Why the Republican-hijacked "Tea Party" movement has become a pathetic joke!

[Geolibertarian]

Below is the so-called "Contract From America" that Tea Party members are urged to sign (with responses by me to follow):

-------------------------------

http://www.thecontract.org/the-contract-from-america/

The Contract from America

We, the undersigned, call upon those seeking to represent us in public office to sign the Contract from America and by doing so commit to support each of its agenda items, work to bring each agenda item to a vote during the first year, and pledge to advocate on behalf of individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom.

Individual Liberty

Our moral, political, and economic liberties are inherent, not granted by our government. It is essential to the practice of these liberties that we be free from restriction over our peaceful political expression and free from excessive control over our economic choices.

Limited Government

The purpose of our government is to exercise only those limited powers that have been relinquished to it by the people, chief among these being the protection of our liberties by administering justice and ensuring our safety from threats arising inside or outside our country’s sovereign borders. When our government ventures beyond these functions and attempts to increase its power over the marketplace and the economic decisions of individuals, our liberties are diminished and the probability of corruption, internal strife, economic depression, and poverty increases.

Economic Freedom

The most powerful, proven instrument of material and social progress is the free market. The market economy, driven by the accumulated expressions of individual economic choices, is the only economic system that preserves and enhances individual liberty. Any other economic system, regardless of its intended pragmatic benefits, undermines our fundamental rights as free people.

1. Protect the Constitution

Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. (82.03%)

2. Reject Cap & Trade

Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation’s global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures. (72.20%)

3. Demand a Balanced Budget

Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax hike. (69.69%)

4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform

Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words—the length of the original Constitution. (64.90%)

5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington

Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities, or ripe for wholesale reform or elimination due to our efforts to restore limited government consistent with the US Constitution’s meaning. (63.37%)

6. End Runaway Government Spending

Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%)

7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care

Defund, repeal and replace the recently passed government-run health care with a system that actually makes health care and insurance more affordable by enabling a competitive, open, and transparent free-market health care and health insurance system that isn’t restricted by state boundaries. (56.39%)

8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy

Authorize the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation, lowering prices and creating competition and jobs. (55.51%)

9. Stop the Pork

Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%)

10. Stop the Tax Hikes

Permanently repeal all tax hikes, including those to the income, capital gains, and death taxes, currently scheduled to begin in 2011. (53.38%)

-------------------------------

And now for my response:

Our moral, political, and economic liberties are inherent, not granted by our government.

Agreed -- although, as I’m about to reveal, the above assertion is simply the first of the two times during the day when even a broken clock is right.

It is essential to the practice of these liberties that we be free from restriction over our peaceful political expression

Does that mean you’re willing to openly denounce the imposition of such restrictions at both the 2004 and 2008 National Republican Party conventions? Or do you only decry such restrictions when imposed by Democrats?

and free from excessive control over our economic choices.

“Excessive” as defined by who? The very banker-owned government that -- regardless of whether corporate-whore Democrats or corporate-whore Republicans are in charge -- has consistently imposed such “control” via prohibitively high licensing barriers, overextended patent protection, and, in the case of alternative medicine, virtual (if not outright) criminalization?

The purpose of our government is to exercise only those limited powers that have been relinquished to it by the people, chief among these being the protection of our liberties

What specifically are those liberties?

The liberty to decide for yourself what mind-altering substance you put into your own body, or the mere “liberty” to sheepishly let control-freak Republicans make that decision for you?

The liberty to inform the public why the banker-owned U.S. government’s official story on 9/11 is a lie and a fraud, or the mere “liberty” to mindlessly cheerlead the slaughter and torture of “brown people” on the altar of that official story?

The liberty to inform the public why George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are both war criminals who belong behind bars, or the mere “liberty” to wrap everything they did in the American flag?

Or are these precisely the sort of politically incorrect questions your beloved “Patriot” Act was meant to discourage true patriots from ever asking in the first place?

by administering justice and ensuring our safety from threats arising inside or outside our country’s sovereign borders.

Even if that “threat” happens to be a Republican presidential administration that wraps every Nazi-style police state measure it imposes in the American flag? Or is it only when Democrats are in control that you concern yourself with such a threat?

When our government ventures beyond these functions and attempts to increase its power over the marketplace and the economic decisions of individuals, our liberties are diminished and the probability of corruption, internal strife, economic depression, and poverty increases.

Republicans were in charge of the federal government as well as numerous state governments between 2000 and 2006. During that time, can you name so much as a single licensing barrier that Republicans attempted to lower or eliminate; a single overextended patent they attempted to revoke; or a single victimless crime law they attempted to repeal? If not, then why should any rational person regard this as anything other than the usual canned campaign rhetoric that political con artists from the Republican Party parrot every election season just to get votes?

The most powerful, proven instrument of material and social progress is the free market.

Do you include in this definition of “free market” the ridiculously fraudulent and utterly parasitic process whereby private banks extract countless billions in usurious interest from the economy each year in exchange for the nothing out of which they create the so-called “money” they loan? Do you include the anti-free market process whereby bought-off politicians grant development subsidies and tax abatements to slave goods-selling Wal-Mart while simultaneously denying such privileges to smaller competitors? If the honest answer to either question is "yes," then why should anyone regard your feel-good platitudes about the “free market” as anything other than a right-wing version of Obama's feel-good platitudes about “hope and change”?

The market economy, driven by the accumulated expressions of individual economic choices, is the only economic system that preserves and enhances individual liberty.

Yet bestowing privileges (i.e. unearned advantages) to select corporations -- as both major parties have done countless times over the years -- has had the effect of imposing artificial limits on our economic “choices.” Thus, in the absence of specific calls for repealing said privileges (i.e., prohibitively high licensing barriers, overextended patent protection, corporate welfare, etc.), why should anyone regard this as anything more than recycled campaign rhetoric that Republicans used to gain control of Congress in 1994 and the White House in 2000, only to expand big government across the board once safely in office?

Any other economic system, regardless of its intended pragmatic benefits, undermines our fundamental rights as free people.

Same old empty rhetoric we get from establishment Republicans every single election season.

Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. (82.03%)

The Tenth Amendment already does this, yet that didn’t prevent the Republican-controlled Congress and White House from implementing Constitution-shredding police state expansion measures, did it?

Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation’s global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures. (72.20%)

Although a bit too sanitized for my taste, this is obviously the second time during the day when even a broken clock is right.

Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax hike. (69.69%)

Whether you realize it or not, that is exactly what the financial terrorists waging literal WAR on our economy want us to do, since this would justify the very IMF-style austerity measures that Obama is attempting to impose under the usual pretext of reducing the deficit. There are two reasons it would force crippling austerity:

1.  If the national debt were completely paid off, the money supply that was pyramided (via fractional reserve lending) on top of government debt would completely collapse, and the economy along with it!

2.  Even if we froze federal spending tomorrow, the interest on the national debt would keep right on compounding. This would merely drive that much more of a wedge between (a) the overall indebtedness of the economy (principal-plus-interest) and (b) the amount of money there is in circulation to pay it off. Thus, to drive such a wedge would be to make interest payments the primary purpose of federal tax collection.

       http://www.wealthmoney.org/articles/has-the-balanced-budget-been-misunderstood/

I’m sure the aforementioned terrorists are quaking in their boots at the thought of that.  

Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words—the length of the original Constitution. (64.90%)

Translation: shift the tax burden even more off the rich and onto the backs of the lower and middle classes. Then we’ll be “free” to fight over what few crumbs of wealth and income remain after the top 1% have finished appropriating the vast majority of it to themselves.

Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities, or ripe for wholesale reform or elimination due to our efforts to restore limited government consistent with the US Constitution’s meaning. (63.37%)

Still more empty generalities that, true to Republican Party tradition, avoid calling for the outright repeal of any specific program or the abolishment of any particular agency. And even when the Republican Party does pledge to eliminate something specific, it has already proven that it will immediately break that promise once safely in office.

Case in point? The Department of “Education” (DoE).

The 1996 National Republican Platform called for abolishing the DoE outright, yet once the Republicans had secured control of the White House as well as both houses of Congress, not only did they do nothing to eliminate the DoE, they continued to increase its funding. And that, of course, is because the “big wealthy business interests” (as George Carlin put it) who own the Republican Party want the DoE to continue its documented and increasingly obvious agenda of “deliberate dumbing down.”

Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%)

And when this cap on spending forces spending cuts to be made, do you honestly expect us to believe that a Republican-controlled government will reduce spending on either imperialist wars of aggression overseas or police state expansionism here at home -- even though the Republicans did everything they could to increase those two expenditures when they were in charge? Didn’t think so.

Defund, repeal and replace the recently passed government-run health care with a system that actually makes health care and insurance more affordable by enabling a competitive, open, and transparent free-market health care and health insurance system that isn’t restricted by state boundaries. (56.39%)

Does this mean you support (a) relegalizing alternative medicine -- including medical marijuana -- (b) revoking overextended drug patents -- particularly those granted for “me-too” drugs and for drugs developed primarily at taxpayer expense -- and (c) reforming medical licensing laws so that only those health care providers who accept government subsidies are required to be state certified? Didn’t think so.

Authorize the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation, lowering prices and creating competition and jobs. (55.51%)

If you’re for increasing “competition,” does this mean you support using antitrust action to break up the oil cartel? Didn’t think so.

Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%)

See my previous remarks on the balanced budget amendment.

Permanently repeal all tax hikes, including those to the income, capital gains, and death taxes, currently scheduled to begin in 2011. (53.38%)

With regard to “capital gains,” will you at least acknowledge that these are, in many if not most cases, primarily land gains -- i.e. increases in the publicly-created value of land -- and that economists throughout history (beginning with Adam Smith) have maintained that a tax on land values is unlike any other tax in the sense that it does not in any way penalize or discourage productivity? Didn’t think so.

With regard to the so-called “death” tax (read: estate tax), will you at least acknowledge that this tax doesn’t even apply to the bottom 99% of income earners, and that you are hence revealing (however unwittingly) an obvious class bias in continually bemoaning this tax while making no mention of the payroll tax -- even though the latter falls harder on most Americans than even the individual income tax? Didn’t think so.

Unsurprisingly absent from the above "contract" are civil liberties, foreign policy, and monetary reform.

With regard to civil liberties, is this inexcusable omission on your part a veiled way of saying you support the “Patriot” Act, the Homeland “Security” Act, the Military Commissions Act, and Presidential Directive 51? Is that your idea of “protecting” the Constitution? If so, don’t be surprised if it isn’t just liberal Democrats who laugh at you!

With regard to foreign policy, is this equally inexcusable omission a veiled way of saying you support wasting nearly a trillion dollars in taxpayer money each year waging imperialist, terroristic, hornets’ nest-stirring wars of aggression -- all because you’re either too cowardly or too self-righteous to admit that the banker-owned U.S. government in which you've invested so much blind faith over the years lied to you about who orchestrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks and why? In light of the Republican Party’s disgraceful track record on this issue, the question practically answers itself.

And with regard to monetary reform, is this omission a veiled way of saying that (notwithstanding your obligatory lip service to the need for “auditing” conveniently unnamed “agencies”) you

(a) generally support the debt-based, privately-controlled money system that has inflicted so much damage on our economy -- and which now has us on the verge of the greatest depression in U.S. history -- and

(b) are hence opposed to replacing this system with the sort of debt-free money system advocated by such monetary reformers as Ellen Brown, Richard C. Cook, Byron Dale, Stephen Zarlenga, and the makers of both The Money Masters documentary and the recently-released sequel, The Secret of Oz?

If so, then -- whether you realize it or not, and whether you want to admit it or not -- you are actually helping to spread and intensify the very economic disease you laughingly presume to cure with this thoroughly discredited ideological snake-oil of yours.

[jofortruth]

This sounds like the influence of Newt Gingrich. Remember, he created his "Contract with America" in 1995 (I think was the year)! We know he has influence with the Tea Party TAKEOVER group, and he promoted Sarah Palin to take it over  also.
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Deception/index.php?showtopic=789

 

[Dig]

Below is the so-called "Contract From America" that Tea Party members are urged to sign (with responses by me to follow):

-------------------------------

http://www.thecontract.org/the-contract-from-america/

The Contract from America

We, the undersigned, call upon those seeking to represent us in public office to sign the Contract from America and by doing so commit to support each of its agenda items, work to bring each agenda item to a vote during the first year, and pledge to advocate on behalf of individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom.

Individual Liberty

Our moral, political, and economic liberties are inherent, not granted by our government. It is essential to the practice of these liberties that we be free from restriction over our peaceful political expression and free from excessive control over our economic choices.

