Last week, on Hannity’s radio show he discussed a recent column by Jeffery Lord/The American Spectator, called American Tipping Point. In it, Lord discusses Malcolm Gladwell’s book Tipping Point and makes comparisons to America’s tipping points at different times in our history and the rise of conservatism and the Tea Party.
Lord says that: Thanks to the Tea Party movement, Conservatism is on the verge of a major victory that dwarfs the technical and actual realities of whatever the details of the resulting deficit deal passed last night. Yes, there is a long, long way to go. But the idea that America doesn’t, in fact, have to be governed for eternity as a debtor nation with a mammoth, out-of-control, ever-expanding government is winning the day. It is tipping the balance with increasing decisiveness against an idea that has become so much a part of conventional wisdom that even some conservatives, startlingly including, inexplicably, the Wall Street Journal, have displayed the wobblies at the thought of confronting the Leviathan. The WSJ’s attacks yesterday against Jim DeMint, Michele Bachmann and Sean Hannity, saying “sooner or later the GOP had to give up the hostage” — follows another editorial in which the paper railed against Tea Party members as “hobbits.” The paper, sounding like cranky British Tories in 1775 Boston rather than the bold, forward-looking paper that championed the much-derided ideas of Ronald Reagan, wildly bought into the liberal notion that the Tea Party from Hobbitville is somehow holding the government hostage, instead of the other way around. In fact Big Government liberalism has spent decades holding and trying to hold the average American hostage to all manner of outrageous tax rates, taxes and regulations on everything from capital gains to sex (in Harry Reid’s Nevada) to soda, SUVs and poker.
Lord chronicles the rise of conservatism from Senator Robert Taft’s strident opposition to FDR’s mega New Deal in the 30’s, through William F. Buckley to the great Ronald Reagan to Mark Levin’s landmark best seller and Tea Party bible, Liberty and Tyranny and how all these little, or sometimes large events, are causing a tipping point in American history. He says that conservatism is spreading almost like a virus: in Gladwell’s vocabulary, “connectors” — “people with a particular and rare set of social gifts” who have the ability to “spread” an idea like an epidemic, a Tipping Point is in the works. Henry Regnery, for example, published and made a star of Buckley, who befriended Reagan who inspired Limbaugh, who was befriended by Buckley and placed on the cover of National Review, with Limbaugh in turn aiding Hannity and Levin and Levin’s book inspiring the Tea Party etc., etc.
Reading Lord, once again gave me hope. And reminded me that in Beck’s words, we are not alone. Most of America is conservative to some degree. Most of Americans want to be or remain at least, middle class and we see that vanishing under Obama’s ideology. Most of America finds communism (call it socialism or European socialism but it’s still a form of communism) to be antithetical to the fundamentals of our beliefs and our founding. And most of America will fight it.
I hope they don’t think for a minute that we will forget being called racists, nazis, homophobes, Hobbits and terrorists. We will not. The real revolution will occur on November 6th, 2012 – bloodless, gunless and in a voting booth. They are being fore warned and to disregard the tipping point signs will be at their own peril.
It’s a must-read by Lord and I hope you will take the time to read it.
If these don’t give you pause to think – nothing will.
This new ad, which features a chilling look at one potential future scenario if America continues on its current destructive fiscal trajectory, is a 2010 homage to “The Deficit Trials,” a 1986 ad that was produced by W.R. Grace & Co. For those who were able to view it, the ad caused a sensation; it was considered so controversial at the time that the networks refused to run it.
J. Peter Grace, CAGW’s co-founder and the chairman of President Ronald Reagan’s Private Sector Survey on Cost Control (the Grace Commission), was alarmed about what the debt would do to future generations. The national debt was $2 trillion in 1986, when “The Deficit Trials” ad was denied broadcast time; today the debt stands at $14 trillion and is projected to reach 140 percent of GDP in two decades, the time in which the new CAGW ad is set. Citizens Against Government Waste
When did Qaddafi become a “legitimate leader”? He took control of Libya in a bloodless coup in 1969. He was never elected or chosen by his people, therefore he is not legitimate. And by whose definition is he “legitimate”? The answer to that would be other dictators like Chavez and Castro. Certainly he is not legitimate to the civilized, Western world and he never was. And how can the president of the United States stand there and infer Qaddafi’s legitimacy when it’s a well known secret that he ordered the downing of PanAm 103 over Scotland, killing 270 people in the plane and on the ground. That total included 179 Americans.
