Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Tea Party Disdains DC Oligarchy, Slams Senate Deal

http://www.teapartypatriots.org/ ^ | 10-16-2013 | Jenny Beth Martin

Urges House Not to Accept Deal and Receive Nothing in Return

WASHINGTON, D.C.— The Tea Party Patriots today blasted the deal by Senate Democrats and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
“The Ruling Elites in Washington, D.C. have completely abandoned the American people,” said Jenny Beth Martin, National Coordinator for Tea Party Patriots. “The deal cut in the Senate does NOT protect the American people from this unfair and unworkable law.’
“The Senate deal is a complete sellout. Speaker Boehner and the House should stand firm and reject this deal to reign in the Executive branch’s power before it is too late,” continued Mrs. Martin. “The House ‘Leadership’ must stop playing ‘flinch’ with themselves, and instead, play hardball with the White House, the Senate, and the House. Otherwise, hard-working Americans are going to bear the burden of this unaffordable law. The American people WILL hold those responsible for this mess accountable.
“Simply requiring income verification for subsidies for Obamacare is a hollow plan. If this requirement is enforced with the same effectiveness as the Obamacare online rollout, then there is no way this information will actually be verified. The President and Senate Democrats have taken every opportunity to avoid negotiating with Republicans and the country, and as a result, the American people no longer have a voice at the table. The President was not even willing to negotiate or to live under his namesake law.
“Congress will feel the repercussions of refusing to negotiate at all and for refusing to live under the same law the forced on the American people. This country has three branches of government to divide the power, but President Obama and Senate Democrats now plan to rule by oligarchy.
(Excerpt) Read more at teapartypatriots.org ...

The Tea Party and the GOP Crackup

Wall Street Journal ^ | Oct. 15, 2013 | WILLIAM A. GALSTON

Ted Cruz and his followers represent Jacksonian America: angry...
More than a decade ago, before the post-9/11 national fervor set in, Walter Russell Mead published an insightful essay on the persistent "Jacksonian tradition" in American society. Jacksonians, he argued, embrace a distinctive code, whose key tenets include self-reliance, individualism, loyalty and courage.
Jacksonians care as passionately about the Second Amendment as Jeffersonians do about the First...
--snip--
Many frustrated liberals, and not a few pundits, think that people who share these beliefs must be downscale and poorly educated. The New York Times survey found the opposite. Only 26% of tea-party supporters regard themselves as working class, versus 34% of the general population; 50% identify as middle class (versus 40% nationally); and 15% consider themselves upper-middle class (versus 10% nationally). Twenty-three percent are college graduates, and an additional 14% have postgraduate training, versus 15% and 10%, respectively, for the overall population. Conversely, only 29% of tea-party supporters have just a high-school education or less, versus 47% for all adults...
--snip--
Many tea-party supporters are small businessmen who see taxes and regulations as direct threats to their livelihood. Unlike establishment Republicans who see potential gains from government programs such as infrastructure funding, these tea partiers regard most government spending as a deadweight loss. Because many of them run low-wage businesses on narrow margins, they believe that they have no choice but to fight measures, such as ObamaCare, that reduce their flexibility and raise their costs—measures to which large corporations with deeper pockets can adjust.
It's no coincidence that the strengthening influence of the tea party is driving a wedge between corporate America and the Republican Party. It's hard to see how the U.S. can govern itself unless corporate America pushes the Republican establishment to fight back against the tea party—or switches sides.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...

The Wannabe Oppressed: Today’s college students, climate change, and the cult of victimization!

National Review Online ^ | October 16, 2013 | Stanley Kurtz

What do America’s college students want? They want to be oppressed. More precisely, a surprising number of students at America’s finest colleges and universities wish to appear as victims — to themselves, as well as to others — without the discomfort of actually experiencing victimization. Here is where global warming comes in. The secret appeal of campus climate activism lies in its ability to turn otherwise happy, healthy, and prosperous young people into an oppressed class, at least in their own imaginings. Climate activists say to the world, “I’ll save you.” Yet deep down they’re thinking, “Oppress me.”