Limited Government

The purpose of our government is to exercise only those limited powers that have been relinquished to it by the people, chief among these being the protection of our liberties by administering justice and ensuring our safety from threats arising inside or outside our country’s sovereign borders. When our government ventures beyond these functions and attempts to increase its power over the marketplace and the economic decisions of individuals, our liberties are diminished and the probability of corruption, internal strife, economic depression, and poverty increases.

Economic Freedom

The most powerful, proven instrument of material and social progress is the free market. The market economy, driven by the accumulated expressions of individual economic choices, is the only economic system that preserves and enhances individual liberty. Any other economic system, regardless of its intended pragmatic benefits, undermines our fundamental rights as free people.

1. Protect the Constitution

Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. (82.03%)

2. Reject Cap & Trade

Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation’s global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures. (72.20%)

3. Demand a Balanced Budget

Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax hike. (69.69%)

4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform

Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words—the length of the original Constitution. (64.90%)

5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington

Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities, or ripe for wholesale reform or elimination due to our efforts to restore limited government consistent with the US Constitution’s meaning. (63.37%)

6. End Runaway Government Spending

Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%)

7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care

Defund, repeal and replace the recently passed government-run health care with a system that actually makes health care and insurance more affordable by enabling a competitive, open, and transparent free-market health care and health insurance system that isn’t restricted by state boundaries. (56.39%)

8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy

Authorize the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation, lowering prices and creating competition and jobs. (55.51%)

9. Stop the Pork

Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%)

10. Stop the Tax Hikes

Permanently repeal all tax hikes, including those to the income, capital gains, and death taxes, currently scheduled to begin in 2011. (53.38%)

-------------------------------

And now for my response:
 
Agreed -- although, as I’m about to reveal, the above assertion is simply the first of the two times during the day when even a broken clock is right.

Does that mean you’re willing to openly denounce the imposition of such restrictions at both the 2004 and 2008 National Republican Party conventions? Or do you only decry such restrictions when imposed by Democrats?

“Excessive” as defined by who? The very banker-owned government that -- regardless of whether the corporate whore Democrats or corporate whore Republicans are in charge -- has consistently imposed such “control” via prohibitively high licensing barriers, overextended patent protection, and, in the case of alternative medicine, virtual (if not outright) criminalization?

What specifically are those liberties?

The liberty to decide for yourself what mind-altering substance you put into your own body, or the mere “liberty” to sheepishly let control-freak Republicans make that decision for you?

The liberty to inform the public why the banker-owned U.S. government’s official story on 9/11 is a lie and a fraud, or the mere “liberty” to mindlessly cheerlead the slaughter and torture of “brown people” on the altar of that official story?

The liberty to inform the public why George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are both war criminals who belong behind bars, or the mere “liberty” to wrap everything they did in the American flag?

Or are these precisely the sort of politically incorrect questions your beloved “Patriot” Act was meant to discourage true patriots from ever asking in the first place?

Even if that “threat” happens to be a Republican presidential administration that wraps every Nazi-style police state measure it imposes in the American flag? Or is it only when Democrats are in control that you concern yourself with such a threat?

Republicans were in charge of the federal government as well as numerous state governments between 2000 and 2006. During that time, can you name so much as a single licensing barrier that Republicans attempted to lower or eliminate; a single overextended patent they attempted to revoke; or a single victimless crime law they attempted to repeal? If not, then why should any rational person regard this as anything other than the usual canned campaign rhetoric that political con artists from the Republican Party parrot every election season just to get votes?

Do you include in this definition of “free market” the ridiculously fraudulent and utterly parasitic process whereby private banks extract countless billions in usurious interest from the economy each year in exchange for the nothing out of which they create the so-called “money” they loan? Do you include the anti-free market process whereby bought-off politicians grant development subsidies and tax abatements to slave goods-selling Wal-Mart while simultaneously denying such privileges to smaller competitors? If the honest answer to either question is "yes," then why should anyone regard your feel-good platitudes about the “free market” as anything other than a right-wing version of Obama's feel-good platitudes about “hope and change”?
 
Yet bestowing privileges (i.e. unearned advantages) to select corporations -- as both major parties have done countless times over the years -- has had the effect of imposing artificial limits on our economic “choices.” Thus, in the absence of specific calls for repealing said privileges (i.e., prohibitively high licensing barriers, overextended patent protection, corporate welfare, etc.), why should anyone regard this as anything more than recycled campaign rhetoric that Republicans used to gain control of Congress in 1994 and the White House in 2000, only to expand big government across the board once safely in office?

Same old empty rhetoric we get from establishment Republicans every single election season.

The Tenth Amendment already does this, yet that didn’t prevent the Republican-controlled Congress and White House from implementing Constitution-shredding police state expansion measures, did it?

Although a bit too sanitized for my taste, this is obviously the second time during the day when even a broken clock is right.

Whether you realize it or not, that is exactly what the financial terrorists waging literal WAR on our economy want us to do, since this would justify the very IMF-style austerity measures that Obama is attempting to impose under the usual pretext of reducing the deficit. There are two reasons it would force crippling austerity:

1.  If the national debt were completely paid off, the money supply that was pyramided (via fractional reserve lending) on top of government debt would completely collapse, and the economy along with it!

2.  Even if we froze federal spending tomorrow, the interest on the national debt would keep right on compounding. This would merely drive that much more of a wedge between (a) the overall indebtedness of the economy (principal-plus-interest) and (b) the amount of money there is in circulation to pay it off. Thus, to drive such a wedge would be to make interest payments the primary purpose of federal tax collection.

       http://www.wealthmoney.org/articles/Budget.html

I’m sure the aforementioned terrorists are quaking in their boots at the thought of that.  

Translation: shift the tax burden even more off the rich and onto the backs of the lower and middle classes. Then we’ll be “free” to fight over what few crumbs of wealth and income remain after the top 1% have finished appropriating the vast majority of it to themselves.

Still more empty generalities that, true to Republican Party tradition, avoid calling for the outright repeal of any specific program or the abolishment of any particular agency. And even when the Republican Party does pledge to eliminate something specific, it has already proven that it will immediately break that promise once safely in office.

Case in point? The Department of “Education” (DoE).

The 1996 National Republican Platform called for abolishing the DoE outright, yet once the Republicans had secured control of the White House as well as both houses of Congress, not only did they do nothing to eliminate the DoE, they continued to increase its funding. And that, of course, is because the “big wealthy business interests” (as George Carlin put it) who own the Republican Party want the DoE to continue its documented and increasingly obvious agenda of “deliberate dumbing down.”

And when this cap on spending forces spending cuts to be made, do you honestly expect us to believe that a Republican-controlled government will reduce spending on either imperialist wars of aggression overseas or police state expansionism here at home -- even though the Republicans did everything they could to increase those two expenditures when they were in charge? Didn’t think so.

Does this mean you support (a) relegalizing alternative medicine -- including medical marijuana -- (b) revoking overextended drug patents -- particularly those granted for “me-too” drugs and for drugs developed primarily at taxpayer expense -- and (c) reforming medical licensing laws so that only those health care providers who accept government subsidies are required to be state certified? Didn’t think so.

If you’re for increasing “competition,” does this mean you support using antitrust action to break up the oil cartel? Didn’t think so.

See my previous remarks on the balanced budget amendment.

With regard to “capital gains,” will you at least acknowledge that these are, in many if not most cases, primarily land gains -- i.e. increases in the publicly-created value of land -- and that economists throughout history (beginning with Adam Smith) have maintained that a tax on land values is unlike any other tax in the sense that it does not in any way penalize or discourage productivity? Didn’t think so.

With regard to the so-called “death” tax (read: estate tax), will you at least acknowledge that this tax doesn’t even apply to the bottom 99% of income earners, and that you are hence revealing (however unwittingly) an obvious class bias in continually bemoaning this tax while making no mention of the payroll tax -- even though the latter falls harder on most Americans than even the individual income tax? Didn’t think so.

Unsurprisingly absent from the above "contract" are civil liberties, foreign policy, and monetary reform.

With regard to civil liberties, is this inexcusable omission on your part a veiled way of saying you support the “Patriot” Act, the Homeland “Security” Act, the Military Commissions Act, and Presidential Directive 51? Is that your idea of “protecting” the Constitution? If so, don’t be surprised if it isn’t just liberal Democrats who laugh at you!

With regard to foreign policy, is this equally inexcusable omission a veiled way of saying you support wasting nearly a trillion dollars in taxpayer money each year waging imperialist, terroristic, hornets’ nest-stirring wars of aggression -- all because you’re either too cowardly or too self-righteous to admit that the banker-owned U.S. government in which you've invested so much blind faith over the years lied to you about who orchestrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks and why? In light of the Republican Party’s disgraceful track record on this issue, the question practically answers itself.

And with regard to monetary reform, is this omission a veiled way of saying that (notwithstanding your obligatory lip service to the need for “auditing” conveniently unnamed “agencies”) you

(a) generally support the debt-based, privately-controlled money system that has inflicted so much damage on our economy -- and which now has us on the verge of the greatest depression in U.S. history -- and

(b) are hence opposed to replacing this system with the sort of debt-free money system advocated by such monetary reformers as Ellen Brown, Richard C. Cook, Byron Dale, Stephen Zarlenga, and the makers of both The Money Masters documentary and the recently-released sequel, The Secret of Oz?

If so, then -- whether you realize it or not, and whether you want to admit it or not -- you are actually helping to spread and intensify the very economic disease you laughingly presume to cure with this thoroughly discredited ideological snake-oil of yours.

This is not the f**king tea party, this is bullshit Bilderberg Nazi's attempt to hijack the tea party movement.

do not fall for it.

Prima Facie, it is a horrendous pathetic joke, but it does not represent the tea party movement in any way shape or form (although they wish it did). Some tea party planners push this crap and beat up Ron Paul supporters, but that is shifting as more progressives are joining the tea party movement. The movement is sporadic and decentralized. that is where the power lies.

[Dig]

This sounds like the influence of Newt Gingrich. Remember, he created his "Contract with America" in 1995 (I think was the year)! We know he has influence with the Tea Party TAKEOVER group, and he promoted Sarah Palin to take it over  also.
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Deception/index.php?showtopic=789

 

absolutely, that transhumanist globalist pig is attempting to serve up more power to bilderberg banksters with this pathetic joke.

[Geolibertarian]

This is not the f**king tea party, this is bullshit Bilderberg Nazi's attempt to hijack the tea party movement.

It's not the original Tea Party, no, but -- whether we like it or not -- it is now the current Tea Party as far as the vast majority of both FOX-watching "conservatives" and MSNBC-watching "liberals" are concerned.

We could complain all day long about how the original Tea Party was non-partisan, yet our efforts would prove no less futile than trying to convince the masses that the commonly-accepted definition of the word "liberal" was once quite different from what it is today.

So rather than get into a semantical turf war over what this or that political label means, I prefer to say -- "What public policy positions does the label in question currently represent in the minds of most people?" -- and to then critique those positions accordingly.

In a limited sense, it's like intellectual aikido: instead of meeting force with force, I try to use my opponent's force against him.

do not fall for it.

I haven't. But as We are Changers discovered recently, the majority of FOX-watching "conservatives" obviously have:

       http://www.prisonplanet.com/we-are-change-booted-out-of-california-tea-party-event.html

My rebuttal of the "Contract from America" was addressed to the latter, not the former.

Prima Facie, it is a horrendous pathetic joke, but it does not represent the tea party movement in any way shape or form (although they wish it did). Some tea party planners push this crap and beat up Ron Paul supporters, but that is shifting as more progressives are joining the tea party movement. The movement is sporadic and decentralized. that is where the power lies.

I guess it depends on what part of the country one lives in, because I've seen no evidence of this "shift" where I live, nor have I seen the fruits of this shift manifest to any significant degree at any of the recent Tea Party rallies. As Webster Tarpley noted fairly recently (after attending one of these rallies himself), they appear to be composed disproportionately of "retired military" types whose primary concern seems to be protecting their share of the federal budget while denying -- in the name of "limited government" and "fiscal conservatism" -- anyone else from securing their desired share.

That's why I pefer the less cryptic and more specific term, anti-NWO/pro-America movement -- particularly since "New World Order" is a much more politically incorrect term, since it calls direct attention to the very global fascist agenda that the ruling elite want desperately for the masses to remain blissfully ignorant of.

But hey, whatever gets the job done.

[Dig]

It's not the original Tea Party, no, but -- whether we like it or not -- it is now the current Tea Party as far as the vast majority of both FOX-watching "conservatives" and MSNBC-watching "liberals" are concerned.

We could complain all day long about how the original Tea Party was non-partisan, yet our efforts would prove no less futile than trying to convince the masses that the commonly-accepted definition of the word "liberal" was once quite different from what it is today.

