Election 2010 - The Tea Party

Shades of Unintended Consequences, leaderless movement. Here's Dick Armey and Matt Kibbey's take on it. Love the hostile takeover comment, second para from the bottom.

Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe: A Tea Party Manifesto - WSJ.com




See the Contract FROM America here:
http://www.thecontract.org/the-contract-from-america/

 

Secession is possible under the Constitution, but there are a few hoops to jump through to get there. Rather easy to get out, rather a LOT more complex once out. Unless a serious student of the pros and cons can get at the consequences in detail, it just won't happen. The Tea Party exists, more than anything else, to stuff the noses of the pols with the stink of piss poor performance, and it is across state lines such that single or multiple states aren't in play, it's the whole nation.

On the other hand, maybe we could get the District of Columbia to secede and take the traveling clowns from all 50 states with it.

 

Oh, how I wish we had a few million more just like you Bane.

Secession is perhaps the only answer, but too many Americans are divided and kept ignorant to see the real picture. Sure, we will cause economic turmoil --but we will have it anyway if we decide to stay aligned with the FED.

Of course, the step after that is war. Force is always initiated by the FED because it's easy to have other people die for your own pathetic desires (speaking of the fat, greedy politicians and bankers).

Of course, we also have the occasional patriot who is stuck on nostalgia and won't let go of the past. Get over it! We have never known freedom in our lifetime! The only way to make progress is FORWARD!

The "Tea Party" will never be successful UNLESS it forcefully keeps no leadership and continually refuses to accept compromising. If it becomes too dangerous to the establishment, it WILL be dismantled (and it can be quite easily, too). There are already informants and conspirators all over just waiting to pull a rip cord --and it will be even easier to destroy it if they can manage to acquire enough religious participants. How do I know? U.S. Taxpayer's Party, now known as the "Constitution Party" --infiltrated, reorganized, and led astray by radical religious FBI and their hateful minions. Now the party is useless and does nothing. US Libertarian Party: even easier to destroy. All that was needed was a few "intellectuals" and an extreme form of their own logic to gain enough support for the extreme form of liberty --anarchy. Now, the party is so divided and pinned against itself, no progress is ever made!

The "Tea Party"? It doesn't have much hope...but here's hopin' they can inspire a new revolution (peaceful would be great) and alter the course of history. As long as they remain leaderless, and do not permit religion to become a trait, I think they may have a chance.

 

I agree with you almost entirely, per usual --but there is a myth about communism that most people just take for granted. It doesn't have to be publicly declared to exist.

I have studied the theory of communism for a very long time, in detail and I am still asking questions. One question in particular is, why is the origination of communism (Moses Hess, Engels, ties to banking) so riddled with secrecy and false stories concerning Russia, when most of us (who study real historical accounts) know that it was Lord Milner's Round Table and other European banking influence which spurned the Bolshevik Revolution. Another question is, why does communism only get used to infiltrate existing governments and ultimately destroy them utterly? It may take a little while, but history proves that it is a certainty. Communism is the extreme form of democracy --and its massive power structure resides within the dominating government, with one equally poor class of people aspiring to go nowhere. The answer to both is one and the same: communism benefits and protects the few.

We are not going to receive "communism" in America one day. We have been living in its shadowy embrace for decades under the guise of "Democracy". They both accomplish the same purpose. So, this begs the question...what's next? Publicly declared communism? No. Why take away the people's illusions? No, the final step will be full-out tyranny in the form of whatever fascist ideals the corporations decide to employ. What was once achieved with battle will be acquired with a new strategy: economics. The 1920's and 30's was the greatest live demonstration of its potential, with the hidden motives right out in the open for the world to see. But the world chose to look at Hitler and ignore the undertakings of the man who came into power and abruptly left at roughly the same time. The world chose to see chaos and suffering but ignore the stupendous grab of power and outright abuse of authority in the American executive office. The world saw concentration camps and mass exterminations perpetrated by the Nazi's, but very few will know about the euthanization campaigns, the fluoridation of water supplies, mercury and other deadly chemicals added to nearly all foods and drinks...slowly killing with time and blissfulness. The world chose to hate Hitler, and love FDR and the allied forces. Just as the people hated to be herded into concentration camps in the past, they will adore their captors in the future.

I don't even need to get into the facts at how the USA absorbed Nazi assets, including their scientists and studies and resumed their research for them in secret, do I?

Hook, line, and sinker. The people will applaud their own enslavement. Mark my words.

 

It's only life, after all.

"Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton." -Bertrand Russell

 

rofl yes. And Bane, I hear you. I believe you when you say that your own society was much different. Not all applications of communism are the same, each can be molded to suit the country and region, most have been destructive, a few exist in disguise, and on rare occasion quite comfortable to live with. I do not share any illusions with you, however...but this is because I did not live in the Yugoslavian society. One point we can both agree on for certain is this: it no longer exists. We must search for the answers. Change happens, no society is absent its own rate of entropy --sooner or later, they all crumble to dust.

Perhaps the reason your society was so peaceful and well-off was to create a false sense of security and wealth in order to balkanize you at the right moment when you were weakest to defend your lives. Again, communism being used as a tool to destroy from within.

I uploaded some more books if you wanted to read them. A definite eye-opener for sure.