I’m sure Qaddafi was shaking in his sandals when Obama told him “he should leave now.” Especially when Obama sends a ferry – a FERRY – that was too small and couldn’t leave port for 2 days, to evacuate our citizens. At the same time, France and Great Britain were sending in military planes to evacuate their people, we are sitting in a harbor in Libya waiting for our ferry to be sea worthy.
When Obama speaks, who’s afraid? Who’s even listening? Certainly not our enemies. No one cares and no one listens. Obama is seen worldwide as weak and naive. No one fears what America might do because America, under Obama, knows only how to bow, shake hands and flash a white, toothy smile.
The comparison to Jimmy Carter is hard to overlook. Is it a surprise that Iran released the hostages as soon as Ronald Reagan was inaugurated and Jimmy Carter was on his way back to his peanut farm?
It’s always interesting to read foreign press observations of America. To be frank, the reporters obviously never leave New York City or Washington, DC because their take on most Americans and most of America is usually wrong. Therefore, they usually mislead their readers and I’m sure it’s not intentional but because they are living in the hotbed of liberalism, the information they get is liberally tainted.
Tonight I was reading an article in the Daily Mail by Tom Leonard about the shooting in Tucson and some of his information is just flat out wrong. Case in point: Gabrielle Giffords was a Democrat and much – but not all – of the badly spelt, incoherent YouTube jumble that passed for the politics of her attacker was broadly ‘Right-wing’.
As has been widely reported by now, there is absolutely no evidence that this nutcase had ‘right-wing’ leanings and in fact, there is plenty of evidence that he really is a dyed in the wool nutcase. We’ve all heard and read about Jarod Loughner’s favorite reading list (The Communist Manifesto) and his wickedly weird tented backyard shrine. It’s now being reported that he was a registered Independent.
Leonard goes on to say that the rush to make political capital out of a mass shooting shows just how nasty U.S. politics has become. But he fails to point out exactly who was making political capital out of this. Liberal jackass Paul Krugman, in less than 3 hours after the shooting, was one of the first out of the box to tweet the blame on the TEA party and Conservatives. Since then, it’s been a parade of liberals from Jane Fonda to this Sheriff Dickhead of Pima County, who have been blaming it all on Conservatives, Fox News, Sarah Palin, et al, ad nauseum. ( I love using latin that I actually know. HA!)
As the name (a reference to the 1773 Boston Tea Party) implies, Tea Party supporters see their movement as rooted in the rebellion against George III, and the language has inevitably been full of military metaphor. Again, I don’t know where Mr. Leonard gets his information but exactly what “military metaphor” is he talking about? Don’t Tread on Me, perhaps? Taxed Enough Already, maybe? He’s clueless on this topic and needs to stop reporting on it until he gets himself educated on what the TEA party really stands for.
American political rhetoric, on both sides of the spectrum, has always been a bit militaristic. The use of the words “battleground states”, for instance. But this is not new because of the TEA party.
Yes, it was rooted in rebellion. Take note of Rick Santelli, the father of the TEA party:
In the fractious lead-up to last November’s congressional mid-term elections – which saw a major victory for the Right – there were scuffles outside town halls, occasional brandishing of firearms at rallies and reports of rising membership of armed militias, ‘weekend warriors’ training for the day they believe will come when they will have to defend the U.S. Constitution. Did I miss all this news last November? Who were all these people with guns and what militia is he talking about? Where did he get all this information that the rest of us honest to God Americans, has been left out of knowing about? But don’t blame the Brits, they just can’t resist the caricature of Americans as wild west cowboys, all brandishing guns.
I think that Mr. Leonard is pretty fair to Sarah Palin but he failed to site any controversial liberal behaviors that are similar or worse than any seen on the right. For instance, he never quoted Obama extoling his audience that “if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun” or calling Republicans “hostage takers” and the “enemy” of Hispanic Americans.
Leonard does finish his article in a very fair handed way, though:
History shows how dangerous it is to try to second-guess the motives of political assassins.
John Hinckley shot Ronald Reagan because he was obsessed with the actress Jodie Foster, not because he hated Right-wingers.
Likewise, Lynette Fromme tried to shoot Gerald Ford because she revered the cult killer Charles Manson.
But those lessons from history won’t stop some Democrats exploiting the shooting of a nine-year-old girl and five others at the weekend with precisely the sort of foam-flecked over-reaction for which they love to condemn their opponents on the Right.