So rather than get into a semantical turf war over what this or that political label means, I prefer to say -- "What public policy positions does the label in question currently represent in the minds of most people?" -- and to then critique those positions accordingly.

In a limited sense, it's like intellectual aikido: instead of meeting force with force, I try to use my opponent's force against him.

I haven't. But as We are Changers discovered recently, the majority of FOX-watching "conservatives" obviously have:

       http://www.prisonplanet.com/we-are-change-booted-out-of-california-tea-party-event.html

My rebuttal of the "Contract from America" was addressed to the latter, not the former.

I guess it depends on what part of the country one lives in, because I've seen no evidence of this "shift" where I live, nor have I seen the fruits of this shift manifest to any significant degree at any of the recent Tea Party rallies. As Webster Tarpley noted fairly recently (after attending one of these rallies himself), they appear to be composed disproportionately of "retired military" types whose primary concern seems to be protecting their share of the federal budget while denying -- in the name of "limited government" and "fiscal conservatism" -- anyone else from securing their desired share.

That's why I pefer the less cryptic and more specific term, anti-NWO/pro-America movement -- particularly since "New World Order" is a much more politically incorrect term, since it calls direct attention to the very global fascist agenda that the ruling elite want desperately for the masses to remain blissfully ignorant of.

But hey, whatever gets the job done.

I can't argue with a single statement, thanks for the insight.

[happyJoy]

This here be the challenge.
Whatever you throw at the elites, they absorb it and throw it back at you.
The NWO have co-opted the media outlets since they took a bruising in the 70's.

They commercialize all forms of opposition and rebellion, & their propaganda controls the public views. We the people will have to move hard and fast to organize outside their arena.

IMHO we will have to build a street level opposition with a constitutional agenda and have as a main priority, a consensus based agenda. Perhaps with active and continuous online voting system for citizen opinion that cannot be skewed or fabricated by the MSM. 

 
 

[Geolibertarian]

This here be the challenge.
Whatever you throw at the elites, they absorb it and throw it back at you.

That's because well-meaning dissenters and reformers have a tendency to focus too much on feel-good slogans and empty platitudes and not enough on specific policy reforms, and consequently make it unnecessarily easy for their political message to be co-opted by the ruling elite.

One of the reasons I created the following thread was to counteract that trend:

       http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=162212.0

It's easy to see how the elite could co-opt catch phrases about "liberty" and "freedom," but I can't imagine how they could co-opt any of the reform proposals listed in the above thread.

For instance, can you imagine Sarah Palin actually calling for the repeal of the "Patriot" Act or Military Commissions Act, or for replacing our debt-based money system with a debt-free Greenback system?

[worcesteradam]

the elite took two steps backward to take one step forward.
Their aim was to hijack that movement before it grew. They would like to hijack Ron Paul too if possible. But if they can control his support, then they can withdraw it when necessary by changing whats on Glenn Beck's teleprompt.
Its still a victory overall that they felt forced to go with Glenn Beck

[Joseon]

This here be the challenge.
Whatever you throw at the elites, they absorb it and throw it back at you.
The NWO have co-opted the media outlets since they took a bruising in the 70's.

They commercialize all forms of opposition and rebellion, & their propaganda controls the public views. We the people will have to move hard and fast to organize outside their arena.

IMHO we will have to build a street level opposition with a constitutional agenda and have as a main priority, a consensus based agenda. Perhaps with active and continuous online voting system for citizen opinion that cannot be skewed or fabricated by the MSM. 

 
 

No we need an educated and strong willed public. How that will be accomplished, I really don't know.

[Geolibertarian]

Yet bestowing privileges (i.e. unearned advantages) to select corporations -- as both major parties have done countless times over the years -- has had the effect of imposing artificial limits on our economic “choices.” Thus, in the absence of specific calls for repealing said privileges (i.e., prohibitively high licensing barriers, overextended patent protection, corporate welfare, etc.), why should anyone regard this as anything more than recycled campaign rhetoric that Republicans used to gain control of Congress in 1994 and the White House in 2000, only to expand big government across the board once safely in office?

Since midterm elections are fast approaching -- and since an alarming number of "conservative" voters have ridiculously short memories -- I thought I'd draw their attention to the following, so that they don't fall for the same Republican snake-oil all over again:

-------------------------------

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-02-federal-spending_x.htm

Growth in federal spending unchecked

by Richard Wolf
USA TODAY
4/3/2006

WASHINGTON — Federal spending is outstripping economic growth at a rate unseen in more than half a century, provoking some conservatives to complain that government under Republican control has gotten too big.

The federal government is currently spending 20.8 cents of every $1 the economy generates, up from 18.5 cents in 2001, White House budget documents show. That's the most rapid growth during one administration since Franklin Roosevelt.

RELATED: How federal spending has climbed since 2001

There are no signs that the trend is about to turn around. The House Budget Committee last week rejected a proposal that would require spending hikes to be offset by cuts in other spending or by tax increases.

This week, the House is scheduled to debate the $2.8 trillion budget for 2007, which projects an additional $3 trillion of debt in the next five years.

The Sept. 11 attacks, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Gulf Coast hurricanes account for only part of the increased spending.

Other factors: the biggest military buildup in decades, domestic spending, and the rise of benefits for the elderly, poor and disabled.

"You take anything, and we've grown it big," says Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., a leading critic of the spending spurt. "When you're in control of the presidency and both houses of Congress, there's just no stop on it. There's no brake."

Examples:

[Continued...]


http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3750

The Grand Old Spending Party: How Republicans Became Big Spenders

by Stephen Slivinski
Cato Institute
May 3, 2005

President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years. His 2006 budget doesn’t cut enough spending to change his place in history, either.

Total government spending grew by 33 percent during Bush’s first term. The federal budget as a share of the economy grew from 18.5 percent of GDP on Clinton’s last day in office to 20.3 percent by the end of Bush’s first term.

Stephen Slivinski is director of budget studies at the Cato Institute.

The Republican Congress has enthusiastically assisted the budget bloat. Inflation-adjusted spending on the combined budgets of the 101 largest programs they vowed to eliminate in 1995 has grown by 27 percent.

The GOP was once effective at controlling nondefense spending. The final nondefense budgets under Clinton were a combined $57 billion smaller than what he proposed from 1996 to 2001. Under Bush, Congress passed budgets that spent a total of $91 billion more than the president requested for domestic programs. Bush signed every one of those bills during his first term. Even if Congress passes Bush’s new budget exactly as proposed, not a single cabinet-level agency will be smaller than when Bush assumed office.

[Continued...]

-------------------------------

To all you "conservatives" and right-leaning "libertarians" out there: with the possible exception of Rand Paul, either vote for your 3rd party or independent candidate of choice this November, or don't vote at all!

(The same, of course, goes for anti-war/anti-police state "liberals" and "progressives.")

[Geolibertarian]

http://www.infowars.com/republican-tea-party-organization-reports-death-threats/

Republican Tea Party Organization Reports Death Threats

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
August 27, 2010

Corporate media generated and whipped up hysteria and hatred directed at the Tea Party movement has resulted in death threats, according to GOP Majority Leader Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks. Adam Brandon told U.S.News & World Report that Armey and his organization received dozens threatening and harassing phone calls and emails.


FreedomWorks, funded in part by the neocon Richard Mellon
Scaife, is the establishment’s answer to the Libertarian Tea
Party movement.

FreedomWorks is the establishment’s answer to the grassroots Tea Party movement. Republicans Jack Kemp and Bill Bennett also work for the organization. It is funded in part by the notorious neocon foundation run by CIA asset, Richard Mellon Scaife. During his career as a member of the House of Representatives, Dick Armey voted as a mainline Republican. Following his vote for the Iraq invasion, the Texas Republican admitted he had been “bullshitted” by then vice president Dick Cheney.

Recordings played for U.S.News & World Report’s “Washington Whispers” Paul Bedard contain direct threats. “You guys better watch it,” one caller threatens. “Now, we are going to destroy and obliterate Rush [Limbaugh] and Sean Hannity,” says another. “Those two guys are dead.”

Democrats claimed they received death threats and were victims of vandalism following their votes for Obama’s health care bill. On March 24, Democrat House majority leader Steny Hoyer said at least 10 House members had raised concerns about their personal security. The FBI and police investigated the threats, according to Reuters.

Republican whip Eric Cantor told reporters on March 25 that he had also been the subject of threats and that a shot was fired through a window of his campaign office in Richmond, Virginia. “It is reckless to use these incidents as media vehicles for political gain,” said Cantor, criticizing Democrats for exploiting the alleged threats and vandalism.

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn went on MSNBC on March 25 and characterized the obscene phones calls and emails as domestic terrorism. Clyburn said people are getting “signals” from Republicans on how to behave and that lawmakers need to “disown” the activity before it gets out of control. He suggested his colleagues were culpable. “If we participate in it, either from the balcony or on the floor of the House, you are aiding and abetting this kind of terrorism, really,” Clyburn said.

Clyburn and Missouri Democrat Emanuel Cleaver said Tea Party activists had spit on them and hurled racial epithets as Democrat lawmakers walked to the Capitol to cast a vote on Obama’s authoritarian health care bill. Numerous videos of the alleged assault reveal nothing of the sort occurred.

According to Douglas J. Hagmann of the Northeast Intelligence Network, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security created a watch list containing names of individuals associated with the pro-life and Tea Party movement following accusations made by Democrats. The individuals, according to Hagmann’s sources, “are considered a threat to domestic security, continuity of government operations, and to the lives of lawmakers and their families.”

Hagmann said lawmakers were “exploring the application of the Patriot Act against any right-wing individual or group that poses a danger to government operations.”

On March 30, Fox News insinuated that readers of Infowars.com were responsible for threatening lawmakers. “Hundreds of comments were posted in response to an incendiary story on infowars.com, the radical far-right Web site owned by radio host Alex Jones. The story, entitled, ‘The Cost Of Defying Obamacare: $2,250 a Month And IRS Goons Pointing Guns At Your Family,’ focused on the ‘increasing militarization of the IRS’ and its expansion of powers under the new health care law,” Jana Winter wrote.

Claims by Democrats and Republicans of violence add fuel to the corporate media generated campaign to portray opposition to the policies of Obama and the federal government as radical and representing a potential threat to national security.

The GOP hijacked Tea Party has reinvigorated the false right-left paradigm with its accusations of violence. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are establishment figures and are not the voice of change.

FreedomWorks, run in part by money provided by the neocon Richard Mellon Scaife, does not represent the Tea Party movement. The original Libertarian Tea Party movement was hijacked by establishment Republicans and is now a device designed to derail the movement and turn it into a cheer-leading section for the Republican party as the government prepares for the mid-term elections.

[jofortruth]

The Tea Party - Who Started it, and hijacked it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEyJpGpiikM


VIDEO all should see! It features Ron Paul, one of the few true Statesmen in our government!

[Geolibertarian]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/fox-news-preying-on-the-fears-of-older-technologically-ignorant-seniors-to-co-opt-tea-party.html

FOX NEWS Preying on the Fears of Older Technologically Ignorant Seniors to Co-opt Tea Party

Jason Charles
TruthAlliance.net
Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Sad but true, FOX News has successfully co-opted the entire Tea Party back under the Neo-Con controlled tent of the GOP.

With Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin’s Restore America Rally posting numbers well over the 100,000+ mark we have to analyze exactly how the “social architects” accomplished this incredible feat.

The Tea Party is largely made up of Republicans, Independents and some Democrats shown in a major study quoted by CBS News in April.

“More than four in 10 self-described members of the Tea Party also identify as either Independents or Democrats, according to a recently released, comprehensive survey.

Yet the Tea Party’s priority appears to be fiscal conservatism, and the group by large margins trusts Republicans in Congress over Democrats to solve the country’s problems.

In a collection of three national surveys conducted by the Republican-leaning Winston Group, 57 percent of Tea Party members called themselves Republicans while 28 percent said they were Independents, and 13 percent said they were Democrats. Two-thirds of the group identified as conservative, but 26 percent said they are moderate and 8 percent called themselves liberal.”

The majority of those who first came to be associated with the Tea Party back in 2006 and earlier are people who split from the GOP after the atrocious human rights and unconstitutional actions of the Bush administration revealed their true colors as war mongering fascists. These are all people who recognize the two party system as being totally controlled opposition bringing in none other than a New World Order in place of America’s sovereignty.

This early Tea Party movement was all about ending unjust wars, stopping the North American Union, and eradicating the fraudulent institution called the Federal Reserve. They were mobilizing against such things as wire-tapping, and spying on American citizens without warrants, the encroaching police state, the economic collapse and other issues that were legitimately threatening our republic. They did this during, and against the Bush administration alongside the anti-war left.

So what happened to the Old Tea Party?

