It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tea Party ‘founder’: Tea Party has been Hijacked; Palin, Gingrich a ‘joke’

page: 1
49
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+22 more 
posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   

A financial blogger and ex-CEO credited with being one of the original "founders" of the Tea Party has come out against the movement, saying it has been hijacked by the very people it was protesting and is now obsessed with "guns, gays and God."

In a "message" to the Tea Party Wednesday, Karl Denninger declared that he "ought to sue" anyone who uses the Tea Party name "for defamation."

"Yeah, that's a joke," he writes. "But so are you. All of you. Especially Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr, and douchebag groups such as the 'Tea Party Patriots.'"

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
Source: www.rawstory.com...

This is something that I have been saying for a while now and this is something that the Tea Party founders have also been saying. The neo-cons hijacked the movement after their defeat in the '08 elections. Before then, the Tea Parties were a bi-partisan effort to end corruption in Washington and look past the false left-right paradigm. It did however attract many Republicans because they felt cheated by the liberal policies of the Bush/neo-con agenda and so were leaving the Republican party in droves. The neo-cons saw that their cover was blown and they were being seen for what they really are... corrupt liberals, under the guise of conservatives.

The Tea Party was picking up steam and threatened the whole left-right facade of both the Democrats and Republicans and this threatened the corruption status quo that is making a lot of people rich and draining liberty from the American equation. Low and behold, they made moves to covertly hijack the movement and steer it back to the false left-right paradigm, thus allowing the status quo to go unimpeded.

The hijacking of the Tea Party movement was simply an effort to control dissention and corral the voters once again. The neo-cons, with the help of the Democrats, hijacked the movement, just as they had hijacked the Republican party decades before. What was once looking like a promising effort to return America back to the principals in which it was chartered, was quickly redirected back into the ways of corruption, back towards the drain.

We have people like Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich to thank for this, though I'm sure that there are many players who stay behind the scenes. These are the players that were used to fool the American public back towards the distraction of left-right politics.


--airspoon


FWIW: I had predicted that this would happen, back just before the elections. I knew that the Tea Party movement threatened the status quo and was looking to good as the best candidate for a peaceful and effective revolution to displace the forces driving this country into the ground.


edit on 21-10-2010 by airspoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 08:19 AM
link   
I'm glad to see this subject get more attention.

While I believe you're right-on about the Tea Party being hijacked, I just don't understand how you can equate
the neocons with liberals.



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   
I like a lot of your posts airspoon. Glad you can think through things but Georgie W and Cheney liberals? The are the very epitome of what the republicans are. Not necessary what they used to paint themselves but of what they have been since Barry Goldwater lost. Sorry, they aren't liberals.



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


tl;dr - Evil liberals hijacked the tea party movement and made it stupid, not the fact that the tea party movement itself was already inherently stupid, and was the cause for it being stupid. God damn liberals, socialists, communists, Marxists, Maoists, Stalinist, freedom haters, etc etc

edit on 21-10-2010 by Whyhi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by NashvilleCat
 



I just don't understand how you can equate
the neocons with liberals.


Easily, as neo-cons champion larger government, uncontrolled spending abd a blistering foreign policy that usually equates to the first two. Neo-cons are liberals and really don't even resemble conservatives, though they have indoctrinated the masses to equate conservatism with the religious right, to which the neo-cons were hiding behind. They also pick and choose a few free market principals to rob the American people. However, they only choose certain free-market principals that enrich the elite, while covertly opposing free-markets and use the excuse that any free-market principals are better than none. It doesn't work that way.

Just as the neo-cons hijacked the Tea Party movement and aren't really libertarians or even libertarian leaning, they did the same thing to the Republican party a few decades earlier and aren't really conservative. Instead, they use these political movements as a vehicle and a guise to push forward with their agenda.


--airspoon



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by damwel
 


George Bush and Dick were some of the biggest liberals the WH has ever seen. Think about it... GWB grew government bigger than almost every other president in history, to include Democratic presidents. The admin of GWB was also the biggest spending admin in recent history, outspending even the most liberal democrats. GWB was also seemingly against liberty and the Constitution, instituting a radical departure from the principals that shaped this great country.