In his important new book, The Fanaticism of the Apocalypse: Save the Earth, Punish Human Beings, French intellectual gadfly Pascal Bruckner does the most thorough job yet of explaining the climate movement as a secular religion, an odd combination of deformed Christianity and reconstructed Marxism. (You can find Bruckner’s excellent article based on the book here.) Bruckner describes a historical process wherein “the long list of emblematic victims — Jews, blacks, slaves, proletarians, colonized peoples — was replaced, little by little, with the Planet.” The planet, says Bruckner, “has become the new proletariat that must be saved from exploitation.”

But why? Bruckner finds it odd that a “mood of catastrophe” should prevail in the West, the most well-off part of the world. The reason, I think, is that the only way to turn the prosperous into victims is to threaten the very existence of a world they otherwise command.

And why should the privileged wish to become victims? To alleviate guilt and to appropriate the victim’s superior prestige. In the neo-Marxist dispensation now regnant on our college campuses, after all, the advantaged are ignorant and guilty while the oppressed are innocent and wise. The initial solution to this problem was for the privileged to identify with “struggling groups” by wearing, say, a Palestinian keffiyeh. Yet better than merely empathizing with the oppressed is to be oppressed. This is the climate movement’s signal innovation.

We can make sense of Bruckner’s progression of victimhood from successive minorities to the globe itself by considering the lives of modern-day climate activists. Let’s begin with Bill McKibben, the most influential environmental activist in the country, and leader of the campus fossil-fuel divestment movement.

In a 1996 piece titled “Job and Matthew,” McKibben describes his arrival at college in 1978 as a liberal-leaning student with a suburban Protestant background. “My leftism grew more righteous in college,” he says, “but still there was something pro forma about it.” The problem? “Being white, male, straight, and of impeccably middle-class background, I could not realistically claim to be a victim of anything.” At one point, in what he calls a “loony” attempt to claim the mantle of victimhood, McKibben nearly convinced himself that he was part Irish so he could don a black armband as Bobby Sands and fellow members of the Provisional Irish Republican Army died in a hunger strike. Yet even as he failed to persuade himself he was Irish, McKibben continued to enthusiastically support every leftist-approved victim group he could find. Nonetheless, something was missing. None of these causes seemed truly his own. When McKibben almost singlehandedly turned global warming into a public issue in 1989, his problem was solved. Now everyone could be a victim.

Wen Stephenson, a contributing writer at The Nation and an enthusiastic supporter of McKibben’s anti-fossil-fuel crusade, is one of the sharpest observers of the climate movement. In March, Stephenson published a profile of some of the student climate protesters he’d gotten to know best. Their stories look very much like McKibben’s description of his own past.

Stephenson’s thesis is that, despite vast differences between the upper-middle-class college students who make up much of today’s climate movement and southern blacks living under segregation in the 1950s, climate activists think of themselves on the model of the early civil-rights protesters. When climate activists court arrest through civil disobedience, they imagine themselves to be reliving the struggles of persecuted African Americans staging lunch-counter sit-ins at risk of their lives. Today’s climate protesters, Stephenson writes,“feel themselves oppressed by powerful, corrupt forces beyond their control.” And they fight “not only for people in faraway places but, increasingly, for themselves.”

One young activist, a sophomore at Harvard, told Stephenson that she grew up “privileged in a poor rural town.” Inspired by the civil-rights movement, her early climate activism was undertaken “in solidarity” with Third World peoples: “I saw climate change as this huge human rights abuse against people who are already disadvantaged in our global society. . . . I knew theoretically there could be impacts on the U.S. But I thought, I’m from a rich, developed country, my parents are well-off, I know I’m going to college, and it’s not going to make a difference to my life. But especially over this past year, I’ve learned that climate change is a threat to me.” When one of her fellow protesters said: “You know, I think I could die of climate change. That could be the way I go,” the thought stuck with her. “You always learn about marginalized groups in society, and think about how their voices don’t have as much power, and then suddenly you’re like, ‘Wait, that’s exactly what I am, with climate change.’”

