BluegrassBulletin.com

Today It Begins : McConnell Expected To File And Launch New Video

[VIA: POLITICO]

TEA Party Liberals To Face Battles On Multiple Fronts In 2014

Ron Paul lovers take credit for the TEA party movement based upon a 2007 money bomb event on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.  Those involved in the modern larger TEA party movement deny Paul's paternity and say that they began Feb. 19, 2009 when CNBC’s Rick Santelli gave what is now known as the “rant heard around the world".

But there can be no doubt that between 2007 and 2009 there was nothing like the modern day TEA party movement anywhere on the radar screens of current events.  Today however things are much different.

Those who got there feet wet in politics as a part of the new and larger TEA party for the most part got involved due to the crashing economy, anger over the government bailouts and in reaction to many of the worrisome ideas being advanced by Barack Obama.  Over time the Ron Paul folks, the Libertarians, the anarchists and smart democrats changed the dynamics of the TEA party to their own ends.

What was once considered to be a movement designed to move the GOP back to its fiscally conservative platform has morphed into a protest movement which seems more devoted to altruistic ideals than pragmatic solutions.  Fixing problems in a real world sense is far less appealing to the TEA party than crashing the system entirely by removing anybody with any experience under the banner that everybody except their candidates are corrupt.

Straying from their original goal of being more conservative republicans into being the party of disruption has caused them to face a number of new challenges in 2014.

The US Chamber of Commerce and the business community in general have joined forces and declared war on the TEA party.

Now it appears that the social conservatives are about to gear up in the battle for the heart and soul of the GOP.

It shouldn't be assumed that the second front in the battle for republican votes will be fought alone by the TEA party.  Granted it has become more of a de-facto Libertarian organization when it comes to social issues, but Social Conservatives led by groups like The American Principles Project, Gary Bauer’s American Values outfit, James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition, Americans United for Life, the Family Research Council and the National Organization for Marriage are now plotting to raise and spend mega-millions to move the GOP back on the track it took during the Bush years. [POLITICO]

How will this new dynamic affect TEA party efforts?  It may be too soon to tell, but the libertarian influences in the direction the movement has taken could prove problematic in the face of pressure from social conservatives.

For example, the idea that abortion should be a state's right to decide sounds a lot like the argument that abortion should be a woman's right to decide, a position which social conservatives will likely find unacceptable.

And neither is the Ron Paul position on prostitution and legalizing drugs likely to set well with the Family Values folks.

What might this battle on two fronts do to the TEA party movement?

On one hand the fiscal conservatives could take charge and return the movement to its original position making it a representative group for the "cut taxes, cut spending" republican ideology.

On the other hand, the Ron Paul libertarians might already have taken such control of the movement that it will have no choice but to act solely as a spoiler, unwittingly helping democrats and along the way losing members who don't want anymore democratic votes controlling the House and Senate agendas.

Or there could be a rising wave of libertarian thought in the nation that, through the TEA party, could change the direction of the country and cause tremendous social upheaval, much like the protests of the sixties did which of course were followed by years of liberal governments and devastating international blunders.

But one thing is clear.  The liberals in the TEA party movement will face a very big hurdle this year fighting their battles on multiple fronts in 2014.

Related articles

Has TEA Party Won The Battle Of Ideas In Washington?

Told Jah: TEA Party Leader Avowed Democrat

Social conservatives' big money plans

Has TEA Party Won The Battle Of Ideas In Washington?

POLITICO has a piece up on top of its website today that starts like this:

If this was a dud year in Washington, get ready for 2014 — the year to “go small.”

Lawmakers had already lost their appetite to “go big” this year, letting reforms of immigration, guns and the Tax Code slip away in the face of gridlock and dysfunction.

And now there’s a new problem. Lawmakers are reluctant to rely on the federal government to get anything done — a guilt-by-association consequence of Obamacare’s botched rollout. Republicans have called it an indictment of more than a website, but of Big Government itself.

While Democrats argue the problem is obstructionism — not ideology — the result will be the same: As Washington laments the end of a do-nothing year, lawmakers are fully prepared to do as little — or even less — in the new year.

“I think anything that has a significant expansion or role for the federal government is going to be problematic,” South Dakota Sen. John Thune, a top Republican message strategist, told POLITICO. “Because I just think there’s going to be such a cynicism and skepticism attached to any promises made with regard to the federal government’s role.”

