BluegrassBulletin.com

Obama Bad For Black Americans

This one will take your breath away.  Our northern neighbors at the Canada Free Press have nailed it.  Barack Obama is bad for Black Americans.

It would be the irony of all time if the 71 percent of disenfranchised black African American youths trying to survive under President Barack Obama forced him out of office before his time is up.

This is one group Obama cannot silence with the racist smear he levies against any who dare criticize his destructive policies.

They see clearly through Obama’s Feb. 27th announced “My Brother’s Keeper” initiative that they have been as blatantly Obama-ignored as Obama’s brother still living in abject poverty in a hut.

It must be the most tragic fact of politics that Barack Obama gets to use his colour to remain untouchable while he spreads Marxist misery on the masses when a sizeable part of those masses entail a lost generation of African Americans.

That’s just the tragic state of affairs for young blacks who remain jobless and hopeless while Obama travels the world giving unlistened-to speeches, playing golf and shooting hoops.

This is the hard life Obama is imposing on young black youth who made it to school and university age.

The ones who didn’t make it through childbirth dominate appalling statistics.

More than any other race, Black babies do not make it past abortion. Shamefully, there are now more Black babies aborted than born in New York City,  and New York isn’t the only place following the evil trend started a century ago by Planned Parenthood founder/ bigot Margaret Sanger.

The tide is turning.

Russia Matters

Vladmir Putin may be losing his grip on reality says German Chancellor Merkel.  Hillary Clinton compares Putin to Nazi Germany.  Putin timed his threats over the Ukraine to coincide with a pre-announced launch of an inter-continental ballistic missile.  He sent a warship to Cuba, is patrolling very close to our maritime borders, supports Iran and is making deals with Communist China.  Russia matters.

Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld both said the same thing within the past week.  Our president has conducted himself in a way that has given the rest of the world the clear impression that we are weak economically, weak morally, weak militarily and have a weakened political system that is weak on threats to democracy.  In other words, Obama has made America more vulnerable in direct contravention of his first and foremost job, protecting the security of our nation and defending our Constitution.

Now, having diagnosed the very serious condition in which we find ourselves, what do we do to heal these problems and how much time do we have to get back on our feet?  The answer is: we have precious little time and we need radical change.

Impeachment takes too long and it would get hung up in the Senate.  Obama's term in office isn't up until January 2017.  So how do we rid ourselves of this sickness?

We must take back the majority in the Senate, increase our seats in the house and move swiftly to remove him from office or at the very least deny him any power over our future.

If you really think that the world is just awash with enthusiasm over Obama then let's assume you are right.  Why would they be?  Is the rest of the world thrilled that we have enjoyed so much prosperity?  Do they celebrate our successes?  No.

The rest of the world is like a pack of wolves at our doorstep, living off the scraps we throw into the yard but waiting patiently for the one opportunity to exploit our weakness to come inside, take all the food and eat us in the process if possible.

Why does Russia matter?  Because they have just demonstrated for the rest of us how totally inept and dangerous the Obama administration really is.

Are Iranian Ships On Suicide Mission?

Iranian warships have been ordered to approach the United States Maritime Borders.  Consider the timing.  It was reported just three days ago that the International Atomic Energy is questioning Iran about their possession of nuclear detonators.  The peaceful development of nuclear energy certainly doesn't require detonators.

The issue of detonator development was mentioned in a report that the IAEA prepared in 2011 containing a trove of intelligence information about alleged activities by Iran that could be used in developing atomic arms.

"Given their possible application in a nuclear explosive device, and the fact that there are limited civilian and conventional military applications for such technology, Iran's development of such detonators and equipment is a matter of concern," the IAEA said in the 2011 document.

It said Iran had told the UN agency in 2008 that it had developed such detonators for civil and conventional military applications. "However, Iran has not explained to the agency its own need or application for such detonators," it said. [Guardian]

In addition, just this week Iran fired two test missiles.

Iran has successfully test-fired two missiles, including a long-range ballistic weapon, the official IRNA news agency reported on Monday.

The report by IRNA quoted President Hassan Rouhani as congratulating the military.