The remaining biographical accounts in Stephenson’s piece repeat these themes. Climate activists see themselves as privileged, are deeply influenced by courses on climate change and on “marginalized” groups they’ve been exposed to in high school and college, and treat the climate apocalypse as their personal admissions pass to the sacred circle of the oppressed.

It may be that these activists, eyes opened by fortuitous education, are merely recognizing the reality of our impending doom. Or might this particular apocalypse offer unacknowledged psychic rewards? These students could easily be laid low by an economic crisis brought on by demographic decline and the strains of baby-boomer retirement on our entitlement system. Yet marriage and children aren’t a priority, although they could help solve the problem. Why? Many dooms beckon. How has climate change won out?

Last academic year, the National Association of Scholars released a widely discussed report called “What Does Bowdoin Teach? How a Contemporary Liberal Arts College Shapes Students.” The report chronicles what I’ve called a “reverse island” effect. Back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the classic liberal-arts curriculum first came under challenge, courses in ethnic and gender studies were like tiny islands in a sea of traditionalism. Politicized in ways that were incompatible with liberal education, these ideologically based “studies” programs were generally dismissed as necessary concessions to the nascent multicultural zeitgeist.

Today the situation is reversed. Not only have the ideologically driven “studies” programs taken over a large share of the college curriculum, but many courses in conventional departments reflect the underlying assumptions of the various minority-studies concentrations. Today, classic liberal-arts courses have themselves been turned into tiny besieged islands, while the study of alleged oppression represents the leading approach at America’s colleges and universities.

In this atmosphere, students cannot help wishing to see themselves as members of a persecuted group. Climate activism answers their existential challenges and gives them a sense of crusading purpose in a lonely secular world. The planet, as Bruckner would have it, is the new proletariat. Yet substitute “upper-middle-class” for “planet,” and the progression of victimhood is explained. Global warming allows the upper-middle-class to join the proletariat, cloaking erstwhile oppressors in the mantle of righteous victimhood.

Insight into the quasi-religious motivations that stand behind climate activism cannot finally resolve the empirical controversies at stake in our debate over global warming. Yet understanding climate activism as a cultural phenomenon does yield insight into that debate. The religious character of the climate-change crusade chokes off serious discussion. It stigmatizes reasonable skepticism about climate catastrophism (which is different from questioning the fundamental physics of carbon dioxide’s effect on the atmosphere). Climate apocalypticism drags what ought to be careful consideration of the costs and benefits of various policy options into the fraught world of identity politics. The wish to be oppressed turns into the wish to be morally superior, which turns into the pleasure of silencing alleged oppressors, which turns into its own sort of hatred and oppression.

What do American college students want? I would like to think they are looking for an education in the spirit of classic liberalism, an education that offers them, not a ready-made ideology, but the tools to make an informed choice among the fundamental alternatives in life. The people who run our universities, unfortunately, have taught their students to want something different, and this is what trulyoppresses them.

 Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He can be reached at comments.kurtz@nationalreview.com.

4 Years?

Skill Game

Demorats

Demorats

DOWNER!

We are coming!

WHY?

The Christening

Our Border

Holding your breath

Get out of jail (Obamacare) card

2 outta 3

Unplug it?

This land...

a beaut?

Ugly Truth of Benghazi Testimony to Test Even Obammunists' Considerable Lying and Traducement Capabilities

All hail the truth tellers...

