate and President, the ability of Republicans in the House simply aren’t going to be able to get their agenda enacted into law in a “pure” form. Either they’ll have to compromise, or they won’t get anything done at all.

"Nothing" sounds pretty darn good to me. Judge Gideon Tucker's famous quote, "No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the Legislature is in session,” still echoes through the halls of Congress.

The leftoid continues:

If the Tea Party movement is going to have any impact on American politics in the years to come, it’s going to have to grow up and learn that sometimes you have to take a 50% victory and all (sic) it a day.

Gee, golly!

Good points. Especially the one about 50% victory! In response, I'll quote a wise latina:

It’s a good thing nobody paid attention to the original Tea Party of 1773. God, those idiots needed to grow up! They thought you could run a country without a monarchy or any other soul-crushing status regime. They were totally unwilling to compromise. They were all “Live free or die!” and “Don’t tread on me!” What a bunch of politically naive rubes…

Modern American Tea Partiers so need to accept reality. We can’t expect a future in which our children continue living with all of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Five out of ten would be a pretty good deal. Get real already…

Unalienable rights? Surely you jest.

The tea partiers also need to deal with the fact that sooner or later, America will go the way of Greece. Bankruptcy is an inevitability. So if we’re going to go bankrupt anyway, why not go down with a few nice goodies like interminable unemployment benefits?

Fiscal responsibility? What a absurd, juvenile idea. Those Tea Party racists can kiss my hairy yellow butt.

Discussion: Memeorandum

X-posted

PS: There's no such thing as a "50% victory" when the man in the White House thinks that you're his enemy. It's all or nothing, baby! You can thank Obama for that.

PPS: WE WON

Dems' New Rallying Cry: "Power FROM The People!"

I think there's no hyperbole in saying that we're headed toward an unmitigated disaster of the banana republic variety.

Now the Dems and their statist allies are talking about filibuster "reform." But it's not reform. Reform would be good thing. The Dems' scheme is more of the same old business as usual ― but on steroids. Neo-neocon sums up the issue as poignantly as anyone:

William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection says not to worry. But I’m hardly as sanguine as he on the possibilities for control of both houses in 2012, or what Republicans would do if they had it.

As I wrote before, there’s always the House.

Any circumventing of the filibuster this way is short-sighted. What one party can do to become the overbearing majority, another can do just as well. But I think the philosophy is to grab as much power as you can while you can, because the other party will do the same when it can.

So the Democrats and Republicans would take turns seizing as much power as possible. Where would that power come from? The only place it can come from: YOU.

So much for minority rights.

Update:

Doug Ross provides excellent analysis of Ezra Klein's mindless cheerleading for the Dems' radical filibuster machinations:

Say, Ezra, when every week seemed to herald the introduction of a 2,000-page bill that no one read, did you ever stop to consider that blocking this dreck might be a good thing?

Or, given the magnitude of the uprising by the American people in November against the Democrats' unrelenting Statist agenda, that it might be precisely what the citizenry demands?

Oh, and schmuck: perhaps you could also chart the number of pages of bills (and attendant regulations) passed by each session of the Senate. Consider the hundreds of thousands of pages of "transformational" legislation that not one person bothered to read. That, in the case of health care "reform", is being actively fought as unconstitutional by half the state Attorneys General in the country.

Statists are never satiated.

Discussion: Memeorandum

X-posted

The Forgotten Man

This is amazing... powerful and stunning. It's been bouncing around the blogosphere for a couple of days now. Watch:

Against the background of a darkening sky, all of the past Presidents of the United States gather before the White House, as if to commemorate some great event. In the left hand corner of the painting sits a man. That man, with his head bowed appears distraught and hopeless as he contemplates his future. Some of the past Presidents try to console him while looking in the direction of the modern Presidents as if to say, "What have you done?" Many of these modern Presidents, seemingly oblivious to anything other than themselves, appear to be congratulating each other on their great accomplishments. In front of the man, paper trash is blowing in the wind. Crumpled dollar bills, legislative documents, and, like a whisper—the U.S. Constitution beneath the foot of Barack Obama.

Big-government Republicans and statist Democrats are destroying this country. Do we have the courage to stop them?

h/t bowlmeoverva

Details here.

More

• Michelle Malkin comments.
• John Schulenburg weighs in at Gateway Pundit.
• Cross-posted at Left Coast Rebel

Congress on Sale Now!

Photo by RightKlik

Rasmussen:

"A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 70% of U.S. voters believe most members of Congress are willing to sell their vote for cash or a campaign contribution. That’s a 14-point increase from three years ago."

The swamp is swampier than ever before.

I agree with the 70%, and I think Congress will continue to be for sale as long as we keep sending statists to Washington.

Get involved now ... send a conservative to Congress.

The OMG Must-Watch Video of The Week

Wow! Thanks to The War Planner for directing our attention to this video:

Unfortunately, even some people who should know better are dismissing the assertion that redistribution of wealth by force is an affront to self-ownership tantamount to the threat of enslavement. Here's an elementary tutorial for those folks...

Self-Ownership and The Philosophy of Liberty

Update:

As usual, Ed Morrissey nails it:

"A few points should be noted. While the woman argues effectively about the 13th Amendment bar on slavery, the Fifth Amendment protection against confiscation of private property also applies, as does the Article I, Section 8 mandate on Congress to protect the ownership of “exclusive right to their Writings and Discoveries” for those in the sciences and the arts. Also, take a look at Stark’s body language in this exchange. Normally combative (and aggressively insipid in most cases), Stark seems to be collapsing in on himself as the woman builds an argument effectively enough to win applause from her fellow constituents."

Update II:

Proof provides a link to the website of Stark's opponent, Forest Baker: http://www.forestbakerforcongress.com/

Where's the Tip Jar??

Here's Forest Baker's Facebook page.

Update III:

Here's some good information from Michelle Malkin...

"Chris Pareja is the independent Tea Party candidate running against Stark. He’s a father and small business owner with solid grass-roots support and a limited-government agenda. Learn more about him here and help out his campaign."

Perhaps Chris would be a good TBF nominee...

I'll have to add a clip from the new Fortney Stark video to this video:

The First Amendment: Statist's Edition

In the wake of “Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission” and the Obama/Alito kerfuffle, I give you the First Amendment, as seen through the eyes of lefty statists:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech*, or of the press**; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble†, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances‡."

*Except inconvenient political speech.

**If new forms of communication media are developed in the future (e.g. radio, television, internet), Congress shall be permitted to make laws abridging communication involving those media.

†Exception: Congress shall make laws abridging the right of the people to peaceably to assemble into groups of individuals known as corporations, particularly in cases in which these groups spend large sums of money exercising their "right" to communicate.

‡Unless the attempt to redress grievances involves spending money on political campaigns within the 60 day period preceding an election.

Now, from constitutional novice, some thoughts on the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

1. Take special note of the words "NO LAW"

2. Let those words sink in.

3. The First Amendment is not just about "speech." It's about freedom of communication. It's about freedom of assembly (you can even form an evil corporation if you wish). It's about the freedom to redress grievances (no exceptions).

So a group of people assemble and form a corporation and they communicate their thoughts in print, online, and over the airwaves. What part of the First Amendment provides wiggle room for the Imperial Federal Government to stop that?

There is no wiggle room.

Those who despise the First Amendment have only one option before them: to amend the Constitution.