The "children of Iran successfully test-fired a new generation" of weapons, he said. [Yahoo News]

The US maritime boundaries have several meanings.  The territorial sea is 12 nautical miles. The furthest zone is our exclusive economic zone which is 200 nautical miles.  Even an Iranian missile could fly 12 miles and probably even 200 miles.  But that's not the worst of it.

Iran has embraced the concept suicide terrorism as an important component of its military doctrine. They wouldn't have to fire a missile if they had a boat loaded with nuclear weapons, rather than just the "30 navy academy cadets on a training mission" as the Iranian government claims.  If so then this mission could pose a much more serious threat than we have so far publicly admitted.

Former UN Ambassador John Bolton has at least suggested that this is a threat we may have to deal with in the future.

The mission shows the danger Iran would pose if it possessed nuclear weapons, says John Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush and an arms negotiator during the Cold War.

"It shows they could put a weapon on a boat or freighter, and if (Iran) has ballistic missiles it could put it anywhere on the U.S. coast," Bolton said. "Down the road it could be a threat." [USA Today]

Down the road?  How far down the road?  Next month?

Seriously, if you see an armed Iranian approaching you what would you think he might be up to?  They don't have to launch a weapon, they could just cruise close enough and blow up the ships by nuclear detonation and destroy our Eastern seaboard.  You don't think they are apt to do something like this?  What, you don't think they are devious enough to do something like this?

So what do we do?  Where do we stop them?  At 200 miles, 12 miles, closer?  How do we stop them?  If they are carrying nuclear weapons could we warn them to stay away and then if they don't heed our warning then just blow them up?  Could we even do that without detonating the devices?  I mean, boats can carry a lot more tonnage than a briefcase or your shoes and we don't even let returning vets on airplanes without making them take off their shoes.  How close are you willing to let an Iranian ship carrying a potentially devastating cargo get to the United States?

I don't know about you, but I smell a rat.

The Problem Isn't Republicans, It's The Hated View Of Republicans

EDITORIAL RANT

I was once asked by a news paper editor if I was a Republican, or a TEA partier.  I told him that I prefer to avoid labels because they are over-broad.  I am who I am, think what I want and try to have good reason for what I think always willing to be persuaded, if possible, where I am wrong.

As Emerson once said "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."  I would emphasize the word "foolish" in that quote as I do not believe that there is anything inherently wrong in being consistently wise.

I know many people who are registered to vote under different banners who think very much alike on many issues.  The Republicans certainly have no special claim to the "right to life" issue, the "right to bear arms" issue, the right to be free from intrusive government regulations issue or many other issues that are of real concern to people regardless of their party registration.

But listen to the haters and you would think that all Republicans are evil.  Such thinking is over broad, over inclusive and born of a little mind.

Dea Riley, former candidate for Lieutenant Governor with the late Gatewood Galbraith recently posted this to her Facebook page:

Come on Dea.  Do you really think that all persons in the Republican Party openly embrace exclusion, elitism and social categorization?  That we are all radical fascists seeking to impose a specific ideology/theology on everyone, embracing intrusion into individual rights?  That certainly doesn't define me, and neither does it define or describe many of the republicans I know. That is an insult.

But you are in good company.  MSNBC which has turned out to be the great hater of all things republican made up out of thin air a claim that "conservatives" hate bi-racial families. 

My God!  First of all there was no "conservative" backlash last year which the facts prove and which caused MSNBC to amend it's tweet to remove the word "conservative".  But that doesn't cure the problem.

The far left, the liberals in the democratic party and yes, even some of the TEA party liberals who are hiding out under the banner of "constitutional conservatives" hate republicans so much that they refuse to see that we are all individuals, with individual thoughts, feelings and beliefs.

As a republican I still believe in individual freedom, and that is because like our founders I believe that my life is a gift from God and that I am endowed by Him with inalienable rights.

As a republican I still believe that when a government fears the people there is hope for liberty, but when the people fear the government we have tyranny.

As a republican lawyer I defend the constitution every day, which on some days means that I defend the rights of people to do things, and say things with which I might personally disagree, but they have the right to do and say them.

And as a republican I have no compelling desire to see that we control people through a particular theology.  I am a Christian and my faith teaches me that I am to love my neighbor, introduce them to God when the chance arises, but recognize that they operate with free will and their choices are their own.  Do I want everybody to be a Baptist, or a Catholic, or a Methodist, or a Quaker or a Mormon or a Pentecostal?  Of course not.  As a Christian I would like everyone to know and accept Christ and I think the best way to do that is to live what I believe to the best of my ability and introduce them to each other.