Who are all the newcomers to the Tea Party movement? How did it massively balloon in size in a matter of a couple years and is now made up of the same war mongering, Muslim hating neo-cons that the Bush admin was comprised of?

Easy, the answer lays in the FOX News demographics and average age of their viewing audience. Fox news viewership according to a survey conducted by Steve Sternber, places the average age of any given FOX News watcher at 65 years old.

“According to a survey released by media analyst Steve Sternberg, Fox News’ average viewer last season was aged 65, the oldest audience among fully distributed cable networks.

CNN wasn’t far behind, though — its average audience was 63. MSNBC was a perky 59. CNBC is the young turk at 52.”

The technological divide

The early Tea Party was comprised of college students and working adults who having been exposed to the internet at a very early age and the informational renaissance that it had to offer. These young people mobilized against real issues that threatened our nation. Issues like ending the Federal Reserve, warrant-less wire-tapping, unjust and endless war. Things they learned about on the internet and not on T.V. or in universities. They didn’t buy into the two-party false dialectic and actively opposed the corporate sell off of our country to the New World Order System.

This tech savvy generation translated over into the massive Ron Paul Revolution in 2008 and is still going strong, is very patient and growing in numbers, but compared to traditionally conservative Fox News watchers still a minority demographic.

A renaissance has occurred underneath the radar of our nations millions of traditionally conservative seniors. Documentary films like America: Freedom to Fascism (VIDEO) which explains the fraud that is the private Federal Reserve system, or the Obama Deception (VIDEO) that tears apart both Bush and Obama administrations as slaves to the elite agenda of a New World Order, or 9/11 exposing films like Core of Corruption (VIDEO) that methodically destroys the official story remain just out of reach because simple ignorance of basic computer skills.

This over 65+ demographic is traditionally computer illiterate. They still type domain names into the Google bar of their browser because URL addresses are a foreign language to them. In fact their technological skill set is really limited to emailing and flipping their cable box to Fox News in eager anticipation of Glenn Beck and Jack Baur style terrorist busting.

This technological gap in the elderly population is what has allowed FOX News to continue to shape the collective fear of an entire generation. In fact if you look at pictures of Tea Party rallies and who is in attendance a large percentage of people are sporting silvery/white hair. This is just a fact.

The commies have taken the Whitehouse

Another thing that has totally been overlooked is the constant use of the term ’socialist’, ‘communist’, ‘radical left-wing agenda’ to describe Obama. This rhetoric is purposefully preying on the sentiments of the childhood, cold war traumas of the 65+ generation. The purpose is to pit the U.S. and Israel against a very un-likely nuclear Iran, just like the nuclear stand-off with the godless communist countries of the 60’s – 80’s. The political tool of nuclear threat has been resurrected by the Bush administration and continued by the Obama administration in the guise of so called “Islamo-Fascist” nuclear threat.

We need to worry less about the failed presidency of Obama and more about whether the real controlling elite will set a nuke off in America and blame it on the Tea Partiers who are being played up as violent extremists at every turn. Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Fox News and the Republican Party have monopolized control over the Tea Party. This technological divide needs to be bridged by those of us who are associated with the old guard and can educate their Gadsden waving elders on who the real enemies are in this nation.

DVD truth documentaries play a big role in this educational process. Seniors may not be able to adjust their screen resolution from 800×600, but they do know how to operate a DVD player.

The only thing that will wake them up to the Truth that Glenn Beck lies by omission is when they see exactly what has been omitted on their very own T.V’s.

[Geolibertarian]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/fox-news-preying-on-the-fears-of-older-technologically-ignorant-seniors-to-co-opt-tea-party.html

This over 65+ demographic is traditionally computer illiterate. They still type domain names into the Google bar of their browser because URL addresses are a foreign language to them. In fact their technological skill set is really limited to emailing and flipping their cable box to Fox News in eager anticipation of Glenn Beck and Jack Baur style terrorist busting.

This technological gap in the elderly population is what has allowed FOX News to continue to shape the collective fear of an entire generation.

Although in many cases this political trend among the "elderly" is indeed the result of their being "ignorant" of how to use the Internet, in all too many others it's because of arrogance on their part. They simply refuse to swallow their precious egos and admit to just how badly they've allowed themselves to be deceived, manipulated and betrayed over and over again by the very political "leaders" in whom they've invested so much blind faith over the years.

From what I've observed and experienced, it is precisely this arrogance that compels middle and upper-middle class retirees (particularly if they're former military) to avert their gaze from anything that shatters the illusions on which their delusional, comic-book worldview is based, and to rail hysterically and self-righteously at whoever committed the almighty sin of attempting to enlighten them.

No amount of computer literacy classes will make a difference with such folks (or with their brainwashed counterparts in younger age groups), because it's not merely that they "don't know" certain things, but that they don't want to know.

In fact, so blinded are they by this arrogance, that they'll mindlessly cheerlead right-wing demagogues who privately view them as no less parasitic than the "welfare recipients" that they (property rich seniors) sooo love to look down upon, and who are determined to reduce and eventually eliminate the entitlement benefits they currently take for granted. These willfully ignorant souls will literally saw off the very economic branch they're sitting on as long as the saw that's been handed to them is wrapped in the American flag.

Will the elderly Glenn Beck/Sarah Palin cultists wake up and smell the corporate fascist Kool-Aid they've been drinking before the ruling-class puppets whom they insist on following like sheep start doing to them what they've been doing to the wage-earners who finance their Social Security and military retirement checks?

Thus far, I've seen virtually no indication that they will. And because they are arguably the most powerful voting bloc in the entire country, that means they'll be dragging the rest of us right over the cliff with them!

[Geolibertarian]

Am I the only one whose bullsh*t meter pegged upon reading the following?

-------------------------------

http://www.prisonplanet.com/will-the-tea-party-take-down-another-establishment-candidate.html

Will the Tea Party Take Down Another Establishment Candidate?

JONATHAN KARL and GREGORY SIMMONS
ABC News
Sept 14, 2010

In Tuesday’s Delaware primary, the tea party movement may inflict its most devastating wound yet to the Republican establishment.

With an assist from Sarah Palin, tea party activists in Delaware are trying to defeat the Republican candidate with the best chance to win Joe Biden’s old Senate seat and nominate instead a candidate Republican leaders say has no chance of winning the general election in November.

Rep. Mike Castle is considered a slam dunk to capture Joe Biden’s old Senate seat. Castle is a pro-abortion rights, pro-gun control Republican who often works with Democrats. Those traits have helped make him the most popular Republican in a state that leans heavily Democratic; Castle has twice been elected governor and was elected as Delaware’s sole representative in the House nine times.

Full article here

-------------------------------

Sarah Palin is herself a puppet of the corporate-owned political "establishment," so why would she "assist" anyone unless doing so served that establishment?

[Geolibertarian]

The following article raises some important questions that I almost never see addressed:

-------------------------------

http://www.infowars.com/anti-establishment-fervor-a-hammer-blow-to-washington-elite/

Anti-Establishment Fervor A Hammer Blow To Washington Elite

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, September 15, 2010



Amidst the defeat two more establishment Republicans by Tea Party candidates last night, a new Rasmussen poll shows that anti-incumbent challenger Sharron Angle is now tied with Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and stands a good chance of ousting him in November, which would represent a massive blow to the Washington elite.

Angle’s popularity is excelled by Kentucky’s Rand Paul, who has taken a commanding lead over Democrat Jack Conway after trouncing establishment Republican Trey Grayson back in May.

Mirroring Paul’s success, Delaware Tea Party candidate Christine O’Donnell defeated nine-term Republican Michael Castle last night, despite a last minute GOP rush to help him save his seat. After the result, Republican insider Karl Rove attacked O’Donnell’s character and derided her as a “nut,” in a transparent example of how the neo-con establishment is panicked at genuinely grass-roots candidates who have not been co-opted by the Republican Party.

Meanwhile, another Tea Party-backed newcomer, Carl Paladino, easily won New York’s Republican gubernatorial race, beating establishment candidate Rick Lazio.

Given the burgeoning success of anti-establishment candidates in recent months, one wonders when the system will turn to its rigged voting machines and shady back-handers in order to counter what is increasingly looking like a peaceful revolution conducted via the ballot box.

[Continued...]

-------------------------------

What is it exactly that makes Christine O’Donnell (the candidate pictured above) a "Tea Party" or "anti-establishment" candidate?

Is it the mere fact that most people have agreed to call her that while having at best only a vague understanding of what the term actually means, or is it specific policy reforms she advocates? If the latter, then what are those policy reforms? Do her supporters even know?

And what about litmus test issues? Are there any? Can someone like Peter Schiff, for instance, parrot establishment talking points on an issue as important as Iran yet still be considered an "anti"-establishment candidate?

These questions are vital. Why? Because the less the rank-and-file members of a political movement define that movement in terms of specific policy positions (such as the ones I advocate here), the more telegenic Judas goats and smooth-talking establishment operatives will do it for them. Tea Party cheerleaders ignore this fact at their peril.

[Geolibertarian]

What is it exactly that makes Christine O’Donnell (the candidate pictured above) a "Tea Party" or "anti-establishment" candidate?

Is it the mere fact that most people have agreed to call her that while having at best only a vauge understanding of what the term actually means, or is it specific policy reforms she advocates? If the latter, then what are those policy reforms? Do her supporters even know?

Just so everyone knows, the reason I'm suspicious of O'Donnell is that, in the following clip, she accuses Obama of having increased federal spending across the board "except" for so-called "defense" (read: corporate-orchestrated imperialism):

       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-npEhuweIyA

And as Ron Paul himself would readily attest, that is a bald-faced lie:

-------------------------------

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16181

The Pentagon Budget: Largest Ever and Growing

by Sara Flounders
Global Research, November 19, 2009
International Action Center - 2009-11-07

On Oct. 28, President Barack Obama signed the 2010 Defense Authorization Act, the largest military budget in U.S. history.

It is not only the world's largest military budget but is larger than the military expenditures of the whole rest of the world combined. And it is growing nonstop. The 2010 military budget--which doesn't even cover many war-related expenditures--is listed as $680 billion. In 2009 it was $651 billion and in 2000 was $280 billion. It has more than doubled in 10 years.

[Continued...]

-------------------------------

[Dig]

I hope people will learn from history - even 6 year old history....

The Democratic Party Infiltrated: A Personal Account
http://benfrank.net/patriots/news/alaska/the_democratic_party_infiltrated

This is what happened in the 2004 Democratic Primary in Alaska.

My wife and I were newbies to the political process, we had never been to a caucus before, never been involved in politics other than casting a vote every few years. This time we were watching closely, and we became aware that John Kerry was a Republican with a Democratic nameplate. We saw Howard Dean collect $40 million in anti-war money, then turn around and support 40,000 more troops Kerry. Whatever happened to fighting for what you believe in? How is it possible that we had a Presidential election between two pro-war candidates? Why didn't America have a real choice, ie Bush vs a Dem that would end the war?

This story outlines how the DLC stole Alaska for Kerry. Hopefully my experience will help others to be prepared to expose the status-quo stooges in their state.

1. Discourage Participation
In Alaska there was no primary vote, but instead local caucuses. In Colorado, the local caucuses were held in private homes, like mini-neighborhood parties. This seems like it would encourage participation- way to go Colorado. For some reason, Alaska's Democratic Party chose to hold their caucuses in a central location, ie we had to drive 90 miles to attend. For a population of 15,000(?) 19 people attended our caucus.

It was held on a beautiful Saturday in Spring (after a long winter, most people would not want to waste such a beautiful day indoors). The day of the caucus was on Saturday, March 20th- the first day of Spring Break, and the anniversary of the war.

As any Alaskan knows, during Spring Break there is a mass exodus south- Hawaii, Mexico, etc. Why would the Dems schedule the meeting on the first day of Spring Break, why not the week before?

2. Misdirect
The Democratic Party of Alaska repeatedly gave out the incorrect address of the caucus, telling us the event would be in the wrong town. We called several times and were told the wrong answer every time. We finally talked to another Democrat who told us the correct location, and she said, ~ "Are they still giving out that information, I've called them several times already to inform them of the correct location."

The day the Dems picked for the caucus was also the anniversary of the 1st day of the war. So we had our local "anti-war leaders" convince a hundred people or more to stay in town and hold an anti-war march. Rather than voting for the anti-war candidate, many Dems were fooled into attending yet another pointless march. (Note to Dems Everywhere: the 'anti-war leaders' in my hometown are pro-establishment stooges, are yours too?)