  • The US Consulate was attacked by 60+ armed men and hit by mortars aimed with military precision- everybody and his dog on the ground in Benghazi that night knew it was an organized terrorist attack.
  • Former deputy chief of mission in Libya Greg Hicks said there was no protest whatsoever in Benghazi, and in his opinion absolutely no Libyan public awareness the YouTube clip existeda 'non-event'.
  • He went on to say that the Obama regime's BS fairy-talenot only harmed relations with/'embarrassed' the new Libyan government -who said immediately it was a 'terrorist attack'- but also contributed to an inexcusable 3-week delay in getting FBI agents to the (picked-clean-of-evidence) crime scene.
  • The body of our dead ambassador went missing for hours, yet eventually surfaced at a hospital run by the Islamists suspected of orchestrating the attack in the first place. Hicks called the phone call re. Stevens' death the 'saddest' he's ever received.
  • When Hicks called Hillary at 2AM to tell her of the siege and death of Ambassador Stevens, she never even bothered to call him back that night... nor the entire next dayHey, who needs his version of events when she and Barack were busy cooking-up The Truth (stat, before Susan Rice hit the talkies)?
  • Later, once Mr Hicks made clear he was unhappy with the government's fictional version of events, he was promptly appointed -like a child, and by the Obama Administration itself- a 'chaperone' who's presence was mandatory whenever he dared try to talk to visiting members of Congress, etc. Once he did otherwise -because his 'babysitter' lacked the necessary security clearance to be in-on the conversation- Hicks was called and chewed-out by Hillary's 'angry' chief-of-staff Cheryl Mills, who demanded a full reporting on what was told to
    Rep Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) that day.
  • Soon afterward, the previously valued and professionally praised Hicks was being criticized, blamed, slandered...and effectively demoted.
  • Neither US installations at Tripoli or Benghazi met the State Dept's own guidelines- a failure that lies right at the feet of Hillary Clinton.
    • A fourth witness could not testify- strategically blocked from doing so by State Dept red tape that has prevented their attorney from getting sufficient security clearance.

    Meanwhile from the craven left we get:
    • Servile Obammunist lackeys in Congress attempted to blame the Benghazi debacle on Sequestration.
    • Outside of Fox and Cheryl Atkins of CBS, televised MSM media all but ignored yesterday's SIX HOUR Benghazigate hearing while some milked details of the Cleveland sex-dungeon story as a handy-dandy smokescreen.
    • As thanks for her principled journalism, Atkins is already being treated like an unprofessional pariah
      by her own network.
    • Predictably, goofy lib bloggers are flailing-away with puerile 'arguments' and attempts at mockery of the hearings, and will continue to do so until those wackadoodle Republicans drop all this unpleasantness and join them in a chorus of
      'What Difference Does It Make'.

    So is that it? Hardly- there's now a rising call that a Select Committee on Benghazi be convened- but like most things we need to get done these days, that's going to require 
    some prodding
     of Speaker John Boehner: I encourage all to
    do just that today.

    More or Less

    KARMA

    Exchange

    Don't Mess With Vets!

    Cash?

    Sticks and stones do break bones but Obama and crews words will come back to bite them