GWB and the neo-cons are not only liberals, but seemingly radical liberals, under the guise of conservatism.

Conservatives don't champion large government, yet GWB had the biggest government of all. Conservatives don't champion wild and uncheck spending, yet GWB and the neo-cons spent more than almost every other administration in US history. Conservatives aren't for a radical foreign policy, as war usually leads to unchecked spending and large government. Furthermore, conservatives don't champion our liberties being impeded and generally agree with the Constitution, while liberals seem to think that the Constitution is up for interpretation, yet GWB seemed to side with the liberals.

It is pretty clear to anyone who can see past the indoctrination, that GWB and the neo-cons aren't conservatives at all and instead use it as a guise to push forward with their agenda.


--airspoon
edit on 21-10-2010 by airspoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
It is pretty clear to anyone who can see past the indoctrination, that GWB and the neo-cons aren't conservatives at all and instead use it as a guise to push forward with their agenda.


Excellent observation and quantification.

What's in a name?

All that really matters is whether or not they can be charged & convicted.



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 08:47 AM
link   
What would the lefties, democrates, liberals do without Sarah Palin...?

Funny how one one hand she is shown as the complete wacko that doesn't know crap...

And then, the next thing they say is she single-handedly took over the Tea Pary that has caused all of the political uproad that is currently going on (well, most of it).

I wish they would get it right, sometime. lol.

I'll say again, maybe she is just what we need to lead this country. She seems to be doing a great job on the Dems and Repubs.

But whatever, make sure that Palin is included in everything. On the theme of: Throw enough darts and eventually one will stick. Can't wait to see what the evil girl is responsible for next. LOL LOL LOL.

Another fine example of the media being afraid and with not knowing what to do (because they can't tell the truth) tosses another dart. I hope you aren't fooled and believing this one-too!
edit on 10/21/2010 by anon72 because: Sentence restructuring



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Ufff, I'm prety glad to be anarchist so I can stay emotionally outside of this neoconlib hijacking. You propose yourself conservative. So what do you want to conserve?
As I know you from your posts we occupy contradictory political stances but still S+F for your post, your analysis of Tea Party movement equal mine.



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   
i believe ron paul feels the same way about the movement, but wont vocalize due to hurting peoples feelings (palin fans).


RP is not one to hurt peoples feelings....unless you work for the fed.



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
It did however attract many Republicans because they felt cheated by the liberal policies of the Bush/neo-con agenda and so were leaving the Republican party in droves. The neo-cons saw that their cover was blown and they were being seen for what they really are... corrupt liberals, under the guise of conservatives.


I agree with your statement that the Tea Party was hijacked. We've been talking about that here several times for many months.

The Tea Party is Over - The Conspiracy to Kill a Grassroots Movement

The Tea Party couldn't be quashed, so the Neo-cons hijacked it, convincing the restless and unsatisfied people of this country to support them. They are USING conservatives to get support and being quite successful, amazingly enough.

However, I don't see how ANYONE can justify calling Bush, Palin, Gingrich and that crowd "liberals". It's a myth that conservatives spend less than liberals. The difference is what they spend it ON. And even then, that's the ONLY "liberal" trait that these neo-cons have. They are not liberal, they are Neo-cons.

Just because they're not Conservatives, doesn't mean they're Liberals! Think BEYOND the duality of conservative/liberal. There's another option. And that is Neo-con and the Tea Party.

Neo-cons have several traits:

Guns, God and Gays agenda
Pro-Military spending
Anti-science - Pro religion
Pro-corporation
Pro-Israel
Pro-foreign Intervention

These people are neither True Conservative NOR True Liberal. You can call them "liberal" all you want, but, in general, liberals don't want religion in government, do not support the military industrial complex, corporations and foreign intervention. These neo-cons that have taken over the Tea Party are a huge danger to us ALL and that is why the Tea Party is dangerous. The new leaders have many Republicans convinced that they are "conservative"...