3. Waste Time
At the Caucus itself, all 19 of us had driven for more than an hour on this beautiful Saturday to debate the merits of Kerry/Dean/Kucinich. Rather than spend the afternoon discussing the war, health care, etc... we were told to sit down and listen to a special speaker. A candidate for the local borough (county) assembly was to give us a presentation. Ok- we're all polite so we sat down to listen... and then he went on, and on, and on.... talking about his Arby's restaurants, yadda yadda yadda. After close to 2 hrs of this bullshit, i was getting irate. Ok, so he finally finished, now there's another speaker, some lady for Tony Knowles. So we had to listen to another spiel- we already knew Tony since he was governor, but still we had to sit through another 45 minutes or so of BS. Looking back I realize this was all by design, but at the time I had no clue...

So finally it was our turn to debate... each candidate had one person stand up and speak for them. It turns out that 16 of the 19 attending were Strong Kucinich supporters (End the War, Health Care for All), but none of us got to speak for Kucinich. Instead we had another Kucinich 'supporter' stand up to speak, even though this guy wasn't in our district. He wasn't going to vote- why was he even there? So Joe stands up and talks about why everyone should vote for Kucinich- 'because they were old drinking buddies in college and he's a really good guy.' HUH?

After that we had 15 minutes to talk amongst ourselves, it was time to vote. Huh? We've been here sitting through crap for hours, but we only get 15 minutes to actually talk about the issues? Yep.

Even with all the time wasting, our caucus voted 16-3 Kucinich over Kerry. If there were a real discussion, it would've been 19-0, ie 100% to End the War.

4. The State Convention
At the State Convention it got really weird. Once again we were forced to listen to hours of speeches. There is no time to discuss the issues, just sit down and listen to one speaker after another (anyone remember the 'pig in the snake' guy?)

During one short break, I went up to the main table and asked the DLC leader Scott (?) if there would be some time to debate the issues. He said no, the schedule was tight, there's no time for that kind of thing. Huh? Again, I was a newbie, I had no idea that this whole event was staged to prevent participation and dialogue.

Finally at 4pm, it was time to vote. We're told to split up Kucinich Delegates on one side, Kerry on the other, and the 20 Undecided in the middle. We're given 15 minutes to try to convince the undecideds to vote with us.

There's Joe again, the Kucinich 'leader'- does he stand up and lead the charge to convince people to vote with us to end the war? No, he tells the Kucinich delegates to gather around and lets talk about who's going to the national convention in Boston. Huh? So we listen to him for about 10 seconds, then left to go and try to convince the others to join us and vote to end the war.

So we go over and are talking to the Undecided delegates to vote with us, End the War, Universal Health Care, etc... we've got flyers and facts and we're talking up all the reasons why Kerry is a Repub and Kucinich's policies are for real.... the Kerry people sat their silently- they had nothing. Not one of them tried to convince the Undecideds to vote for Kerry, because they really didn't know why... only that the TV told them to.

The race was literally neck and neck, and whoever won the undecided vote, won the state. So we're over there talking to people when this guy Ian stands up and says, "we've made a deal, if all the Undecideds would follow me over here" and he leads them OUT OF THE ROOM - which is strictly against the rules. (All delegates are supposed to remain in the main hall until the vote is over.)

So he leads them into a tiny room across the hall, and we're like, what are you doing people, "you can't just make a deal then vote for kerry." What was the deal? Some 18yr high school student wanted to go to Boston, and if all the Undecideds come and vote for Kerry, then she can go as one of the delegates- good deal eh?

What was really strange is I was talking to one lady from the Mountain View area of Anchorage, and she said she had to vote her conscience, for the poor kids in her neighborhood. So after outlining some key points, etc... she started walking with us towards the Kucinich side, then some other lady swoops in, puts her around the gal and says come with me to the Kerry room... and she was whisked away, seemingly against her own will. It was really bizarre- as if the Kerry lady had some of that "trust perfume" on... I know it sounds crazy, but this is what happened.

So the vote was counted. Not in public, but in secret. Kerry's supporters were in the tiny room across the hall, Kucinich supporters were in the large room. One teacher suggested to Joe (the Kucinich Leader) why not have everybody get in groups of ten- easy to count. Joe: No, no, no.... he had a hat, everyone get in a line and put in a little yellow piece of paper. But why- the teacher's idea was great let's do that. No. Then Joe counted the little pieces of paper, and went up to the stage to tell DLCer Scott our count (in secret). Then the Kerry guys came and conferred... it seemed as if they were making up the numbers to match the supposed total.

So then came the ratification of the vote- I stood up and said we should have a re-vote. What kind of democracy is it for some Kerry goon to 'make a deal' so some 18yr old can go to Boston? I suggested a re-vote. Instantly a minder came over to me and told me to pipe down, Joe came over too, 'we did our best'... No you didn't asshole.

I should have pushed the minder out of my face and continued raising good points, but instead i talked to her for a sec, and that gave Scott the opportunity he needed to say, "all in favor, aye" and that was it. Everybody started leaving for dinner.

Oh, I almost forgot, I said to the crowd, "Why did we sit here for hours of speeches and then have only 15 minutes to talk about the issues. Why can't we debate longer?" To which Scott replied, "the banquet hall is booked and we have to clear out so the Hotel can clean up." Huh? Why would the Democratic Party schedule their State Convention like this? Why did they leave so little time for discussion of the issues?

As this was all unfolding, I didn't really 'get it', but upon retrospect, I see that it was all planned. The Alaska Democratic Party has been infiltrated by status-quo goons that intentionally limited the debate in every way possible.

Even with all that, the official vote was 51%-49% Kerry over Kucinich, but if you ask me, Kucinich won hands down. There should have been a lawsuit against the Dems that broke the rules at the state party, having delegates go into a separate room, counting the vote in secret- it was a scam! If it wasn't for DLC stooges like Scott, Ian and Joe- the rightful winner of Alaska's 2004 Democratic State Convention would have been Dennis Kucinich.

Of course the national Dems have been co-opted as well. Proof of that was the Boston Convention.


Why would they have people travel thousands of miles to attend the Convention, then schedule it from 4-10pm everyday. Why did they pass out free drinks to the delegates, get them sloshed then wake them up at 8am for pointless meetings?

Did you watch the convention on C-span every day? I did. It was a sick joke. There was ZERO discussion of the issues, just one person after another talking about how great Kerry was-

At 4pm on Wednesday, right as people were filing in to the hall, with most of the Delegates still waiting in the security check line, Bill Richardson stood up and asked to approve the party platform- any objections (you could hear someone yelling in the back of the room), he says, ok- approved. That was the pro-war, Republican-Lite platform- approved with zero debate from the delegates.

Where was Kucinich and the anti-war crowd? PDA launched this same week, and they we're leading the anti-war crowd in speeches far away from the Convention center. Why weren't they trying to create a real debate inside the convention hall? What do you think?

For more on the Boston Convention, see this article from a Minnesota Delegate.
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=2305


Again, I write this hoping to help others be on the lookout for similar tactics. If they try to tell you to sit through hours of pointless speeches, tell 'em to shove it. Demand a Real Debate on the issues.

[citizenx]

This is not the f**king tea party, this is bullshit Bilderberg Nazi's attempt to hijack the tea party movement.

do not fall for it.

Prima Facie, it is a horrendous pathetic joke, but it does not represent the tea party movement in any way shape or form (although they wish it did). Some tea party planners push this crap and beat up Ron Paul supporters, but that is shifting as more progressives are joining the tea party movement. The movement is sporadic and decentralized. that is where the power lies.

Real ex-progressive Ron Paul supporter right here.  Pefectly willing to help some real constitutionalists take back their tea party from Republican party machine hacks like Gingrich, Rupert Murdoch, Glen Beck, Sarah Palin et. al.

Go ahead. Sign me up.

I hope you are right.

Taking back the tea party is a good idea -- worth trying at least.

[Captain Koolaid]

O.K. well, uh, at least Americans are waking up.  Hopefully a real 3rd party can emerge before the country completely goes down in flames.  I guess the Tea Party is permanently tainted and we'll have to start over with a new party.

[worcesteradam]

How about The Coffee Rally

[ekimdrachir]

The tea party is that Sarah Palin thing she did once, right? And that Beck guy, hes a tea partier..........

[Captain Koolaid]

how bout the Prison Planet Party.  Has a nice ring to it!

[Highland]

The contract with America was 15 years ago. Republicans only seem to think back about 30 days or they just want the new hoard of republican Mommy's to pass out the corporation subsidies and give up some more freedom for supposed safety. The Constitution party is a real party the tea party is only an idea that will be totally ignored by the republicans once they get elected. 

[birther truther tenther]

Our biggest mistake was calling this a tea party, instead of calling it a "Ron Paul r3VOLution".

[Geolibertarian]

Our biggest mistake was calling this a tea party, instead of calling it a "Ron Paul r3VOLution".

I think naming it after a person would also be a mistake because of (a) the risk that it might consequently degenerate into a personality cult, and (b) the fact that not everyone who opposes such things as imperialist wars of aggression, Nazi-style police state measures and corporate fascist economic policies necessarily subscribes to the Austrian School approach to economics that most Ron Paul supporters subscribe to.

This, again, is why I prefer the term, anti-NWO/pro-America movement.

It may not be as catchy as some other terms, but it has the advantage of being both more specific and more inclusive.

[Dig]

Again, Geo hits it out of the park even before the alt news...

Take a Second Look at Christine O’Donnell
http://www.infowars.com/take-a-second-look-at-christine-odonnell/
Keith Johnson
Revolt of the Plebs
September 17, 2010

WARNING:  I’m going to be cruel.   
   
   
A Christine O’Donnell in Washington may just mean one more vote for endless war in the Middle East. Photo: Delawareguy.   
   


Christine O’Donnell’s victory in the Delaware Republican primary may not be cause for celebration.  A Christine O’Donnell in Washington may just mean one more vote for endless war in the Middle East.

This statement was sourced from her 2008 campaign website by ‘On the Issues’:

Strategy to bring troops home from Iraq: it’s called victory

“Christine has a strategy for bringing our troops home from Iraq: It’s called victory. Past mistakes should not deter our need to stabilize Iraq so we can get our troops home. We can succeed in the future, but we must accompany our efforts with the honor and respect we’ve earned as a people. We cannot leave on the enemy’s terms. We must leave on our terms.”

Our Terms?  Take a look at what imposing “our terms” on the people of Iraq has done to that nation thus far. The United States invaded Iraq under the pretext of neutralizing Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction.  In the process, the American military turned an emerging first world nation into a hellish, third world cesspit.  In the end, no weapons of mass destruction were found.  There was and will be no victory, and suggesting that America has earned respect and honor within the context of the Iraq War is an affront to the 1,366,350 slaughtered Iraqis and the 4,736 dead members of our American armed services.  Is this her idea of victory, or will that only be accomplished after we have shed even more innocent blood?

Remove the words “Tea Party” from the Christine O’Donnell equation and you may very well end up with your garden variety NeoCon patsy.  She has been on the political scene long before the Tea Party was even heard of.  In the last four years, she has made a run for the Senate seat on two previous occasions.

During the 2006 race, Ms. O’Donnell agreed with two other Republican candidates that Iran was intent on developing nuclear weapons and that their government had actually benefited from the war with Iraq due to its close ties with Iraqi Shiite leaders. She was, however, the only Republican candidate to go one step further and assert that the U.S. should consider military action against Iran. She stated “You can’t negotiate with the Devil” and also asserted that China has a “carefully thought out and strategic plan to take over America.” No, that wasn’t Sarah Palin saying those things…but it may just as well have been.  Keep in mind that ‘establishment’ incumbent Mike Castle was among those three “Republican candidates,” and even he was not ready to put his full support behind an attack on Iran.  That’s not to say that it isn’t nice to see Castle go—good riddance.  But, here is a question that I’ve posed once before:  What are we getting in return?

If this woman still embodies the kind of pro-war ideology that she spouts in her previous rhetoric—she will no doubt become a useful idiot to opportunistic war makers on Capitol Hill—who will exploit her religious beliefs to advance their imperialist agenda.  Upon her arrival in Washington, the Israeli lobby and the defense industry will routinely court her.  Give the charming, fatherly Henry Kissinger ½ hour alone with this naïve young woman, and she will be eating out of the palm of his hand and going out of her way to send your sons and daughters off to die in holy, Christian missions of conquest against the evil Muslim hordes.

Has Ms. O’Donnell changed her stance on U.S. involvement in foreign wars?  If she has, I can’t find any mention of it.  When I go to her campaign website, I am delivered to a page that asks for a donation, but no information that will help me find out where she stands on the issues.  If I put her name into a search engine, I cannot find any reference to her position on war and foreign policy other than what I have already shared.

