How do you feel about the Tea Party Movement?

[SavageEagle]

Most everything you've listed should be a state's responsibility, if at all. Social Security is a black hole, and a socialist construct, and an admitted failure. The Dept of Labor is a socialist construct, as is the Dept of "Eductation". How well did "federal assistance" work after Katrina? The ice storm in western Kentucky?

NASA I support, given it's national/global security, economic, and educational benefits. A good argument could be made for it's constitutional role.

But everything else should be run by the states. It gives the voters a huge amount of control over what happens to their tax money, and keeps the majority of it in the state.

When people worry about the loss of any of the non-Constitutional programs, policies, and offices, I ask them if they don't think they can manage their lives (including their money) better than a stranger can?

While I agree about NASA, I would rather see most programs privately funded instead of government run. A set of Guidelines voted on by the people would be good, but government has no place in most of these programs.

Then again, selfishness has overtaken this Country, something we need to change.

I do pretty much agree with most of this though.

 

[El Cazador]

I don't critisize for not joining the Tea Party. I do so to those who would rather sit and wait for SHTF to do anything. Sorry if my posts are too full of harshness. It just needs to be said and no one else dares do so. I'm trying very hard to contain myself. I think i've done a good job thus far...

I think if you go back and read your original posts objectively, and some of the replies to the post, you might find just the teeniest amount of orange-hot criticism to those who didn't show up at the latest Tea Party...

I do so to those who would rather sit and wait for SHTF to do anything.

You can't save everybody. Just like on planes, you put on your mask before helping others.

Sorry if my posts are too full of harshness. It just needs to be said and no one else dares do so.

Harshness turns people away. You do the cause no good by alienating people. Maybe there's a reason "no one else dares do so"?

Carrot and stick, honey and vinegar. How many folks want smacked with a stick and fed vinegar constantly? Leadership is showing the better way, not driving them that way.

 

[Go Devil]

Those interested in Organizing would do themselves good by reading the article below and implementing proven tactics.

Man-Up, Ye watered down Republicans, and star struck Libertarians!

Here is your adversary.

Cloward-Priven Strategy


Strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis

First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Inspired by the August 1965 riots in the black district of Watts in Los Angeles (which erupted after police had used batons to subdue a black man suspected of drunk driving), Cloward and Piven published an article titled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty" in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation. Following its publication, The Nation sold an unprecedented 30,000 reprints. Activists were abuzz over the so-called "crisis strategy" or "Cloward-Piven Strategy," as it came to be called. Many were eager to put it into effect.

In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when "the rest of society is afraid of them," Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would "the rest of society" accept their demands.

The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven's early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. "Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one.

The authors noted that the number of Americans subsisting on welfare -- about 8 million, at the time -- probably represented less than half the number who were technically eligible for full benefits. They proposed a "massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls." Cloward and Piven calculated that persuading even a fraction of potential welfare recipients to demand their entitlements would bankrupt the system. The result, they predicted, would be "a profound financial and political crisis" that would unleash "powerful forces … for major economic reform at the national level."

Their article called for "cadres of aggressive organizers" to use "demonstrations to create a climate of militancy." Intimidated by threats of black violence, politicians would appeal to the federal government for help. Carefully orchestrated media campaigns, carried out by friendly, leftwing journalists, would float the idea of "a federal program of income redistribution," in the form of a guaranteed living income for all -- working and non-working people alike. Local officials would clutch at this idea like drowning men to a lifeline. They would apply pressure on Washington to implement it. With every major city erupting into chaos, Washington would have to act.

This was an example of what are commonly called Trojan Horse movements -- mass movements whose outward purpose seems to be providing material help to the downtrodden, but whose real objective is to draft poor people into service as revolutionary foot soldiers; to mobilize poor people en masse to overwhelm government agencies with a flood of demands beyond the capacity of those agencies to meet. The flood of demands was calculated to break the budget, jam the bureaucratic gears into gridlock, and bring the system crashing down. Fear, turmoil, violence and economic collapse would accompany such a breakdown -- providing perfect conditions for fostering radical change. That was the theory.