But as an American, who believes that people should be free from government dictates as to whether and how they worship, I do oppose the goal of radical Islam to force the world to capitulate to their twisted worship of a pedophile prophet or be killed or enslaved.

And likewise I oppose any effort, by any person or group of persons to enslave people under any ideology, including the disgusting political game that addicts people to government hand outs, destroying their sense of self worth, de-incentivizing them to reach their full potential and thus enslaving them to the masters who they eventually think are the only ones who can provide for them.

The problem in this nation isn't republicans, it's the irrational, unsupportable, off the chart hatred OF republicans.  And THAT my friends is not an accident. 

Hating republicans is not the natural consequence of an honest study of history.  It is not the result of deductive reasoning.  Hating republicans is the cold and calculated strategy of those who wish to fundamentally transform America into the kind of nation our founders and thousands upon thousands of our best and brightest ever since have fought to prevent.

It is unfair to say that all democrats are far left liberals.  It is unfair to say that all republicans are cracker-assed racists.

We are all Americans.  We all have the right to want and pursue different paths to happiness.  But hatred of others is destructive.

You may assign to me a desire to run things by my theology, but only on this one point.  In my view, hatred has no place in America.  I would prefer that we love each other, and all people, as we love ourselves. 

If that was our guiding principle, I believe everything else would fall into place.

Have You People Lost Your Freaked Out Minds?

Rational thought cannot explain what is going on in the world of politics today.  It's as if the American people have been dosed with seconal and mentally kidnapped.

The liberals are engaged in a perpetual rant that the republicans have waged a war on women.  This ridiculous claim is grounded primarily in the lie that only republicans oppose abortion.  Lots of people oppose abortion including many, many democrats.  But not all democrats.

Al Gore, one time democratic presidential nominee, is now calling for "fertility management", specifically in Africa, to control global warming.  Do you not know what he is saying?  This is right out of the Margaret Sanger eugenics playbook.  It's about forced population control, particularly among the dark skinned people of the world.  Snap out of it!  Remember what she said:

"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."

Pro choice my ass.  Isn't having a child a choice?  Isn't having as many children as you want a choice?  What are you people who support these loons thinking?

They are the ones who have an evil plan for the world.  They are the ones with a racist plot to limit the number of dark skinned people in Africa through "fertility management", and for what?  For their phony chicken-little screech about global warming?  It is now and always has been a front for controlling people.  How is it that my friends in the democratic party can't see this?

Is it because you have been mesmerized into thinking that George Bush was the great evil of our lifetime?  For God's sake wake up!

You allowed yourselves to be cursed with tunnel vision and believed that "The Bush Doctrine" was a one dimensional description of a war monger president who claimed the right to launch "pre-emptive strikes" even in nations that were no direct threat to the United States.  Forget for a minute that "The Bush Doctrine" was not the over simplistic concept that Charlie Gibson was high-fived about when he sneered at Sarah Palin.  Stop to look at how much farther than even what you THOUGHT George W. Bush was planning your own president is going in his slobbering lust for power:

In a video posted Wednesday at the Right Scoop, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told Senators the administration would seek UN or NATO approval for the deployment of U.S. forces overseas while deciding whether or not it would seek approval from Congress.

The statement shocked Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), who asked Panetta if he could "initiate a no-fly zone in Syria" without Congressional approval.

"Again, our goal would be to seek international permission and we would ...come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress - I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here," Panetta said.

"Obama is bypassing Congress every chance he can to do whatever he wants. He did it in Libya and then never complied with the War Powers Act, and I’d expect he’d do that again. He is a totalitarian, it’s just that simple," notes the Right Scoop.[Examiner]

And the world of the crazy left in the media centers went all ape-ish over comments by Mike Huckabee in a speech to the Republican National Committee.  Huckabee said that "no co-pay" birth control is an affront to women suggesting to them that they can't get by "without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of government."

But Al Gore can call for the imposition of "fertility management" on an entire continent of Africans and the world just sits there blinking and nodding and drooling a little bit?