However, I did find plenty of information concerning her passionate crusade against masturbation, gay marriage, pre-marital sex and abortion.  I’ve also learned that she has strongly supported censorship and applying Biblical principals into all levels of public policy.  But even these issues don’t help us find out what she really stands for.  As recently as last night, O’Donnell seemed to be backpedaling on some of the more controversial positions she previously held in an attempt to clean up her image, or at least come off as less of afanatical religious zealot.

According to this morning’s Washington Post:

“In her first post-primary debate against Democratic nominee Chris Coons, O’Donnell said she has matured since making controversial statements in favor of “sexual purity” and against masturbation in a 1996 MTV documentary. “I was very excited and passionate about my newfound faith,” she said about that period in her life.”

“O’Donnell said during the debate that she opposes embryonic stem cell research and abortion except if the life of the mother is threatened. But she said she would adhere to the Constitution rather than her personal beliefs if elected, and emphasized her views about taxes and the size and role of government over her opinions on social issues.”

I find this all a little too wishy-washy for my taste.  Is O’Donnell the kind of “go along to get along” politician who is taking up the Tea Party banner just so she gets into a position of power?  Fighting taxes and reducing the size of government are familiar themes that every Republican campaigns on.

I fear that Christine O’Donnell is just the latest in a series of disappointing Tea Party candidates who appear to be merely riding on the grassroots popularity of the movement.  How can you take any candidate seriously about ‘fixing the economy’ and ‘reducing the size of government’ when they support the very wars that have created the problem?  Ms. O’Donnell, like many other Tea Party candidates, seem to lack a basic understanding of how our economy works.

One of the strongest rallying cries among the Tea Party movement is to take on the Federal Reserve.  They vow to audit it or abolish it altogether.  But if you support the war effort, you have to support the Federal Reserve.  If you interfere with their counterfeiting scheme, funding for these military adventures will cease overnight. In his article “The Hidden Costs of War,” Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) demonstrated that he has a complete understanding of how this works:

“Without the Fed’s ability to create money out of thin air, our government would be severely handicapped in waging wars that do not serve our interests. The money issue and the ability of our government to wage war are intricately related. Anyone interested in curtailing wartime spending and our militarism abroad is obligated to study the monetary system, through which our government seductively and surreptitiously finances foreign adventurism without the responsibility of informing the public of its cost or collecting the revenues required to finance the effort.”

Those who are serious about ending the Fed must be just as serious about ending these wars.  Campaigning to reverse health care and opposing tax increases are just part of the package, but you can’t cherry pick which pet projects you’ll allow the Fed to unconstitutionally finance.

Sure, it’s refreshing to see the symbolic message being sent to the ‘establishment’ incumbents.  But while we can rejoice in watching longtime Republicans and Democrats losing their seats, can we really celebrate putting someone like Christine O’Donnell in their place?  I personally cannot give my endorsement to someone who I know will vote in favor of war.  Doing so would be equivalent to loading a magazine into a soldier’s rifle.  I refuse to play the ‘lesser of two evils’ card when lives are at stake.

What’s really going on here?  One must ask themselves why a virtual unknown is being given so much press.  There is no such thing as bad publicity.  Like Sarah Palin, O’Donnell is being hyped as a rogue element in the GOP, someone who will restore old-fashioned Christian values and rescue us from the fat cat Republicans that many working class folks have trouble identifying with.  In many ways, the Tea Party has become a remarkably effective recruitment tool for the GOP to attract fence sitters and disgruntled royalists who have lost faith in the establishment Republican Party.

This week, the Internet was buzzing over the pseudo-feud between O’Donnell and former Bush point man, Karl Rove.  During an interview with FOX News’ Sean Hannity, Rove said some very unflattering things about O’Donnell.

“I’ve met her. I wasn’t frankly impressed by her abilities as a candidate,” said Rove. “One thing that O’Donnell is now going to have to answer in the general election that she didn’t in the primary is her own checkered background. There were a lot of nutty things she has been saying that don’t add up,” he added.

“Why did she mislead voters about her college education? Rove asked. “How come it took nearly two decades to pay her college bills so she could get her college degree? How did she make a living?”

Many have concluded that this confirms that O’Donnell is the ‘real deal.’  After all, if Karl Rove doesn’t like her, then she must be good, right?  Rove may be evil—but he isn’t stupid.  He knows that he doesn’t enjoy a good public image.  Going out of his way to attack O’Donnell is the biggest endorsement he could give.  It gives her street cred.  Besides, look at the negative things Rove chose to harp on her about—her unpaid college bills?  This only makes her seem more ‘down to Earth’ to the average working class stiff.

Now we find Sarah Palin coming out to endorse her and chastising Karl Rove for all those nasty things he said.  Don’t you see the game here?  The co-opted segment of the Tea Party has become an internal paradigm within the GOP.  Those who consider themselves Republicans, but have soured on the Party following the disasterous public relations nightmare that was Bush/Cheney, now have an alternative to invest their hopes and dreams in.  But at the end of the day—it’s still the GOP.

Oh—and by the way—just this morning, Rove has reversed himself and is throwing his full support behind O’Donnell’s campaign.  That places him among O’Donnell’s other cheerleaders that include Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Bill O’Reilly, Michele Bachman, etc., etc. etc.

Does Ron Paul get that kind of support from the NeoCon establishment?

I rest my case.

[chris jones]

Hi S.
    This gals stand on the war has woken me up. I'm slipping, that should have been my first priority checking this out.
     My bottom line, any and all pols  who advocate the continuation of these war are a traitor.

Ron Paul televised nationaly stated when asked about the wars, "We marched them in so we can march them out"....... I love that guy.

[Dig]

Christine O'Donnell disaster in Delaware is not a win
http://www.devvy.com/new_site/christine_odonnell_091810.html

By: Devvy
September 18, 2010

First let me say that I am and have been a vocal supporter of the tea party movement. I have said on my radio show many times and in columns, I hope the tea party movement remains independent because that is where their strength lies. Many of us feel some of the larger factions have been co-opted by neo cons like Sarah Palin who endorsed O'Donnell. The tea party movement has become a force to be reckoned with and a welcome awakening. Having said that, I am simply appalled by the hysterical reaction to the "win" by Christine O'Donnell in the primary this past Tuesday out in Delaware. Not because I don't support citizen candidates. I do 100%. All candidates have supporters and detractors, that's a given. However, with the O'Donnell win, I see sincere, well meaning people supporting a completely unqualified candidate who is in over her head.

I knew nothing about Christine O'Donnell until her "win" over Rep. Mike Castle. So, I spent quite a bit of time looking into who she is and what she stands for on the issues. Its been difficult. O'Donnell's 2008 web site is here. At least for the moment. Some of the You Tube's of her being caught in her lies have now disappeared from just two days ago while I was doing research. Her 2010 web site was a joke until the day after her win, then it simply disappeared. All of a sudden it was one page (directed by Drudge) to donate only. Donate without a lick of information? Gullible and desperate Americans across the country poured about a half million bux into her campaign account within 24 hours. They may as well have spent the money on some frivolous trinket.

When you go to her 2008 site and click on issues you are taken to her 2010 site. None of the links work. It seems so many items on O'Donnell on the Internet have been pulled:

2. O'Donnell Lies on Fox News - NewsBack

"WILMINGTON — In an appearance Thursday on Fox News' “Your World With Neil Cavuto,” perennial fringe candidate Christine O'Donnell (R-DE), falsely denied a ..."
www.delawaregop.com/NewsBack.aspx?guid=de0764ab-8469-492a-841f-6f80696b4463

Perhaps you have to be a member of Delaware GOP to read it......or, now that useful fools like Sen. John Cornyn has made nice with Ms. Christine, it's time to wipe her slate clean.

O'Donnell is a proven liar who thinks she can simply shrug off her lies like lint on her skirt. She's lied about her education and alleged previous victories. Back taxes to the IRS: Anyone can have problems with the Gestapo, but she lies about it in the most ridiculous fashion.

Her house went into foreclosure because she's either too lazy to get a real job or feels playing wanna be politician is more fun.

O'Donnell was sued by a college she attended and when questioned about it, comes up with a zinger accompanied by her annoying and silly giggling: "I think the fact that I have struggled financially is what makes me so sympathetic," O'Donnell said." Yep, a real grizzly mama in the making. One could almost forgive her 'deer in the head lights look' all the time if she just understood the cancers plaguing this nation and offers solutions, but she hasn't a clue. I know her supporters will disagree with me, but how many of them understand federal jurisdiction, treaties, the disabilities of our monetary system, what must be done and other critical issues that fall under the duties of a senator? I'm not trying to sound smug or superior, but so many Americans really don't understand issues that have taken me many years of studying and research to understand.

This site gives a factual accounting of O'Donnell's expertise in handling money matters. I don't know if O'Donnell appreciates the seriousness of what she's doing with campaign money. I ran for Congress so I know what full disclosure means and the laws about how a candidate can use campaign money. She's been smacked down many times already by the Federal Election Commission. I suspect now with more than $750,000 bux flowing into her coffers, it wouldn't surprise me to see this end up with a grand jury down the line unless someone in her campaign stops her. Since O'Donnell has no job except constantly running for office, she would be hard pressed to repay fines. Oh, wait. She will use your campaign donation! Quite frankly, what I see is a person who has learned how to game the system.

For someone who's adult life reflects nothing but financial problems and an inability to handle relatively small amounts of money, what makes anyone think she is qualified to vote on complicated budgets that run into the billions?

Not to mention inconsistencies in her stories:

"O'Donnell tells The Weekly Standard that while she does pay rent on what is technically her legal residence with campaign funds, she also has a separate permanent residence, the location of which she won't disclose "for security reasons." And, "Asked about a financial disclosure showing that O'Donnell only had $5,800 of earned income last year, O'Donnell told me that she actually made more but didn't have to and wouldn't disclose how much." [Emphasis mine]

I'm sure the IRS took note of that bothersome fact.

Mark Levin defended O'Donnell (You Tube video) saying he doesn't care about any of the above. While I agree Castle should be thrown out with the rest of the crooks, character does matter. The question I have is: How did O'Donnell end up being the only available person to run against Castle? Go to this You Tube and watch O'Donnell lie with a smile. (at 2:18 into the clip - interview on FOX with Neil Cavuto) Yes, her house was foreclosed on and was set for a sheriff's sale on August 1, 2008. O'Donnell seemingly is challenging that:

Christine Counters — Christine O'Donnell for U.S. Senate
"3 Sep 2010 ... Yet, my opponent is circulating a supposed foreclosure notice. ... also claimed that O'Donnell actually lost her home in a sheriff's sale, ..."
christine2010.com/blog/472-christine-counters/

However, like so many other sources, the link is dead. Of course, everyone else is lying! Click here to see the documents.

Yes, she has a federal tax lien against her, but in that interview with Cavuto she lies right to the camera. Does she think no one will notice? Quite frankly, I don't know how anyone with integrity could continue to work for her campaign after watching that interview.

If you think I'm being unfair, please remember that I belong to no political party. I don't live in Delaware, so I have no favorite candidate. How about the opinion of someone who did work for her?

Nominating Christine O'Donnell (DE) Could Destroy the Tea Party

"I volunteered for the O'Donnell campaign in 2008. I am not owed any money nor have I ever received payment from either the O'Donnell or Castle campaigns. Working with her for an election cycle taught me one indisputable fact: Christine O'Donnell is not deserving of ever holding elected office and her nomination will be nothing short of catastrophic to the Tea Party Movement. While Virginians may not be concerned with an election in Delaware, they absolutely should be. The implications for conservatives everywhere are enormous.


"While I have some serious concerns about Mike Castle, I realize that he is the best option for Republicans in Delaware. At least he has some record of achievement whereas O'Donnell has never held any public office at any level. It would be one thing to justify a political neophyte as a Senator if they were perhaps a savvy businessperson, but this is not the case with O'Donnell, she has struggled to make ends meet all of her adult life.

"Everything being said about her is absolutely true – from her house almost going into foreclosure to failing to graduate from Fairleigh Dickenson for payment delinquencies (then lying about it). She has failed to retain a full-time job for the last 5 years or so, she's on the brink of losing her license because of speeding tickets, and she still refuses to pay her staffers from her last campaign – including a significant amount to Davy Keegan, a member of the U.S. Navy. Running your own life into the ground is one thing, but to treat a member of our Armed Forces in such a way is disgusting.

"It is also true that she was fired from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute for attempting to steal their internal email list. She then turned around and unsuccessfully sued them, claiming sexual discrimination. She may talk the talk of a conservative but she certainly does not walk the walk. Christine is hoodwinking the American people into believing she actually cares about them, but she only cares about herself. Her delusions and dishonesty are unbecoming of any elected official at any level. Conservatives everywhere need to learn that we cannot take all candidates at face value without some proof of their dedication to the cause. Claiming to be a conservative is not enough.