Cloward and Piven recruited a militant black organizer named George Wiley to lead their new movement. In the summer of 1967, Wiley founded the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO). His tactics closely followed the recommendations set out in Cloward and Piven's article. His followers invaded welfare offices across the United States -- often violently -- bullying social workers and loudly demanding every penny to which the law "entitled" them. By 1969, NWRO claimed a dues-paying membership of 22,500 families, with 523 chapters across the nation.

Regarding Wiley's tactics, The New York Times commented on September 27, 1970, "There have been sit-ins in legislative chambers, including a United States Senate committee hearing, mass demonstrations of several thousand welfare recipients, school boycotts, picket lines, mounted police, tear gas, arrests - and, on occasion, rock-throwing, smashed glass doors, overturned desks, scattered papers and ripped-out phones."These methods proved effective. "The flooding succeeded beyond Wiley's wildest dreams," writes Sol Stern in the City Journal. "From 1965 to 1974, the number of single-parent households on welfare soared from 4.3 million to 10.8 million, despite mostly flush economic times. By the early 1970s, one person was on the welfare rolls in New York City for every two working in the city's private economy."As a direct result of its massive welfare spending, New York City was forced to declare bankruptcy in 1975. The entire state of New York nearly went down with it. The Cloward-Piven strategy had proved its effectiveness.

The Cloward-Piven strategy depended on surprise. Once society recovered from the initial shock, the backlash began. New York's welfare crisis horrified America, giving rise to a reform movement which culminated in "the end of welfare as we know it" -- the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which imposed time limits on federal welfare, along with strict eligibility and work requirements. Both Cloward and Piven attended the White House signing of the bill as guests of President Clinton.

Most Americans to this day have never heard of Cloward and Piven. But New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani attempted to expose them in the late 1990s. As his drive for welfare reform gained momentum, Giuliani accused the militant scholars by name, citing their 1966 manifesto as evidence that they had engaged in deliberate economic sabotage. "This wasn't an accident," Giuliani charged in a 1997 speech. "It wasn't an atmospheric thing, it wasn't supernatural. This is the result of policies and programs designed to have the maximum number of people get on welfare."

Cloward and Piven never again revealed their intentions as candidly as they had in their 1966 article. Even so, their activism in subsequent years continued to rely on the tactic of overloading the system. When the public caught on to their welfare scheme, Cloward and Piven simply moved on, applying pressure to other sectors of the bureaucracy, wherever they detected weakness.

In 1982, partisans of the Cloward-Piven strategy founded a new "voting rights movement," which purported to take up the unfinished work of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Like ACORN, the organization that spear-headed this campaign, the new "voting rights" movement was led by veterans of George Wiley's welfare rights crusade. Its flagship organizations were Project Vote and Human SERVE, both founded in 1982. Project Vote is an ACORN front group, launched by former NWRO organizer and ACORN co-founder Zach Polett. Human SERVE was founded by Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, along with a former NWRO organizer named Hulbert James.

All three of these organizations -- ACORN, Project Vote and Human SERVE -- set to work lobbying energetically for the so-called Motor-Voter law, which Bill Clinton ultimately signed in 1993. The Motor-Voter bill is largely responsible for swamping the voter rolls with "dead wood" -- invalid registrations signed in the name of deceased, ineligible or non-existent people -- thus opening the door to the unprecedented levels of voter fraud and "voter disenfranchisement" claims that followed in subsequent elections.

The new "voting rights" coalition combines mass voter registration drives -- typically featuring high levels of fraud -- with systematic intimidation of election officials in the form of frivolous lawsuits, unfounded charges of "racism" and "disenfranchisement," and "direct action" (street protests, violent or otherwise). Just as they swamped America's welfare offices in the 1960s, Cloward-Piven devotees now seek to overwhelm the nation's understaffed and poorly policed electoral system. Their tactics set the stage for the Florida recount crisis of 2000, and have introduced a level of fear, tension and foreboding to U.S. elections heretofore encountered mainly in Third World countries.