Have you people lost your ever loving freaked out minds?

Just go on, watch another reality TV show, buy what they are selling you, run up your credit cards, pretend that political debate and the future of our country are matters too far beyond your control to be bothered with, hope and pray that your unemployment gets extended, take advantage of every government benefit that comes your way and lay down on your face with your hands behind your head whenever you are told to do so.  It's all going to be okay.  Here's your medicine.

Now get off my lawn.

Does Obama Want To Kill More Babies?

This rhetoric from President Obama is outrageous.

Today, as we reflect on the 41st anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, we recommit ourselves to the decision’s guiding principle: that every woman should be able to make her own choices about her body and her health. We reaffirm our steadfast commitment to protecting a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care and her constitutional right to privacy, including the right to reproductive freedom… And we resolve to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, support maternal and child health, and continue to build safe and healthy communities for all our children. Because this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams. [GATEWAY Pundit]

Well just how many babies are being killed in this country?

If you are an American citizen, no doubt your greatest interest is in your own nation, as is mine. Let me break the abortions down to a national statistic: 1,600,000 babies are aborted in these United States every year. Per day, that’s 4,383; per hour, that’s 183; per minute, there are 3. [Bible.org]

Unfortunately the entire premise for the support of abortion in the United States is a fraud.  It is not a "woman's body" that is aborted, it is a baby's body.  "Reproductive Freedom" is a meaningless phrase at best, worse however it suggests that killing a baby is "reproduction" or even worse yet, it implies that a woman should be "free" to kill a child.

If indeed as the POTUS says "this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams" then how is a child to ever fulfill his or her dreams if he or she is killed by the mother before they even get started?

I could characterize the President's comments as merely meaningless if they weren't so evil.

Does Obama really want to kill more babies?

Thank You Barack For Slapping The Hillbilly Sticker On Eastern Kentucky Again

I am aghast.  Barack Obama announces a big federally funded program to help the po' folks around the country and on any other day, in this political climate, Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell would be railing against runaway spending, "great society" programs and creating greater dependence on government.

But, because a chunk of the money is coming to Eastern Kentucky they stand up and cheer, along side the president, in the White House.  It's not that I have any personal position on the program it's just that my exposure to politics over such a long time has once again confirmed my belief that little of what politicians say they stand against they wouldn't lie down for at the right price. (Yes, that association was intentional)

So what did the Obama cash for Kentucky do in the media?  Re-awakened LBJ's photo op on the front porch of Tom Fletcher's cabin in Martin County and start the discussion of how poor and impoverished the people of Kentucky are.  Just take a look at some of the words written in response to this newly announced program published in the National Review:

"There are lots of diversions in the Big White Ghetto, the vast moribund matrix of Wonder Bread–hued Appalachian towns and villages stretching from northern Mississippi to southern New York, a slowly dissipating nebula of poverty and misery with its heart in eastern Kentucky, the last redoubt of the Scots-Irish working class that picked up where African slave labor left off, mining and cropping and sawing the raw materials for a modern American economy that would soon run out of profitable uses for the class of people who 500 years ago would have been known, without any derogation, as peasants. Thinking about the future here and its bleak prospects is not much fun at all, so instead of too much black-minded introspection you have the pills and the dope, the morning beers, the endless scratch-off lotto cards, healing meetings up on the hill, the federally funded ritual of trading cases of food-stamp Pepsi for packs of Kentucky’s Best cigarettes and good old hard currency, tall piles of gas-station nachos, the occasional blast of meth, Narcotics Anonymous meetings, petty crime, the draw, the recreational making and surgical unmaking of teenaged mothers, and death: Life expectancies are short — the typical man here dies well over a decade earlier than does a man in Fairfax County, Va. — and they are getting shorter, women’s life expectancy having declined by nearly 1.1 percent from 1987 to 2007.

If the people here weren’t 98.5 percent white, we’d call it a reservation."

Great.

We finally achieved some serious clout in Washington DC with the power of Mitch McConnell.  We finally proved that we are capable of thinking outside the box with the ascendancy of Rand Paul and his brand of "new think".  And we finally captured back to back basketball championships in the NCAA and look what Barack Obama has done with the stroke of a pen.

It's back to possum holler.