If people think we're in a mess now, wait till the neo-Tea Party has its way with this country!
edit on 10/21/2010 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


BH, conservatives don't believe in spending as much as liberals and if they do, then they aren't real conservatives. What politicians say and what they do are often two completely different things but conservatives don't believe in wild and uncontrolled spending, period. If they do, then you need to investigate further to see if they are really conservative.


Furthermore, conservatives don't believe in big government and again, if someone who claims to be a conservative does believe in big government, then you again have to really question if they are conservative.

If a conservative believes in both big government and uncontrolled spending, as well as intrusion into our personal lives, then it is safe to say that they aren't conservative.

I'm talking true definitions here, not what we have been indoctrinated to believe over the last 20 or so years. The reality is, that most Republicans and Democrats alike are both liberal statists and only claim to be on opposite ends of the false left-right paradigm of one dimensional American politics.

It is because we only view our politics in this one dimension that we can't see them for what they truly are. I'm sure you are familiar with the Nolan Chart, which is actually a chart to help visualize politics in an additional dimension.

As we all know from physics class (if you took that in college), that we can not get a complete picture of a higher dimensional object. For instance, if we are on a two dimensional plain, we can not grasp or view a three dimensional object in it's entirety and we would even get the false perception of what a pyramid really looks like. We would only see a cross section of that pyramid, which would actually look like a square to us.

The same thing happens with our perception of politics when we limit our perception of politics to a one dimensional model. When we expand that model to add an additional dimensional, our perception becomes a little clearer and we can get a much better view of reality to see just where our politicians are, as far as ideology.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/159f11986e5f.png[/atsimg]

If we look at this chart, we actually see that most of our politicians, whether Republican or Democrat, should be right about at the bottom of this chart, if not bottom left. I'm talking actions, not talk.


--airspoon



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 



This is the epitome of conservatism. Conservatives don't join in the war protests so they must support wars and the corruption that goes with them. Neocons aren't liberals; they are much more aligned with the Tea parties ideals of guns, God and gays.

costofwar.com...


I now consider Obama a conservative because he now supports the wars, patriot act, DHS etc.
He lied to get elected and chumped out a nation and in the long run the TPM will side with the GOP because it more closely mirrors their core beliefs.

edit on 21-10-2010 by whaaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Wars, big government and uncontrolled spending are all synonymous and in fact, the Democrats have always been the "war party". You can't support unprovoked war and support small government or conservative ideologies. That's just how it goes.

By Obama supporting these wars, he isn't necessarily departing from his liberal ideologies. Conservatives don't believe in big government or incontrolled spending, thus they don't support unprovoked war. If they do, then they aren't conservative.

As far as the Tea Parties now, yes they are leaning right, though they were intended to be bi-partisan and beyond the whole false left-right paradigm of one-dimensional American politics. It's this false left-right distraction that has allowed this country to be hijacked by corrupt influences. The Tea Parties were intended to expose that and end it, until of course both the Democrats and neo-cons decided to redirect it back to the left-right distraction.

For a while there, I though that the Tea Parties were finally going to get America back on track, for the liberals, conservatives and everyone in between. It was growing so fast in popularity through grqass-roots efforts, in spite of being attacked from both sides of the political spectrum establishment. Why was it so popular? Because Republicans realized that the Republican establishment wasn't really conservative and Democrats realized that both the Republicans and Democrats were only two different sides to the same coin.

Low and behold, it was hijacked and the Democrats helped redirect it back to the left-right distraction, completely turning the goals away from ending corruption and moving past the false left-right illusion to label it as a right movement which opposes the so-called left movement. Remember, this is at the establishment level. I am under no illusion that the people are steadfast in their political ideologies, though it is the establishment that is pulling the wool over our eyes.


--airspoon



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
What makes me laugh is the so called "leaders" of the GOP (in my opinion they have NO leadership at the moment) saying the other night "after the election we'll show you how easy it is to work in a bipartisan manner".