Both the Living Wage and Voting Rights movements depend heavily on financial support from George Soros's Open Society Institute and his "Shadow Party," through whose support the Cloward-Piven strategy continues to provide a blueprint for some of the Left's most ambitious campaigns.




http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/g...asp?grpid=6967


Savage Eagle, this is the mind set that you are up against.
Are you willing to follow this path?

 

[hornadylnl]

Joe, you are a hard man to figure out. You see no problem with a bored police officer pulling a man over with a cracked windshield to fish for an arrest(asking consent for search with no probable cause) and have no problem with the US goverment intruding into our private lives through census but you think every ATF agent is a murderer.

Since some have a problem with vetting voters, should the age restriction be removed? After all, my 7 year old can make just as an intelligent decision as any Obama voter. Being a citizen carries with it a responsibility. What do we do with those who
refuse it? We have people who couldn't tell us the date when asked when 9/11 happened. If you think those people voting benefits our country then we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[El Cazador]

I would rather see most programs privately funded instead of government run. A set of Guidelines voted on by the people would be good, but government has no place in most of these programs.

You realize you just described basic government? Do we all not fund these programs "privately"? Guidelines voted on by the people? Ahhh, again, isn't that the generic definition of government?

Then again, selfishness has overtaken this Country, something we need to change.

Selfishness? Putting ourselves first is what drives the free market. I'm all for it. Maybe you meant citizenship lethargy, or unconcernedness (sic), or maybe lack of civic-mindedness.

 

[SirRealism]

Hornadylnl is correct when he said I was referrencing his post saying only property owners should be allowed to vote. You think YOU are frustrated? Try being told you aren't worthy to be an American citizen... effectively being rendered a slave. Which is what the founding fathers did when they tried to limit the vote to landowners, who were by and large only the very wealthy in their day. Of course, being slaveowners, that may not have bothered the founding fathers in the least, but it bugs the heck out of me!

Sorry. Your post certainly sounded as though you were attributing those thoughts to the Tea Party.

 

[SirRealism]

I get the feeling that the Tea Parties are a protest only against the federal government based on the responses I'm getting... Is this correct?

Also... would it be the goal of the Tea Parties to limit the federal government to only those specific mandates of the constitution (national security for instance)? Thereby throwing out social security, all federal assistance, nasa, dept of labor, dept of eductation, etc etc etc?

The tea parties are all local. They started from one idea, and they share a name, but they act completely independently. So the question of whether we're all targeting federal level only is unanswerable.

At this point, the IN Tea Party is focused mostly at the federal level in terms of activism. It's our hope to start getting regular people nominated and elected into office. Naturally, that has to happen at all levels. (If I were to run for a federal office, or example, I'd probably be massacred at the first debate. I can't debate.)

Dennis: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.

 

[El Cazador]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to hornadylnl again.

What? I haven't given Hornadylnl any. It's been a while since I've given any out at all.

So I'll do it here: I think you and I have a lot in common here, Hornadylnl.

 

[hornadylnl]

That will offset the negative I just got in this thread. I'll wear it like a badge of honor. It's my first one.

Thanks, caz

 

[SirRealism]

Don't know about the official Tea Party folks, but it's certainly a goal of mine to limit the Federal government to only it's legal functions. If it's a goal of the Tea Party folks, it would certainly energize me to become an active supporter of them.

At the risk of repeating myself (I know, I know), here it is:

Indiana Tea Party Mission
To restore limited government, fiscal responsibility, and accountable representation through citizen activism and education, in order to preserve the Constitution for the United States of America.

IMNSHO, that's pretty succinct.

 

[El Cazador]

I just noticed there are actually 4 votes in the poll for option #4

Do we actually have 4 gun owning collectivist/Maoist/Obama supporters here?

Or just 4 smartasses who can't keep up, and have nothing to add.

 

[SirRealism]

I just noticed there are actually 4 votes in the poll for option #4

Do we actually have 4 gun owning collectivist/Maoist/Obama supporters here?

Or just 4 smartasses who can't keep up, and have nothing to add.

My hope is to reach the the ones who chose #3. To me, the definition of a failing endeavor is one which I put no effort and time into. Again, the self-fulfilling prophecy of perceived futility.