Ron Paul, the Grand Poobah of the smaller is better ideology has been saying that the Republicans and Democrats are all the same, even saying on some occassions that they are all part of the same party.

Does this mean that his brand of governance which has usurped the TEA party movement has finally caught on?  The answer is no.

The reaction that POLITICO is predicting for 2014 is more a response to the ineffectiveness of the Obama administration and a growing uneasiness with what many used to dismiss, but now fear, are his nefarious plans for America.  In fact most of the anger and angst of the TEA party was born in reaction to Obama, has fed off of Obama's agenda and is still a reactionary movement rather than a pro-active one.

I saw this meme on Facebook sent out by a local TEA party group:

 

You have to ask yourself, what does this really say to people?  Is it some sort of rallying cry to keep the flames of discontent burning hotter than ever?

The phrase "More Constitution" means what exactly?  Lower taxes?  Taxes are undesirable no doubt, but they are certainly constitutional.  Does it mean more civil liberty?  We certainly have suffered in this area lately and numerous cases are working their way through the court system which ultimately decides, as the arbiter of these debates, what is and what is not constitutional.

How does this meme fit into the reality of political life?  What, no republican who wants more civil liberty and lower taxes can be trusted, and neither can any democrat?  Then who?  What other party is out there?  Aren't most of the TEA party candidates running as republicans?  And isn't it a fact that in places where they do, for the most part, they give democrats an added advantage of being able to run on their liberal agenda while republicans eat each other alive in primaries?

So just what does the observation of the POLITICO piece mean.  Has the TEA party won the battle of ideas in Washington?  Is there really some meaning to the concept of "More Constitution" that is controlling how elected officials act?

No, and no.

The fact is that even the proper role of government, as seen even by TEA party types, is considered dangerous territory.  Standing up in favor of building bridges and fixing roads, and repairing a half century or older infrastructure lights a match under the "big spender" accusers who have found a way, much like the protesters of the sixties did, to get attention in front of cameras and try to steer the policy of the nation.

Spend no money, collect no taxes, go to Washington, do nothing, dismantle the federal government, weaken our military, and withdraw into a kind of isolation that fools people into believing that the world will just leave us alone and allow us to prosper so long as we don't intervene in anybody else's business.

Foolhardy, reckless, ignorant thinking like this makes America vulnerable to the evil forces at work in the world.  If the worst happens it will be on the shoulders of those who failed to take charge in difficult times.  The blame will be squarely upon the heads of those who would give Israel over to the Palestinians, chemical weapons to Assad, control of Afghanistan to the drug cartels, who would remove border security and issue terms of engagement to our military that told them to stand up and take the first shot before firing back.

War is, as the saying goes, hell.  And hell is at our doorstep.  The last thing we need is a nation of bong hugging gamers driving the ship of state.

If the TEA party really wishes for an America that used to be, maybe they ought to be asking things like, where are the real men, the John Wayne's of our time, instead of asking that old time policy be implement by a bunch of impotent 'fraidy cats. 

Think about it.  America was strong, and stood up for itself in the days the Ron Paul folks wish they could return us to.  To get there might take a much tougher, rougher approach than the rally attending, flag-shirt wearing, malcontents and protesters can deliver on their own.

If a do nothing Congress is the result of a TEA party victory, then I think Merle might have asked the right question a long time ago: Are the good times really over for good?

 

Told Jah

Nice to know that others are thinking the same things I am.

I told you recently that the democrats are going with a new "ism" in the ramp up to Hillary's run in 2016.  They are replacing "racism" with "sexism".  We've seen it tried already in Kentucky.

It is rewarding to see others now beginning to discern the same thing.

As NewsBusters reported Sunday, liberal cartoonist Ted Rall was recently banned from the progressive website Daily Kos for publishing a comic strip with Barack Obama in it that was deemed to be racist.

On Monday, Rall spoke with Newsmax TV’s Steve Malzberg about the incident, and warned that if Hillary Clinton gets the Democratic nomination for president in 2016, “sexism will be the new racism”

 

"If you look at the vast majority of people who came down on me, these are white Democrats, white guy Democrats who are just using this as an excuse," Rall added. "Get ready, because in 2016, if Hillary is the nominee, it’s just going to be sexism will be the new racism...It’s what you use when you don’t have anything."