    DC Clothesline ^ | 10/15/2013 | Diane Sori

    Ahhh…the cacophony of vile words spewing from the mouths of the left over these past few weeks would be quite funny if it wasn’t so sad a commentary on how low the Democrats will sink to defame and dishonor their Republican colleagues who sit just across the aisle.
    According to Barack HUSSEIN Obama, ‘Prince Harry Reid’, Wicked Witch of La-Lafornia Nancy Pelosi, Al Bore…I mean Gore…and a host of Democratic Senators and speech writers, we Republicans and TEA Party members are extortionists, hostage-takers, terrorists, saboteurs, anarchists, squealing political pigs, arsonists, and murderers.
    Such nice words emanating from the mouths of the party of political correctness aren’t they…and all because we Republicans and Tea Party members rightly oppose the nightmare that is ObamaCare, and because we know the truth about the debt ceiling shenanigans with its Obama scare tactics of crying wolf over a possible default on our notes due…which by now you should all know is pure nonsense for ONLY the interest on the notes is due and we have 5 times the monies on hand needed to meet those obligations.
    “The only phrase that describes it (what the Republicans are doing) is political terrorism,” so says former VP Al Gore…the expert (in his own mind) on global warming and inventor of the internet…or so he claims…LOL
    As if anyone takes him seriously anymore…that is if they ever did.
    And then there’s this one alluding to the TEA Party from none other than ‘Prince’ Harry Reid, “…the anarchists have taken over. They’ve taken over the House, now they’re here in the Senate.”
    Guess what…we so-called TEA Party anarchists…which by the way we are anything but…are here to stay as our numbers continue to grow by leaps and bounds every day. After all, someone has to keep the Republicans in line now don’t they.
    And from Obama himself…the man who has NOT allowed a budget to be passed by the Senate in five years because he has NOT gotten his way loves to bloviate that, “They (the Republicans) refuse to pass a budget unless I let them sabotage ObamaCare, something they know is not going to happen.”
    Notice how Obama calls what is actually ‘The Affordable Care Act’ ObamaCare… narcissist that he is just loves hearing his name. We call it ObamaCare for a totally different reason, wink, wink.
    But I digress…NO…we need NOT sabotage his precious ObamaCare…we don’t have to do a thing really as it’s dying on its own without any help…as in the website people need to log onto in order to sign up…a website costing we taxpayers $634 million to construct…is a complete and total operational disaster…as in it simply does NOT work.
    Just like the man whose name it bears.
    Oh and by the way, remember how Obama claimed that millions would be flocking to sign up for his oh so wonderful (anything but) affordable health care…well in ObamaCare’s first week of sign-ups ObamaCare’s main sign-up engine…glitches aside…attracted just 6,200 new customers on day one and just 51,000 after the first week…only 51,000 thousand people signed on out of the millions Obama thought would be beating down the doors…that says a lot now doesn’t it. And with The Congressional Budget Office saying ObamaCare needs at minimum of 7 million customers to stay afloat financially these numbers ring morbidly of a bill that will die on its own.
    But back to the words we go…leading this list of so NOT nice what should be kumbaya Democratic words, is the word’ extortion’…a word Obama let freely slip from his traitorous lips and insinuated over and over countless times during the last few weeks.
    Extortion: the crime (and YES what Obama is doing is a crime…a crime against America) of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one’s office or authority.
    ‘By the abuse of one’s office or authority’…NO better words can be said to describe Obama’s unbending and unyielding refused to give ground…to negotiate…to compromise…in his and Prince Harry’s own doing of a fiscal confrontation with Republicans…a confrontation over Obama’s demanding that the debt ceiling be raised.
    Obama’s threatening that he would ONLY negotiate on budget issues if Republicans agree to re-open the federal government and raise the debt limit with no conditions BEFORE he comes to the table is out an out extortion…as in do what I want and you still will get NOTHING.
    Obama really must think Republicans are fools NOT to know that once they give in to his demands BEFORE negotiations are done it will be too late for them to do anything AFTER they’re done.
    Obama might think that talk is cheap…Republicans know it is anything but… especially when extortion is the currency used.
    And from the Wicked Witch of La-Lafornia…the botox queen herself…none other than Nancy Pelosi…came the words, “I call them ‘legislative arsonists.’ They’re there to burn down what we should be building up in terms of investments and education and scientific research, and all that it is that makes our country great and competitive.”
    These words from the woman who does NOT believe in American exceptionalism …this woman dares to even mention the words ‘scientific research’ while she supports the very bill that will NOT only have 15 fat-cat DC bureaucrats deciding NOT only who gets what medical treatment and when…if they even get it at all…and will also decide what scientific/medical research will be allowed or deemed unnecessary…this woman has the unmitigated gall to call Republicans and Tea Party members arsonists…I think she needs to take a long hard look in the mirror and see who really wants to burn down what ‘We the People’ have built up…that is if her face does NOT crack and shatter the mirror while doing so.
    And so the Democrats continued on and on with their vileness while the Republicans at least offered a compromise bill…which of course was turned down…proving that out of all the words the Democrats used against Republicans and the TEA Party these past few weeks, the one word I used best describes what’s going on in DC at the moment…extortion thy name is Barack HUSSEIN Obama.
    Obama built it…Obama owns it…and hopefully it will be Obama and his minions downfall.