 

[Raoc]

My hope is to reach the the ones who chose #3. To me, the definition of a failing endeavor is one which I put no effort and time into. Again, the self-fulfilling prophecy of perceived futility.

Unfortunately, there is a large segment of the population who will demand to see results demonstrated before they will jump on the bandwagon. Admittedly, there is a risk that this will achieve nothing, but if we don't try, will will achieve nothing.

Those of you who demand to see results, I hope you will at least sign up for the emailing list and keep an eye on what is going on, because we intend to produce results.

 

[SavageEagle]

I would consider that the President taking time and effort to mention us to his Press Sec. and to down play us so much is results. However small, they are results none-the-less. We've also had small victories in the state Legislator through our members. Even the local town councils and such we've shown an impact. Did you catch that the IN Treasury Guy was there speaking to us about what he's doing to help us? I'll have to find the Youtube videos.

These, my friends, are results.

 

[TishaC]

Unfortunately, there is a large segment of the population who will demand to see results demonstrated before they will jump on the bandwagon. Admittedly, there is a risk that this will achieve nothing, but if we don't try, will will achieve nothing.

Those of you who demand to see results, I hope you will at least sign up for the emailing list and keep an eye on what is going on, because we intend to produce results.

HEAR HEAR!! Well said! It is better to have tried and failed than to never have tried at all.

 

[rambone]

Come and see for yourselves.

The Tea Parties are a necessary step to waking up the people. It is obvious the left-stream news media won't give them any good press. Well, what else is new?

The point of the rallies is to reach people directly. In a busy downtown setting you will get many passers-by who wander up to the great spectacle that is a Tea Party. This is the chance to reach some of the "moderates" who are not steadfast in their voting patterns. This is the chance to educate people about why this "Spend-More, Tax-More" policy will cripple us in the end. This is the chance to sway more people away from the poisoned fruit that is liberalism.

The rallies are a chance for the common folks who ignore the news to actually get a clue of what Obama has done so far in his first 6 months. It can be a rude awakening. But it is worth trying to reach these people. Educate them. What could be more worthwhile than to turn a wishy-washy moderate without much opinion - into an educated conservative? The country would benefit indefinitely, because when the importance of the conservative cause is lit up for them, they may pass these lessons on to their families & children, rather than a lesson of apathy to politics. I know it has affected me in this way.

The Tea Parties for me are a chance to meet others who have the same beliefs I do, further a cause I believe in, invigorate those who are already on our side, while listening to good music & inspiring speakers, and wake up people who pass by and eventually build a base for the next election to avoid reelecting Obama. I choose to believe that if more people were aware of what Obama stood for - Socialism, and what that really means - that less people would have voted for someone so blatantly socialist as Obama.

The fight is not lost, but we have to want to win it more. Come see what the movement is all about, and see if you have such a bad time. Enough patriots before you have died defending the liberties that you still have, and ought to make use of while you still can.

Inactivity & apathy brought us to this point. When would be a better time to get involved, than now?

 

[TishaC]

I would consider that the President taking time and effort to mention us to his Press Sec. and to down play us so much is results. However small, they are results none-the-less. We've also had small victories in the state Legislator through our members. Even the local town councils and such we've shown an impact. Did you catch that the IN Treasury Guy was there speaking to us about what he's doing to help us? I'll have to find the Youtube videos.

These, my friends, are results.

You're right, Savage. We are getting noticed by the powers that be. That is a result of the hard work of many. Did you hear that there were 37,000 in attendance at one of the Tea Parties in Texas on the 4th? God bless 'em!

 

[SavageEagle]

You're right, Savage. We are getting noticed by the powers that be. That is a result of the hard work of many. Did you hear that there were 37,000 in attendance at one of the Tea Parties in Texas on the 4th? God bless 'em!

I still have 320 IDL emails to sort through.

You know, I miss this smilies when I'm emailing. Sometimes I copy and paste...

 

[henktermaat]

Anyone got pics from the last tea party?

 

[right winger]

I support them 100%.