Indeed it is, but Rall's right. Just as anyone that criticized Obama the past six-plus years was accused of racism, in the coming years, anyone that criticizes Hillary if she runs will be depicted as sexist. The so-called "Republican War on Women" will be dusted off again, and every utterance by an opponent or commentator that isn't flattering will be due to Clinton's lack of a Y-chromosome and not because of her views. [Newsbusters]

Related articles

Get Ready For SEXISM!

Look Hard And Find Double Standard In Comment On McConnell/Grimes By Lexington Media

Grimes Is The New "Obama Girl"?

Grimes Linked To Obama Lies

Mental Health Evaluation To Keep Your Gun?

There is a very sneaky way in which the Obama administration is trying to implement stricter gun control measures without Congressional action.  He has recently begun using the "regulatory" features of Obamacare to require insurance companies to provide "mental health" coverage and impose "transparency".

What does this mean?  Well, consider this:

Polls also indicate the public favors increased mental health treatment as a way to prevent gun violence. Asked how much better mental health services would help the problem, 46% said "a lot," while 35% said "some," and 9% said "not much," according to a CBS News poll from February 2013—at the height of this year's gun control debate.

When President Barack Obama announced a series of 23 executive actions in his gun control push this year, four of them focused on mental health components. [CNN]

And what does the "transparency" feature mean?

On Friday, the Obama administration announced new rules that place mental health and substance abuse services on par with medical and surgical benefits.

The rules, which will apply to almost all forms of health insurance, will likely have far-reaching consequences, states the New York Times, as they are critical to Obama’s program for preventing gun violence, i.e., his belief that more availability of mental health treatment will reduce gun violence. In issuing the new health insurance regulations, the administration said it will have acted on all 23 executive actions that Obama announced earlier this year to reduce gun crime following the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut last December. [Breitbart]

So how does 'nudging' the American people into believing that more "mental health" treatment will result in fewer mass gun crimes help the Obama agenda to impose stricter gun control laws?

As odd as it seems, Obamacare contains provisions that jeopardize gun ownership, especially for veterans. Anti-gun provisions were added to initial drafts of Obamacare legislation under the pretext of prohibiting people with mental illness – which can include PTSD - from owning guns. Fortunately, the NRA stepped in and got some of the worst language revised last December. Senate amendment 3276, Sec. 2716, part c. prohibits the creation of a firearms database and stops doctors from disclosing or collecting information relating to a patient’s firearms. Ironically, this provision was probably the only positive result of most members of Congress not bothering to read the bill before voting on it. However, the provision does not go as far as prohibiting doctors from asking their patients if there are any firearms in their home. In January, Obama issued 23 executive actions and orders regarding firearms. Order 16 stressed that Obamacare does not prohibit doctors from asking patients about their firearms, and the fact sheet includes, “Clarify that no federal law prevents health care providers from warning law enforcement authorities about threats of violence.” What constitutes a “threat of violence” could be very arbitrary. [TownHall]

Arbitrary indeed. Just think of all the "mental health loopholes" that could be used to take away your right to gun ownership.  Depression and PTSD are so common that they advertise drugs for treatment on television every single day.  Could these conditions be enough to take away your right to defend yourself and your family?

A 72 year old war veteran had some things on his mind so he went to see a VA counselor at his doctors suggestion.  He had high blood pressure and bad memories of helicopter crash rescues he'd been on.  He'd lost his mother, his wife, a son and a granddaughter in the last few years.  He was very sad.

Then when he got home the police called.  They asked if he had any guns in the house.  He told them that he had three antique firearms, including a musket that was more than 100 years old, but no ammunition.

But that night about 11 p.m. there was a knock at Lovi’s door. His son answered and saw four or five police officers standing outside.

“Dad, you better come out here,” he said. The police came to his house and took his antique firearms. [BluegrassBulletin]

And of course gun confiscation is effectively underway in New York, California and Florida.

And if you still think that it can't happen here, think again.  Democratic Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes has been identified by First Lady Michelle Obama as an important part of Barack Obama's plans to impose gun control.

You need to remain "situationally aware".

Related articles

Grimes Is The New "Obama Girl"?