Oh, and for you Republicans who can still think, don't let this one slip past you.  There is a US Senate race in Kentucky this year and the lady challenging the republican just might need some more votes out of the mountains than the hands of the republican power brokers in that part of the Commonwealth would ever deliver to her. 

Think, think, think.  Her buddy Barack just opened the door for her there.

Pandering, Profiting And Politicizing On The Back's Of Kentucky's Unemployed

The U.S. Senate democrats led by the words of Barack Obama and now many democrats in Kentucky have begun trying to build a voter block on the backs of the unemployed.  In a nation which at one time stood for unbridled opportunity and the land of prosperity, this is a shameful display of inhumanity.

Let's face facts.  The agenda, the decisions and the actions of Barack Obama, aided by a complicit U.S. Senate, have all combined to worsen the living conditions of millions of Americans since he took office in 2009.

There Are 7.7 Million Americans Who Are Currently Working Part-Time Because They Can’t Find Full-Time Employment. 

27 Percent Of Unemployed Americans Have Been Unemployed For A Year Or More – Up From 11 Percent When Obama Took Office In 2009.

The “Real” Unemployment Rate, Including Those Who Have Given Up Looking For Work Or Are Involuntarily Working Part-Time, Is 14.6 Percent In Kentucky. The Real Unemployment Rate In Kentucky Was 12.6 Percent When Obama Took Office In 2009.

The Labor Force Participation Rate Is 63 Percent – Down From 65.7 Percent When President Obama Took Office In 2009. [Bureau Of Labor Statistics]

In other words, the Obama administration, pursuing his policy agenda for America, with the help of the U.S. Senate democrats have made matters far worse for America's workers since he took office in 2009 and now they want to paint the picture as if "they" are out to help the unemployed by extending benefits.

Look, get the teat out of your mouth and think for a minute.  If they really wanted to help they would stop bankrupting the country and playing politics with the future of Americas middle class, get off the backs of businesses and working people and let this economy flourish creating REAL jobs, not made up government paychecks sent to potential voters.

You don't think that the democrats are essentially buying votes with this behavior?  Well, Candy Crowley at CNN has virtually admitted that they are.

CANDY CROWLEY: If I am an unemployed American and I hear from Republicans that, “Yeah, you know, we should go ahead and do that provided we do the following three things,” and it’s a caveat approval of extending those [unemployment] benefits, or if I am a minimum wage worker and I find, I see Republicans who say, “You know what? It's artificial, it messes with the marketplace, it might mean some teens can't get into the job market,” why would I become a Republican? How do you message that in any way to reach out to those who are disinclined to sign up for the Republican Party?

Doesn’t Crowley know that she indicted the Democratic Party as one that is basically buying votes?

So folks that are currently unemployed or on minimum wage must support politicians that promote policies that hurt the very job creation that might lead to them having better lives?

And if Republicans aren’t willing to support such failed policies, it behooves such people to be Democrats thereby potentially condemning themselves to mediocrity and possibly lifetime government dependence?

Clearly, Crowley has forgotten that in 1980, a great deal of unemployed and minimum wage workers voted for Ronald Reagan because they realized Democratic policies weren't helping them. [Newsbusters]

It is time for the people of America to wake up.

The stated "need" to continue extending these benefits is a symptom of the Democrats economic failures under Harry Reid and Barack Obama and their biggest failure is the fact that they’ve failed to create jobs. 

So of course the people of Kentucky are being bamboozled into thinking that all we need to do to make things better is to shift the balance of power in the Senate by getting rid of Mitch McConnell, the most powerful counter force to this failed agenda, and replace him with another reliable vote for Harry Reid and Barack Obama.

Ignorance is the offense which condemns those guilty of it to the consequences of their inaction.  Remember the words of Patrick Henry:

"There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come....

Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!"

Does Rand Paul's Support Come From The "Hate America" Crowd?