Is this the most dynamic thing you’ve ever seen? Makes you want to run right out there and work for this do-nothing, spend-everything party, lickety-split.
On September 14th, Tim Kaine and his party unveiled this new logo to almost no fanfare and his announcement was about as dynamic as this new logo is.
One blogger comment wonders how much stimulus money and how many jobs were created when this logo was designed. It was my first thought, too. But the longer I looked at the logo, the more the message from the former democrats now Obama drones, came into glaring view.
Just ask yourself: What’s the message?
The democrats trapped in the “circle” of the party of Obama, in a weak and pale version of American blue. What happened to the dark, bold colors of America? They’ve been traded in for one hue off of baby blue. (Remember Ronald Reagan’s bold colors, no more pale pastels “which make it unmistakenly clear where we stand on all issues?” Apparently, the democrats never heard this message.)
The new logo says “a weak, infantile party, inside the protection of the Great Social Changer – Obama.” It says that this party is retreating into the background with the Great Changer in front, in the superior position. The Obama has been given control and all inside the circle are inferior to him. The party of the democrats relegating themselves to the submissive position as no longer the democrat party but the Party of the O. The party of Obama is greater than the party or the people he “represents.” The people are only useful to the greatness of the elites and The Obama.
Could you find a more vacuous tag line? Change that matters. What does that mean, exactly? Change that matters to who? Change that matters how? Change that matters, why? I think you can answer those questions and in different ways than I am. Change that matters to the ruling class, in ways that elevate the ruling class and for the elevation of the ruling class.
This logo makes no statement of America. There are no stars or strips, the colors are off. It’s as though they are setting themselves apart from what America is and was and setting up a future of what America will be – a nation with no true and dynamic character. What is more mundane than the helvetica font? It’s used in print because it’s easy to read, not for it’s eye appeal. The logo is a statement that America has no exceptional identity, nothing that makes it unique, no illustrative past. It’s as though the former democrats – now drones – have no patriotic existence, whatsoever. And worse yet, we are a mundane nation of mundane, inferior citizens.
With this new logo, the democrats have become the party of “O”. Or maybe as one blogger wrote – the party of D’oh! I like to think they are now officially the party of Drones to the O. I cannot believe this logo was ever approved by anyone. And whoever came up with this tag line should be awarded. It’s most definitely going to keep those drones motivated like Hope ‘n Change did.
If you’ve not seen this video by Bill Whittle, or even if you have, explaining the iconography of the Obama brand, it’s worth a watch or a watch again:
Thanks to Sean Hannity for reminding me of Ronald Reagan’s bold colors quote.
Lindsey Graham believes there’s no reason to court the tea party because, in words I use in my profession, it’s ‘actively dying’;
“The problem with the Tea Party, I think it’s just unsustainable because they can never come up with a coherent vision for governing the country. It will die out,” Graham said in an interview with the New York Times magazine. “We don’t have a lot of Reagan-type leaders in our party. Remember Ronald Reagan Democrats? I want a Republican that can attract Democrats.” CBSNews
Graham has obviously missed the message or he’s just simply ignoring it. The two things that will always hold the tea party together is it’s love for the Constitution and it’s belief that we must have less government in order to maintain and regain our freedom. I think at his own political peril, he’s not getting it and has taken this stance against the tea party.
We do have a very coherent vision for government: GET OUT OF OUR LIVES! Graham’s vision is to join hands with the left and tax the hell out of us.
So what did attract democrats to Reagan? A conservative, uplifting message that America’s best days are NOT behind us. It was conservatism that drew democrat votes, not compromising their principles in order to “get along.”
Graham is not really a republican and he’s most definitely not a conservative. He’s really in the wrong party.
And now this from the Weekly Standard:
“They are overwhelmingly white and Anglo, although a scattering of Hispanics, Asian Americans and African Americans combine to make up almost one-fourth of their ranks.”
This is from today’s long (and on the whole not bad) USA Today article on the tea parties and tea partiers. But there’s something a little odd about that term “scattering.” That “scattering” is (as is suggested later in the same sentence) pretty hefty—23 percent of tea partiers are, according to the survey, non-white Anglos. How does this compare to the nation’s adults as a whole? They’re 25 percent non-white Anglos. So tea partiers are—in this as in other respects—a startlingly representative demographic group. William Kristol