    Dan Pfeiffer was the man with a plan - "relentless guardian" plotting the WH's every move

    The Hill ^ | October 16, 2013 | Amie Parnes

    Dan Pfeiffer’s fingerprints are all over the White House’s strategy of not negotiating with congressional Republicans over the government shutdown and debt ceiling.
    The senior adviser to President Obama has been plotting the White House’s every move, and is described by some within the administration as the
    “relentless guardian” of Obama’s no-negotiations stance.
    “He’s been the most ferocious on that principle,” one senior administration official said. “He was quite adamant and relentless about this. And on the face of it, it’s not an easy argument to make.”
    Even before the shutdown began on Oct. 1, Republicans had turned their fire on Obama, criticizing him for not negotiating.
    But a string of recent national polls on the budget battle show Republicans have taken the worst of the public opinion backlash by far.
    A Gallup survey registered the GOP’s lowest approval rating ever in the poll’s history, while a few polls during the fight have actually showed Obama’s approval ratings climbing, largely because of support from within his own party.
    White House officials argue the polls underline the success of their messaging.
    The White House began planning its messaging strategy for the fiscal fights in the summer, with weekly meetings to discuss the looming crisis, senior administration officials say.
    White House officials and those close to Obama credit much of their strategy and messaging discipline to the 37-year-old Pfeiffer, who has taken a greater role with the absence of Obama advisers David Axelrod and David Plouffe.
    They say he worked closely with White House chief of staff Denis McDonough to ensure the West Wing was disciplined in the execution of the strategy and policy process. Pfeiffer also played an instrumental role in ensuring that Obama “talk directly to the people,” one senior administration said, in a series of interviews with local network affiliates around the country, as the president did on Tuesday.
    Other key players included deputy chiefs of staff Rob Nabors and Alyssa Mastromonaco.
    “Dan is very consistent and structured in the way he thinks,” Nabors said, recalling the brainstorming sessions he’s had with Pfeiffer. He compared them to the discussions “you would see in a West Wing episode.”
    “His mind is an organized mind,” Nabors added. “He can look at something, go away overnight and come back and say ‘this is what I think we should do.’ ”
    Questions had been raised about whether Pfeiffer could fill the shoes of Plouffe, his predecessor and mentor, who helped catapult Obama to the White House twice.
    One former senior administration official said those questions were underlined when Plouffe’s job was divided between Pfeiffer, Nabors, McDonough, senior adviser David Simas and other senior officials.
    “There was this sense that he was in over his head,” the former official said. “He was no Plouffe.”
    Pfeiffer has had his share of stumbles, and was blamed by some for the lackluster rollout of the healthcare reform law.
    More doubts emerged when Pfeiffer went on a string of Sunday shows in May and “tanked,” in the words of one strategist.
    Adding insult to injury, on one of the programs, Bob Schieffer, the host of CBS’s “Face the Nation,” called into question Pfeiffer’s experience. “Why are you here today? Why isn’t the White House chief of staff here to tell us what happened?”
    Observers wondered if he was dabbling in tasks way beneath his pay grade when he inadvertently landed in hot water last week for mistakenly tweeting out the N word.
    “Plouffe would have never put himself in that situation,” a Democrat close to the White House said. “It would have been too nitty gritty for him.”
    Pfeiffer’s West Wing colleagues say the criticism is unfair, and that the West Wing’s success in the shutdown fight will boost perceptions of Pfeiffer. “There’s a perception on the outside that there’s a B Team here,” Nabors said. “But the reality is Dan is an incredibly talented guy ... he’s a living legend.”
    Plouffe also defended his protégé in an interview.
    “It’s ridiculous,” he said of criticism of Pfeiffer.
    “[Dan] is someone in his own right who has played a role in President Obama’s successes. His judgment and strategic sense is deeply respected and it was when Axelrod was there and when I was there,” he said.
    Pfeiffer even dealt with a health scare while planning the shutdown strategy in September when he was hospitalized twice with stroke-like symptoms.
    White House officials and allies contend that it was Pfeiffer who applied lessons learned from the 2011 debt ceiling and the “fiscal cliff” battles.
    More than anything, “He learned that you have to know where the red lines are,” Plouffe said.
    “You need to be able to look through the rear view mirror a little but also look through the front shield window, and Dan is very good at that. He’s very good at playing things out and thinking where we’ll be two weeks from now and four weeks from now.”
    Pfeiffer was aware, senior officials said, that Obama’s hard-line, no-negotiating approach could lead to a possible shutdown and he was “willing to be the only guy in the room who was arguing for that,” as one official said.
    “A lot of people thought it was unsustainable,” the senior official said. “But, it appears we’re trending in a good way.”