New ObamaCare Mental Health Regs Tied To Gun Control

McConnell Slams Bevin Again

Matt Bevin gave an interview in which he claims that republican voters are ready to sweep McConnell out of office because he hasn't fought hard enough against Obamacare.  He also claims that there is a tidal wave of support building for him.  McConnell sees things quite differently and issued this reply:

“Mitch McConnell was leading the fight against Obamacare while Matt Bevin was lying on his bailout application and pretending to be an MIT alum,” McConnell spokeswoman Allison Moore said. [Joe Gerth via NKY.com]

Let's look at this.

First, Bevin is emboldened by a small group of disgruntled fanatics who act out on their hatred of anybody already in office, particularly republicans in office, by falling for the first guy to come along and pander to their seething discontent.  They do not represent the larger republican community.

Second, Bevin cannot compete financially with McConnell, although he can be enough of a nusiance to make McConnell spend money which though it might seem like a waste of November resources really isn't.  In fact, Bevin will make McConnell do only one thing that Mitch doesn't like to do, spend money early.  Then again, for Mitch's sake this could be a good thing.  The early he reminds folks what he has done for Kentucky, the less likely they will be to give money to the democrat.

Third, Bevin is running statewide, not just in a few Northern Kentucky counties where the TEA party has out worked the rank and file GOP and has a foothold of power.

Fourth, Bevin is virtually unknown, which makes all "interviews" with him by the liberal media so revealing.  The liberal media in Kentucky (and the United States for that matter) would like nothing more than to see the end of McConnell. Bevin is one more liberal weapon in that battle.

Fifth, does anybody with a lick of sense really think that Bevin or Grimes have any chance at being more successful in navigating the complicated mine field of the United States Senate than Mitch McConnell?  If so it might be time for you to put down the bong and step away from the Chee-tos.

The tag team of Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul have brought great pride to Kentucky.  Neither of Mitch's opponents can hold a candle to these guys and neither will likely win.  In fact, the appearance of 90 year old Gurley Martin in the race is a far more interesting development than Bevin's blustery claim that he is riding a wave of angered support.

Put your money on McConnell.  The others are just a distraction.

Look Hard And Find Double Standard In Comment On McConnell/Grimes By Lexington Media

Having read the Lexington Paper for many years I was at first surprised to read what appeared to be a relatively fair comment on the efforts of McConnell and Grimes  to "woo" women voters.  The paper began with a hard look at Grimes' and ended with a warning for McConnell.  But on further analysis it turns out that they were really only up to their old tricks.

On the surface their comment might appear to be an attempt to warn Grimes that she could be making a huge mistake by whining about the "Obama Girl" photo I posted a few days ago. 

In early September 2008, just days after Republican presidential nominee John McCain announced then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, a group of high-profile GOP women called a news conference at the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul.

Carly Fiorina and U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., ripped into the assembled media for their sexist approach toward Palin...

America had its say, and Palin built a strong and loyal following. But on Nov. 4, 2008, exit polls showed that 60 percent of voters said Palin was not qualified to be president if the need arose.

Like Palin, Grimes has a lot of work to do to satisfy voters' questions about where she stands on the issues.

Last week, Grimes and her Democratic supporters expressed outrage after the National Republican Senatorial Committee promoted a picture of Grimes' head on the body of Amber Lee Ettinger, the so-called "Obama girl."

It's up to individual women to decide whether they were offended, but how much stronger would her hand have been had she been a forceful voice this summer when state Rep. John Arnold, D-Sturgis, was accused of sexually harassing three women staffers?

The GOP counter-attack persisted through the election.[Kentucky.com]

Okay, so they didn't give me direct credit for raising that issue in the first place by my series of posts on Grimes, but that's okay, at least they made my points, again.

After this tepid warning to Grimes they went on next to warn Mitch that he better watch his peezencues.

In Hillary Clinton's 2000 New York State Senate run, [Rick] Lazio, a Republican, walked from his podium to Clinton's, demanding that she sign a pledge against using so-called soft money in the campaign.

The Clinton campaign had been preparing the soil for a while, and it was ready to use the incident to turn Lazio's claims of strength into a charge of bullying. When he stepped away from his podium, Lazio might as well have stepped out of the race. The media and the campaign seized on the move as an example of his bullying, aggressive demeanor.