My question is, why couldn't they have done this for the last two years? They've done everything possible to put a roadblock in place for every single policy change suggested by Democratic leadership. What makes people think that they will try harder to work with bipartisanship once they are in charge of the house?

Leads me to believe they're full of the brown stuff, which I happen to think is true of both political sides in most countries.



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   
I actually tend to think that the GOP winning the House this year will guarantee Obama a second term as President.

If the next two years go badly, Obama can blame the GOP controlled house for not getting anything done in the 2012 campaign.

If the next two years go well, Obama can point to how well the Democrats were able to implement policy in a bipartisan House.



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
if someone who claims to be a conservative does believe in big government, then you again have to really question if they are conservative.


AGREED! But just because they aren't real conservatives, doesn't mean they're liberals. I agree with you that these Neo-cons aren't conservative. But to label them as liberals is just feeding the two party paradigm and I know you're more politically aware than that. Just because something isn't black doesn't mean it's white.
That's all I'm saying.



If a conservative believes in both big government and uncontrolled spending, as well as intrusion into our personal lives, then it is safe to say that they aren't conservative.


AGREED! But just because they aren't real conservatives, doesn't mean they're liberals.
Have I said that enough yet?

I agree with everything you're saying except labeling the Tea Party and neo-cons as Liberals. It's just silly to say that Bush, Palin, Beck and all those loonies are Liberals. I'm talking true definitions, too, and they do NOT represent a liberal OR conservative mindset. They are neo-cons, and more dangerous that either liberals or conservatives.



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
This gives me a little more hope for the Tea Party. I first heard of it when it had been hijacked by Palin and Gingrich and their kin, and the fact that people were calling it a grassroots movement really sickened me. I only recently found out that it had been hijacked, and I'm glad that the founder knows that it's been hijacked.

I still disagree with their general politics personally, but at least they were honest for a short while.



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   
The Tea Party movement has never been anything other than a collection of pissed off people who don't seem to be able to produce a party platform that they can collectively rally behind. To this day, I can't specifically state just what they are for or what they are against, the only thing I know for sure is that they are pissed.

I really believe that they are fundamentally, republicans at heart who are upset at losing the last election. This is why, according to one of it's founders, who admitted on "The Colbert Report," that the Tea Party wasn't officially formed until 32 days after President Obama's inauguration.

If they aren't republicans, maybe someone could explain why there isn't one congressional candidate backed by the Tea Party who is running as a democrat. I mean really, what did they expect?

At least the Libertarian Party has enough organizational skills to construct a party platform; www.lp.org... and the same could be said for the Green Party; www.gp.org...

I raised this issue some time ago in a previous thread entitled; "Tea Party, Where's The Beef?" which can be found here; www.abovetopsecret.com...

In the absence of a party platform, they have left the barn door wide open for every nut job in America to walk in and upstage their movement and I don't have to tell you that if you pile up enough nuts, the elephants will come a running.

Newt and Sarah are not the only nuts attempting to "take their party back." Let's not forget about Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, Bachmann, Angle, O'Donnell, Buck, Army, Rove, etc....

In truth, America will not again enjoy the luxury of a government representative of it's people until we outlaw lobbying and drastically change our electoral process. I heard on the news this morning that state laws vary widely regarding lobbying of state legislators and that while in some states, a lobbyist is not allowed to buy a legislator so much as a cup of coffee, in other states like Alabama, a lobbyist can give a legislator up to $250 per day without reporting it to anyone. That comes to a little over $91,000 per year, per lobbyist and we wonder why they don't listen to us?

It's never been the "Party" that's the problem, it's who controls the party and right now, the people don't control any of them. We drastically need a constitutional amendment which strictly prohibits paid lobbying of legislators and enacts publicly funded elections free from outside political donations.



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
The whole tea party came to be from a protest of the federal reserve. It was "hijacked" soon after. It was just a modern protest, that took it's inspiration from the original tea party, on the same principals. What it became after the protests is sickening.



new topics

top topics



 
49
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join