Representative Peter King of New York had this to say about Rand Paul:

The New York Republican accused Rand Paul of “lies” and “misperception” :

“So Rand Paul does not know what he’s talking about. And, Rand Paul is really spreading fear among the American people. And, he also today, I understand on the show, he was also was comparing General Clapper to Snowden. To me, he’s either totally uninformed or he’s part of that hate America crowd that I thought left us in the 1960s. In any event, he doesn’t deserve to be in the United States senate for spreading that type of misperception and absolute lies to be honest with you.“ [Gateway Pundit]

What he was referring to was a comment by  Rand on the  Sunday shows discussing his lawsuit against the NSA over illegal snooping.  In some of those comments he had this to say:

"I don't think Edward Snowden deserves the death penalty or life in prison; I think that's inappropriate, I think that's why he fled, is that's what he faced," Paul, a possible 2016 contender for the Republican presidential nomination, said on ABC's "This Week." "Do I think it's OK to leak secrets and give up national security [information] that endangers lives? I don't think that's OK, either. But I think the courts are now saying he revealed something the government was doing that was illegal."

Paul, who's pushing a class-action suit against the National Security Agency over its data collection tactics, has said that Snowden and Clapper should "share a prison cell," charging that Clapper lied to Congress.

"It is a grand tradition," he said. "Part of that tradition is, you pay the consequences. If you break the law because your conscience says you have to, you stand trial." [POLITICO]

So the question I have for readers today is this: Does some part of Rand Paul's support come from the "hate America" crowd that Congressman King mentioned?

Let's take a look.

Clearly there is a portion of the Obama support group that one could argue hates many things about America.  Dinesh D'Souza has made the argument that Obama is out for revenge over what his father hated which is "colonialism", the kind of attitude he attributed to the United States participation in "raping" third world countries of their riches to make Americans rich.

In addition Obama has aligned himself with radicals and domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers who clearly hate many things about America.

So, is Rand Paul courting those folks?  I think not, but on the other hand he might find some support among the less militant among the remaining sixties liberals who like his stance on personal freedom and pot and the kind of things Richie Havens and Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young were singing about.

But who among the GOP crowd might be pegged as part of the modern day "hate America" crowd?  Well, that depends upon which America you are talking about.

The "big business" America which has become the controlling interest in most legislation and regulations over the past thirty years has its share of supporters.  They don't hate America.

But the small business, ultra conservative TEA party crowd does have its share of "hate America" folks.  At least they seem to hate the incumbent elected officials who they view as ruining America.  They see America headed in the wrong direction.  And some of them even hate many of the institutions of America such as party politics, checks and balances and the orderly interpretation of the Constitution through the court system.

Some of the more militant among this last bunch seethe with contempt for the "mainstream", which of course is the American mainstream and tend to lean very far toward the very liberal philosophies of Libertarianism and even anarchy.  They hate that America won't let them steer the ship of state, are angry about it and do in fact pose some threat to our national security.

And then out there on the real fringes are those who are systematically plotting against America, the true enemies of our way of life, whether driven by religious extremism or a desire to consume our resources even if it means war.  They are the ones who stir up civil unrest, engage in acts of terrorism to disrupt society and take advantage of every opportunity to destroy America because they truly, to their core, hate us.

Obviously Rand Paul is not courting the support of any of the fringe or the near fringe.  But, and I say this with obvious respect for Senator Paul, the razor's edge he walks in order to build his own constituency on his way to a 2016 run for the White House is a topic of frequent discussion in the media.  Clearly any divergence from the hard line of the TEA party gets him nailed by its members.  Any time he leans toward a more moderate position his TEA party friends try to pull him back.  And then he goes and tries to win them over again by standing firm on issue after issue of greatest concern with them, like his lawsuit against the NSA.

I'd like you to weigh in on this, but in my humble opinion, Rand Paul does in fact get some of his support from those who hate the way America has been run, who hate the excesses of our government and hate the fact that they seem to be fighting the very people they entrusted with the reins of power.  Is this what Peter King was referring to?

Those of us who have been standing up for civil liberty, freedom from government overreach, demanding accountability and honesty from our elected officials for as long as I have don't consider ourselves as hating America, but rather loving all that is good about America and hating that those are the very, most precious things about the America we love which we seem to be losing.

Rand has the chance to stand very tall in this fight, but he needs to be very careful not to give in to the other forces at work on the fringes and in the shadows.  The closer he becomes with what can be labeled "extreme" positions the more frequently he will have to face accusations like those of Peter King and though his TEA party friends might rush to his defense he will have to work that much harder, and spend that much more money to discredit people like King than he needs to.

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