If McConnell takes one step in that direction, he is likely to find a backlash he has not seen before. Folks who decry and debate double standards, as McConnell's campaign did last week, usually have plenty of time to make their points after they've lost in November. [Kentucky.com]

While the warning to Mitch might sound a bit like fair play in reality they have taken a stand in favor of the successful use of fake outrage by Hillary and warned Mitch that in the future they will likely side with Alison and her use of the democratic playbook tactic of "-ism" politics.

Barack Obama was able to shame his critics by accusing them of "racism".  This year, and moving into 2016, women democrats are trying to play the same game only this time with charges of "sexism."

The Lexington publication didn't come right out and say it, but when using the examples of two prominent women, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton, they seem to have endorsed Hillary's success at "ism" politics and denounced Sarah's attempts to call out critics who have lampooned her unmercifully in much more offensive ways than walking across a stage and asking politely for a signature.

Sure, the editorial looks fair on the surface, but in the end, and once again, the LHL is the one applying a double standard.

Daily Caller: "Grimes Photo Smoking Hot"

I guess somebody wants to keep Alison Lundergan Grimes name in the news.  This article from The Daily Caller comments on a photo Grimes herself posted to Twitter.

Whose photo is now going to cause a stir? Double standard?

Grimes Connection With Anti-Gun Michele Obama Spells Defeat

Time and time again those who throw in with the anti-gun crowd go down in defeat.  Legislators in Colorado who voted against gun rights were re-called.  And the mayor of Chambersburg Pennsylvania was defeated after he joined Mayor Bloombergs gun grabbing group.

According to Salena Zito on RealClearPolitics.com, the anti-gun influence of Bloomberg made Chambersburg hunters and gun owners feel like they were under attack. And the combination of Bloomberg and "Washington [trying to regulate] gun ownership with more background checks" caused Chambersburg residents "to react in the only respectful way they know: [by voting] out of office those who are infringing on their way of life." 

Mayor-elect Darren Brown (R) says that once he is sworn into office in January 2014, "the very, very first thing [he'd] like to do is get Chambersburg off the [MAIG] list." [Breitbart]

Alison Lundergan Grimes can no longer hide from the press, refuse to answer questions, pose in a tank top holding a gun and think that people will not see her campaign being funded by gun grabbers in Washington and elsewhere.

When you lock elbows with the Obama crowd your long name just spells defeat.

Grimes Is The New "Obama Girl"?

If there was ever any doubt why Alison Lundergan Grimes is running, that question has now been answered by none other than Michele Obama.  From Capital New York:

Michelle Obama took the stage at 12:42 p.m. inside a softly lit ballroom at the Sheraton Hotel in Midtown Manhattan for a women-themed fund-raiser benefitting the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

The ballroom had about 25 tables, with several female senators and three Senate candidates in attendance. Candidates included Michelle Nunn in Georgia, Alison Lundergan Grimes in Kentucky and Natalie Tennant in West Virginia.

Obama spoke about the importance of electing a Congress to support her husband, alluded to the government shutdown, and invoked the narrow margin in the Senate to encourage the crowd to "max out."

She cited the recovery act, the Lily Ledbetter Act, and the Affordable Care Act ("that's right, Obamacare") as important legislation that was passed by having a Democratic majority in Congress.

"And let's not forget about that common-sense gun legislation, that so many of us feel so strongly about. Sadly as you know, that bill failed. Anyone know by how many votes? It failed by just six votes in the Senate. Six. So make no mistake about it: the midterm elections, they matter. They matter."

Obama said there was something the crowd could do to make a "huge difference."

"And it's simple, you can write a big ol' fat check," she said, to laughs.

That's right.  Alison Lundergan Grimes is running not only because democrats know that women vs. men has been a winning ticket for them, but because they want to increase their majority in the Senate in order to keep Obamacare and pass gun control legislation.

Grimes is part of the ticket Obama is asking his liberal friends to support in order to accomplish those goals.

Now you know Kentucky.  She's the New "Obama Girl".

*NOTE: A satirical photoshop image of Alison Lundergan Grimes as the famous "Obama Girl" which appeared here this morning has apparently caused quite a stir.  It was intended to be a humorous punctuation mark to ALG being an intended beneficiary of Michelle Obama's fundraising at a Washington DSCC event.

I have removed it from this post voluntarily.

Related articles

Grimes Linked To Obama Lies

Alison Lundergan Grimes Invites Mitch McConnell To Join Her At The Gun Range