"There are more crushing components in her back story that have yet to surface, but they will if she wins the GOP nomination. The Coons campaign is licking their collective chops with a smorgasbord of opposition research that hasn't yet seen the light of day. This is a warning to conservatives if you nominate O'Donnell: The national media will write off not only her but the entire Tea Party Movement as a laughing stock which could result in its ultimate demise.

"Its time to face facts, we lost the battle in Delaware by backing a candidate in O'Donnell who has conned the American people into believing she is a conservative – she is not. We need to cut our losses, nominate Mike Castle, and regroup for the next battle in November."

"Alan Moore is a conservative activist and public relations expert in Fairfax, VA. He has served as the press secretary for a 2008 Presidential campaign and presently works for Townhall.com. He is currently pursuing a master's degree in communication at George Mason University." His contact information is at the bottom of his statement.

Is he just a sour grapes person?

Ex-aide: Christine O'Donnell a 'complete fraud'

"The call  features the voice of Kristin Murray, who ran O'Donnell's 2008 Senate campaign against then-Sen. Joe Biden, and who charges that her old boss "is no conservative." "I got into politics because I believe in conservative values and wanted to make a difference. But I was shocked to learn that O'Donnell is no conservative," says Murray, according to a script obtained by POLITICO. "This is her third Senate race in five years. As O’Donnell’s manager, I found out she was living on campaign donations — using them for rent and personal expenses, while leaving her workers unpaid and piling up thousands in debt," she says. Perhaps the most biting line in the call delivered by Murray: "She wasn't concerned about conservative causes. O'Donnell just wanted to make a buck." O'Donnell insisted that it was she who ended the working relationship with Murray, not the other way around.

"But Murray says in the call that O'Donnell's less-than-noble motives are why she left the campaign, and are the reason "why I won't trust O'Donnell with my hard-earned tax dollars." In an interview, Murray said she had been reluctant to speak out about O'Donnell until she saw her campaign gaining traction and becoming a real threat to win the primary. She said she agreed to record the call only Monday, after being approached by Ross, and had complete control over the script.

"Obviously, I don't think I would be doing an ad for the state party if they fired me," she told POLITICO Tuesday afternoon. "And I'm not a big fan of Castle either; I wasn't going to be, ‘Rah-rah Castle.’ I just wanted people to know it's more about who is better on taxes. You're dealing with someone who is a complete fraud."

"Murray said she voluntarily left her position as executive director of the state party to run O'Donnell's second Senate run in June 2008, after the candidate pleaded with her three different times to sign on. She left the position two months later, after she found out O'Donnell doesn't have a college degree, had foreclosed on her home and was using the campaign debit card for personal expenses. "It just amounted to too much," she said. "The reason she's running is so she can pay her rent, pay her electricity bill. If it was popular to be really liberal now, maybe she'd do that," Murray said. Murray's call marks the second time a former O'Donnell campaign staffer has come forward in recent days to publicly rebuke the former television commentator's candidacy.

"David Keegan, a former O'Donnell aide, told The New York Times earlier this month that when he found out about O'Donnell's personal financial problems, he decided he could no longer work for her. "We are constantly trying to hold her back from spending. She was financially completely irresponsible," Keegan told the Times."

Let's talk issues

Rep. Mike Castle was her opponent. He is a RINO. Here is his record on the issues. He's taken some good positions, but 90% of his voting record is for unconstitutional spending. Castle claims to be Catholic, but he isn't. You cannot be Catholic and support the killing of unborn babies. He also supports men ("gays") who prefer bowel movement sex (sodomy). O'Donnell is Catholic and pro-life.

O'Donnell will go up against Chris Coons who is already leading in the polls. Something I found so shocking is how unfavorable O'Donnell was viewed in the State of Delaware:

"Before the primary, and especially before the primary got nasty, O'Donnell was running at about a 10% win probability. This Rasmussen poll is worse for her than that, as it puts the race at a 92/8 split for Coons. Coons leads the poll 53-42 (MoE 4). In particular, the primary has lifted O’Donnell’s Very Unfavorable rating all the way up to 38%, putting her total favorability situation below zero at 42/54/5. Coons meanwhile, having coasted in the primary, sits at 58/34/8."

O'Donnell has never served in public office before, but On the Issues does have a page for her here. Better hurry and take a look at it before any updates are made. You would think that as many years as O'Donnell has been "running" for office, she would make her position on the issues known over and over. Look at that page. The big remake is underway, but no matter how much glitz all that new campaign money can buy, you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

For someone who has run for office multiple times, I have yet to read or hear anything out of her mouth but the standard Obama bashing. Seriously, while it's been painful, I've taken the time to watch videos of her at debates and on the stump. She simply avoids any serious questions and reverts to the Palin game plan of putting the blame on her opponent or Obama. Ask her about getting out of Bretton Woods, what does she think of the latest Basel III?  The deer in the head lights look will be your answer.

Why DE Republicans Should Vote For Mike Castle

"So what about the primary election going on tomorrow in Delaware? Simply, this; I'm imagining some morning in late November or early December 2010, where the night before, the US Senate, with newly sworn-in Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) - together with outgoing Senators Lincoln, Specter, Bennet, Reid, Dorgan, etc voting in favor - just passed Card Check, sending it to the President's desk for his signature.

"Be honest with yourselves; would the defeat of Mike Castle taste quite so sweet then? Which is why I - personally - am supporting Mike Castle in the DE US Senate Primary tomorrow, and I urge everyone to hold their noses and do the same. The Democrats are indeed planning a vengeful lame duck session. The winner of the DE Senate race would be seated immediately and make no mistake - we need an R in that seat.....

"Keep these three things in mind.

1. The winner of the Senate race in Delaware will be seated immediately, like the winner of the race in Illinois, Florida and West Virginia. Castle is a confirmed filibuster vote to kill an active lame-duck session for Reid, Pelosi and their acolytes to pass stuff like Card Check, Crap & Tax, raise taxes, etc. that will take until after January 2013, a new President, and filibuster proof majorities to undo.

2. To pull off the sort of upset we're hoping to see, I repeat; the quality of the candidate matters. There's a reason why Erick - who would back the underdog against all odds (and sometimes, I've thought, reason) - has washed his hands off O'Donnell. People do not see “Conservatism” vs “Liberalism” on the ballot, they see people's names and vote accordingly - the DE electorate likes the name and the people of DE like the name “Mike Castle”. Christine O'Donnell is far from the quality of candidate we need - she's no Rubio, Brown, or even Kirk.

"What we need to do is win. Not only win, but win in such a way as to give them a long moment of pause so they'll be too terrified to try and pass any more of their agenda for generations. Taking the vacated Senate seats of their President, Vice-President and Senate Majority Leader is something they cannot ignore - and I doubt it would be much comfort to them that “moderates” took their seats given the Rs behind their names.

"3. The race to replace Mike Castle in the House has the Democrat leading either of the two likely Republicans by approximately 16 points. This is the exact same electorate that will be faced with a choice between Coons and O'Donnell in the Senate race - the same electorate that is already showing that they prefer Coons to O'Donnell by 11 points and prefer Castle to Coons by a similar 11 points.

"Let's be realistic here; states do not abruptly swing from deep Blue to deep Red or vice versa in one go. The best way to ensure that DE would vote for a four-square conservative is to build up our party infrastructure and build a bench of excellent potential candidates with stuff like the Precinct Project. The GOP rank-and-file needs to start working to get combative conservatives into the party leadership and into public office in Delaware."

Back on March 16, 2009, I wrote a column titled, Now is the time to identify candidates. One would think that looking at O'Donnell in her past failed attempts to get elected, the tea party groups and concerned citizens in the State of Delaware would have looked to find a credible, intelligent, moral individual to go up against Mike Castle. Why would they settle for such a flawed, unqualified candidate who tells provable lies? What I saw in Delaware is the same thing I see every two and four years: Hold your nose and vote. They did and it will have ugly consequences.

I know how frustrated we all are about getting incumbents booted in November. However, look at the quality of candidate endorsed by the tea party movement in Delaware. It is a disaster, make no mistake about it.

The kindest thing I can say about Christine O'Donnell is that she is an empty headed bird brain.

Christine is going to get a good dose of reality in the near future because Coons and the Democrat party will play very dirty. She has, by her own lies, painted a big, fat target for them to aim at and they will. Instead of the seat (while illegal because the Seventeenth Amendment was never ratified) going to a Republican, unless Coons really messes up, he will win the election. According to politicos who call these races, that will finish off chances for a GOP controlled Senate.

Another tea party candidate who just won the GOP primary out in NY is in trouble: Carl Paladino. He has acknowledged sending emails full of porn. Bestiality with women. Racist emails. I caught a segment last night on Anderson Cooper with Paladino (which also contains more on O'Donnell and her need to live off campaign donations). If I hadn't watched it live, I wouldn't have believed Paladino said this, but he did:

"COOPER: You have a plan for the unemployed and people on welfare, and I was reading about it on your Web site today. You basically suggest renovating prisons and unused college campuses and say that those on welfare would live in these facilities voluntarily, I assume. And you say, quote, "Instead of handing out the welfare checks, we'll teach people how to earn their check. We'll teach them personal hygiene, the personal things they don't get when they come from dysfunctional homes." I mean, your critics are saying this sounds a little bit like you're saying people who receive unemployment or who are on welfare are dirty, that they need personal hygiene lessons.

"PALADINO: No, that's not the case. We're talking about a dignity corps that would help people who are disadvantaged move into the mainstream of our society. It would give them a pathway to a fulfilling life."

Then I saw his emails. WARNING: SEXUALLY EXPLICIT WITH NUDITY. Very ugly, very sad. Not to mention he did commit adultery which resulted in a child born out of wedlock.

In response to sending out such filth, Paladino responded: "I apologize to women who may have been offended," he said. "I'm not politically correct and never have been. I'm not perfect. But if the worst I ever did was send out some nonpolitically correct e-mails — my God," he added."

I take that to mean men would not be offended by such trash. I guess we shouldn't be offended either by an email he forwarded which has this caption: 'Holy sh*t. Run n*ggers run.' Yeah, that's real funny, Mr. Paladino. It's not about political correctness, it's about who you really are as a person.

His cavalier attitude seems to be on the same level as O'Donnell's about her lying. How you conduct yourself in your personal life is important because it goes to character. I took the time after watching Paladino on Cooper's show to go read his position on the issues. He has the experience of running a huge and profitable corporation in a tough, competitive environment. Well, the voters of NY will have to decide for themselves.

My friend, Jon Christian Ryter, who is a fabulous writer and very politically savvy, had this to say about that primary race out in NY:

"If I was Andrew Cuomo getting ready to fight Rick Lazio for the job as governor of New York, I'd try real hard to get the GOP nomination for someone I could beat.  All of the honest polls of likely voters showed Cuomo beating Lazio...but beating Paladino worse. Yet, Paladino won the primary.  What's wrong with that picture?  Could it be independent voters who usually vote Democrat voting for Paladino in the primary who will vote for Cuomo in the general election?  Could be?  Add to that Lazio, who has become the Conservative Party candidate for governor.  Lazio will split the conservative vote and guarantee the election of Andrew Cuomo....

"With Lazio and Paladino splitting the conservative vote, Cuomo will have a victory that will be called the minute the voting polls close on Nov. 2. In fact, we can probably call the election right now since the defeated Lazio has already slapped his saddle on a new horse for the race—the Conservative Party (which should be renamed, "the Party of Losers.") This year's crop of Conservative Party candidates seem to have more than its share of disgruntled Republicans like Lazio and Florida's Charlie Crist who apparently have decided if they can't have the candy no conservative will get it. Third party candidates are always spoilers. In every race where you have a former GOP star who goes rogue, he splits the conservative vote and elects the Democrat.

"Paladino had an upward battle to get his name on the primary ballot since he lost to Lazio at the State GOP convention earlier this year, but got on the ballot by securing signatures from 30 thousand registered Republicans. While Lazio claims he will pull votes from Cuomo in the general election, it should be noted that Paladino, the Tea Party favorite, has a history of financially backing Democrats for political office. However, I suspect that many of the registered independent voters (who can vote for either the Republican or Democratic candidate in New York's closed primaries) voted for Paladino in the primary, but will be voting for Cuomo in November.

"In fact, I'd venture a guess that Cuomo union campaign workers were on the phones talking to New York Republicans and sounding like Tea Party advocates when they suggested that Lazio was too far to the left for New York conservatives. Those same union campaign workers will be on the phone next month telling New Yorkers that Paladino is too much a right wing radical for New York. New York politics is not a whole lot different than Chicago politics. The people with position and money [a] control who gets on the ballot, and who wins the election. That's the only reason a New York crook like Harlem's US Congressman Charlie Rangel was still on the ballot and, although he should be in prison, won renomination. He will walk to an easy victory in November. Not even NY Assemblyman Adam Clayton Powell IV could snag the nomination away from the scandal-plagued Rangel. Powell should run as a third party spoiler against Rangel. That would at least make New York politics newsworthy on Nov. 2 since we already know the outcome of the gubernatorial race."

Might I offer up some sincere advice to the tea party groups around the country? First, stay independent. Don't let yourselves be led down the path to destruction by dangerous neo cons like Karl Rove, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich and others. Second, don't be desperate. Before you endorse any candidate, you really must vet your candidate. Make sure the individual is (1) qualified and (2) a person of character and good morals.  I know, Jesus and the Bible are not on the ballot, but character counts. If people will lie and cheat the system, how honest will he/she be in office or open to deal making that hurts America? If you think someone who sends emails of hard core porn and women performing a sex act with a cow is okay, then my words fall on deaf ears.

Yes, this is probably the most important election of our lifetime. The actions of Paladino simply throw more kerosene on the fire that the tea party movement is a bunch of racists. In one of the links above, the author speaks of The Precinct Project. I went over to their web site and it is an excellent plan. As I've been saying for years: boots on the ground.

The primaries are over and we the people will have to live with the "new" Congress in January. Pollsters and pundits predict the Republicans could take up to 45 seats in the house. That still leaves 400 incumbents who will go back. The same 400 who have refused to get us out of the FED, the UN, Bretton Woods, abolish unconstitutional cabinets; the list is a mile long.

Hopefully, hundreds of bad state reps and senators will be kicked out of office in November. The epic battle will be between the states and the criminal syndicate out in DC. Make no mistake about it. If you can take the time, listen to my interview with Rep. Sam Rohrer who serves in the Pennsylvania State Legislature; click on September 15 date. Rep. Rohrer is a true statesman and he knows how serious the situation is and what's coming.
 
Links:

Anyone seeking information about GOP Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell has to look somewhere other than her official web site:

Short Fox video - A remake underway to paint her as credible, bank on it

Tea Party candidate: Questions about my personal, public finances insult voters

Town Hall Meeting w/ Christine O'Donnell in Delaware - You Tube

What in God's Name are Conservatives Supporting Christine O'Donnell For?

[Satyagraha]

Here is what Christine O'Donnell stands for:
(What did people base their voting decision on??)
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Christine_O%60Donnell.htm
=========================================================

Christine O`Donnell on Abortion 

* Deal With Delaware: I will always vote in favor of life. (May 2008)
* Pledges to always vote in favor of life. (Aug 2006)

Christine O`Donnell on Budget & Economy 

* Pledges to vote against all earmarks & pork barrel spending. (Aug 2006)
* Demand a Balanced Budget amendment. (Jul 2010)
* Limit federal spending growth to per-capita inflation rate. (Jul 2010)

 
Christine O`Donnell on Civil Rights 
* No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.

Christine O`Donnell on Corporations
* No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.
 
Christine O`Donnell on Crime
* No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.
 
Christine O`Donnell on Drugs
* No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.
 
Christine O`Donnell on Education

* Federal funding provides better continuity. (Aug 2008)

Christine O`Donnell on Energy & Oil

* Increase oil refinery capacity; drill offshore for oil. (Aug 2008)
* Build more oil refineries to reduce gas prices. (Aug 2008)
* Cap-and-trade has no impact on global temperatures. (Jul 2010)
* Explore proven energy reserves & keep energy prices low. (Jul 2010)

 
Christine O`Donnell on Environment 
* No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.
 
Christine O`Donnell on Families & Children 
* No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.

Christine O`Donnell on Foreign Policy
* No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.

Christine O`Donnell on Free Trade

* No global taxes to the UN. (Aug 2008)

Christine O`Donnell on Government Reform

* Deal With Delaware: I will limit myself to two terms. (May 2008)
* Pledges only 2 terms, so decisions not based on keeping seat. (Aug 2006)
* Identify constitutionality in every new congressional bill. (Jul 2010)
* Audit federal agencies, to reform or eliminate them. (Jul 2010)
* Moratorium on all earmarks until budget is balanced. (Jul 2010)

Christine O`Donnell on Gun Control
* No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.

Christine O`Donnell on Health Care

* Defund, repeal, & replace federal care with free market. (Jul 2010)

Christine O`Donnell on Homeland Security
* No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.

Christine O`Donnell on Immigration

* Employer penalties for hiring illegal aliens. (Aug 2008)
* Make English America’s ONE official language. (Aug 2008)

Christine O`Donnell on Jobs
* No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.

Christine O`Donnell on Principles & Values

* Bases campaign on “Deal with Delaware”. (Aug 2006)

Christine O`Donnell on Social Security
* No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.

Christine O`Donnell on Tax Reform

* Deal With Delaware: I will never vote to increase taxes. (May 2008)
* Pledges to never increase taxes. (Aug 2006)
* Adopt a single-rate tax system. (Jul 2010)
* Repeal tax hikes in capital gains and death taxes. (Jul 2010)

Christine O`Donnell on Technology
* No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.
 
Christine O`Donnell on War & Peace
     * Strategy to bring troops home from Iraq: it’s called victory. (Aug 2008)
     * Consider military action against Iran. (Sep 2006)
     * Stay in Iraq until its government is stable. (Sep 2006)

Christine O`Donnell on Welfare & Poverty
* No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.

[Highland]

Here is what Christine O'Donnell stands for:
(What did people base their voting decision on??)
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Christine_O%60Donnell.htm
=========================================================

Christine O`Donnell on Abortion 

* Deal With Delaware: I will always vote in favor of life. (May 2008)
* Pledges to always vote in favor of life. (Aug 2006)

Christine O`Donnell on Budget & Economy 

* Pledges to vote against all earmarks & pork barrel spending. (Aug 2006)
* Demand a Balanced Budget amendment. (Jul 2010)
* Limit federal spending growth to per-capita inflation rate. (Jul 2010)

 
Christine O`Donnell on Civil Rights 
* No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.

Christine O`Donnell on Corporations
* No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.
 
Christine O`Donnell on Crime
* No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.
 
Christine O`Donnell on Drugs
* No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.
 
Christine O`Donnell on Education

* Federal funding provides better continuity. (Aug 2008)

Christine O`Donnell on Energy & Oil

* Increase oil refinery capacity; drill offshore for oil. (Aug 2008)
* Build more oil refineries to reduce gas prices. (Aug 2008)
* Cap-and-trade has no impact on global temperatures. (Jul 2010)
* Explore proven energy reserves & keep energy prices low. (Jul 2010)

 
Christine O`Donnell on Environment 
* No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.
 
Christine O`Donnell on Families & Children 
* No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.

Christine O`Donnell on Foreign Policy
* No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.

Christine O`Donnell on Free Trade

* No global taxes to the UN. (Aug 2008)

Christine O`Donnell on Government Reform

* Deal With Delaware: I will limit myself to two terms. (May 2008)
* Pledges only 2 terms, so decisions not based on keeping seat. (Aug 2006)
* Identify constitutionality in every new congressional bill. (Jul 2010)
* Audit federal agencies, to reform or eliminate them. (Jul 2010)
* Moratorium on all earmarks until budget is balanced. (Jul 2010)

Christine O`Donnell on Gun Control
* No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.

Christine O`Donnell on Health Care

* Defund, repeal, & replace federal care with free market. (Jul 2010)

Christine O`Donnell on Homeland Security
* No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.

Christine O`Donnell on Immigration

* Employer penalties for hiring illegal aliens. (Aug 2008)
* Make English America’s ONE official language. (Aug 2008)

Christine O`Donnell on Jobs
* No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.

Christine O`Donnell on Principles & Values

* Bases campaign on “Deal with Delaware”. (Aug 2006)

Christine O`Donnell on Social Security
* No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.

Christine O`Donnell on Tax Reform

* Deal With Delaware: I will never vote to increase taxes. (May 2008)
* Pledges to never increase taxes. (Aug 2006)
* Adopt a single-rate tax system. (Jul 2010)
* Repeal tax hikes in capital gains and death taxes. (Jul 2010)

Christine O`Donnell on Technology
* No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.
 
Christine O`Donnell on War & Peace
     * Strategy to bring troops home from Iraq: it’s called victory. (Aug 2008)
     * Consider military action against Iran. (Sep 2006)
     * Stay in Iraq until its government is stable. (Sep 2006)

Christine O`Donnell on Welfare & Poverty
* No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.

" I will always vote in favor of life. (May 2008)"

Great, a vote for life is not a crazed suicidal stance however I would like to have the idea of (war) victory more clarified. What are we fighting (occupying) for and why do republican politicians demand that Americans police and social engineer manipulate the world?

[chris jones]

" I will always vote in favor of life. (May 2008)"
Great, a vote for life is not a crazed suicidal stance however I would like to have the idea of (war) victory more clarified. What are we fighting (occupying) for and why do republican politicians demand that Americans police and social engineer manipulate the world?

hELO HIGHLAND.
Nice job on the details...
        Kinda paradoxical, she votes for life, but insists on war?
I have to wonder, will the powers allow the transition, once in office will they get behind the newly elected or will they do everything in their power to destroy them and then of course blame them for the tragedy..
In hindsight,,Oby was a lesson for us, for how long has he blame Bush in order to convince us of his sincerity.

[Vashman]

Real ex-progressive Ron Paul supporter right here.  Pefectly willing to help some real constitutionalists take back their tea party from Republican party machine hacks like Gingrich, Rupert Murdoch, Glen Beck, Sarah Palin et. al.

Go ahead. Sign me up.

I hope you are right.

Taking back the tea party is a good idea -- worth trying at least.

The problem with the Tea Party is the problem with any political movement. It always starts with a really good idea but when that idea spreads and more people join the movement the idea begins to break down. People that feel the same way may not interpret that idea the same exact way and so variations begin to pop up and distort the original message.

Group Think really sucks and solves nothing. Informing the people might have more of an effect.

[citizenx]

Well, OK, but if you can't take back the Tea Party, taking back the country might prove an even more difficult challenge (massive understatement-type irony here).

Think about it.

[chris jones]

CNN tonight carried a reveiw of the tea party and its principles, well guess what, ya you guessed it, they are playing the religion card, the appearence was that it is a Christian revival, the moral majority.
They also stated that a good portion  of the members were Bush fans.
The last interveiw with two woman was that the sole purpose of the tea party and its origins were to deal with the fiscal crisis.
Why did I turn back on my telly??

[Dig]

The problem with the Tea Party is the problem with any political movement. It always starts with a really good idea but when that idea spreads and more people join the movement the idea begins to break down. People that feel the same way may not interpret that idea the same exact way and so variations begin to pop up and distort the original message.

Group Think really sucks and solves nothing. Informing the people might have more of an effect.

Actually, that is the exact opposite of what happens to a movement like this. Unless of course $Billions if not $Trillions have been spent by Soros, Murdoch, Rothschild, Rockefeller to hijack and obfuscate the tea party movement as written in their own documents from CIA Psyops to Club of Rome statements.

They even have CFR/Heritage/AEI meetings where they openly discuss all of the ways to disrupt the tea party movement.

It was not naturally distorted...

it was attacked, by the elite, because they are shitting in their pants at the awakening going on.

[citizenx]

Actually, that is the exact opposite of what happens to a movement like this. Unless of course $Billions if not $Trillions have been spent by Soros, Murdoch, Rothschild, Rockefeller to hijack and obfuscate the tea party movement as written in their own documents from CIA Psyops to Club of Rome statements.

Koch brother, too, IMO.  But exactly.  Obfuscation from the outside (Soros) and co-optation (Murdoch, the Koch Bros.) on the inside.

Clearly the interests of the elite have been piqued.

[Highland]

hELO HIGHLAND.
Nice job on the details...
        Kinda paradoxical, she votes for life, but insists on war?
I have to wonder, will the powers allow the transition, once in office will they get behind the newly elected or will they do everything in their power to destroy them and then of course blame them for the tragedy..
In hindsight,,Oby was a lesson for us, for how long has he blame Bush in order to convince us of his sincerity.

Why, why, why...... Delilah?  http://www.rncwomen.com/

[DireWolf]

It is very unfortunate that whenever an idea takes root which will restore our Republic it becomes overtaken from within. The lure of finances to further ones cause is a gem which is difficult to resist, but as with all "gifts" strings seem to be attached, thus the resultant control.

You cannot make a deal with the Devil and expect him to keep his word.

Money from organizations who want something in return should never be accepted. The compromise of ones principals eventually spells defeat.

Many of us vote third party even though our friends and family say we wasted that same vote because that candidate couldn't possibly win. To vote ones conscience or stand on ones principals is a victory in and of itself.