Monday, December 30, 2013

Tea Party Likely to Win

Harvard Prof: Tea Party Not Going Anywhere, More Likely to Win

By Tony Lee

A government and sociology professor at Harvard writes that the Tea Party is more likely than not to “win in the end” in an age when Americans are becoming more removed from Washington and distrusting the federal government and their elected officials.

“Tea Party forces will still win in the end,” Theda Skocpol writes, unless moderate Republicans can defeat them. Skocpol concedes that the Tea Party “will triumph just by hanging on long enough” as Americans are getting fed up by “our blatantly manipulated democracy and our permanently hobbled government.”
The article, “Why The Tea Party Isn’t Going Anywhere,” was first published in the journal Democracy, and later reprinted in The Atlantic.

Despite the fact that Democrats, the mainstream media, and the Republican establishment again were predicting the “demise of the Tea Party” immediately after the government shutdown ended, Skocpol doesn’t believe so.
“But we have heard all this before,” she writes. “The Tea Party’s hold on the GOP persists beyond each burial ceremony.”

Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson published a book in 2011 that “showed how bottom-up and top-down forces intersect to give the Tea Party both leverage over the Republican Party and the clout to push national politics sharply to the right.”
“At the grassroots, volunteer activists formed hundreds of local Tea Parties, meeting regularly to plot public protests against the Obama Administration and place steady pressure on GOP organizations and candidates at all levels,” they found. “At least half of all GOP voters sympathize with this Tea Party upsurge.”

Also on  Also on the Blaze,

DHS Gestapo Tactics

Papers, Please: Homeland Security to Push National ID, Transit Documents 

Beginning in January, the Department of Homeland Security will begin the phased implementation of a national identity card.
Your ID may still look like a state-issued driver's license, but the federal government will require all state IDs to be fully compliant with DHS standards under the REAL ID Act by May 2017.

Some of those standards may seem like a good idea at first blush. For instance, to obtain a compliant ID, a person will supposedly be required to submit a valid birth certificate or proof of citizenship or legal permanent residence.
Considering the porous nature of the U.S. border, this sounds like it may help with the illegal alien problem.

Also, the IDs will have new security features to prevent counterfeiting, they will contain your personal information on both a magnetic strip and a bar code, and the IDs will only be issued in state facilities where all the employees have undergone security and criminal background checks.
This will cause obvious problems in states such as California, where one of the worst-kept secrets is that if you know the right person at the DMV, you can get an ID regardless of validating documents, stories of buying IDs at flea markets are plentiful, and there is a brisk trade in birth certificates and baptism records.

But the DHS push for verified IDs may actually add to the pressure on Congress to pass amnesty for illegals, rather than lead to enforcement of our immigration laws. The Democratic Party is desperate to inflate its voter base with the millions of illegal immigrants in this country, and it won't stand for law enforcement officials getting in the way of securing power well into the future.
Another feature of the national ID cards is that they will be compliant with the standards of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.

On its surface, compliance with the WHTI will allow you to travel throughout North, Central and South America, including the Caribbean and Bermuda.
The WHTI will be phased in first for air travel, then for ground and sea travel.

Both the WHTI and the national ID are the results of laws passed by Congress in 2004 and 2005 in response to recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
The big catch to having a WHTI-compliant national ID, though, is that not only is it yet another route for tracking you and putting your personal information in the government's spying apparatus, but any person who doesn't have their ID won't be able to travel anywhere legally.

The TSA will prevent you from air travel, with trains and boats soon to follow. Of course, driving anyplace without a license is a good way to get tossed in the slammer already, and hidden in the DHS's security protocols are plans for establishing freeway checkpoints and roadblocks where you will be asked for your papers.
Should any state not comply with the federal regulations, its entire population will be barred from travel until it gets in line.

The day of the free-wheeling American will soon be over. All for your convenience and safety, of course.

Global Warming Fraud

Who is John Beale and why I should be very concerned?

John Beale was just sent to jail for fraud. He was in charge of the EPA. His wife Nancy Kete wrote the Clear Air Act based on this fraud. Using this fraud the EPA successfully managed to close industry after industry destroying the American economy. Example: The lightbulb will now end its success due to Rep Fred Upton’s Energy committee, following this fraud.
Why is this important to you?
Americans have been trained in school under fraud programs like NCLB and CCS, to listen to sound bytes, not connect the dots. This way one issue can be reported without anyone ever following cause and effect. So let’s connect some dots.

Every Florida (American) business is being affected by the EPA fraud perpetrated by liar, John Beale (just indicted and sent to jail for fraud) and his lying wife. These liars lie and Americans are stuck picking up the cost for their destruction.  Just look at the budget from early 1990’s when these man made global warming fraud crippling policies became effective. This Fraud was and is the start and end of our debt problem. Eliminate fraud, eliminate the debt.
Perfect example: Recently we have received several emails from Floridians who have received flood bills with premiums off the charts. These new FEMA and Army Corp of Engineer’s maps are drawn using the fraud of the EPA and IPPC computer models which add 4-20 feet to the height of the ocean causing all of Florida to be a flood zone. Check your state.  As a result, the premiums for Floridians, which will cause loss of homes (the true goal), are based on fraud as well.

John Beale has been in the EPA since the late 1980′s as senior advisory in the office of air and radiation. Beale the highest paid EPA employee, paid by American tax dollars, and leading expert on Climate Change also claims about cow flatulence endangering the planet.  This Grandiose narrative resulted in loss of small farms unable to meet stringent requirements. He also pretended that the planet will burn up unless we bike to work. Now DOT pays more attention to bike paths than crumbling highways.
Beale helped rewrite the Clean Air Act in 1990, and led EPA delegations to the Climate Change Conference in 2000 and 2001. He helped negotiate emissions agreement with India and China. Beale is married to Nancy Kete, who Pres. Obama appointed the National Commission on the BP Deep Water Horizon Oil Spill and offshore drilling. She is currently managing director of the Rockefeller Foundation.  Is this why only conservation groups are the beneficiary of BP funds while the people affected get little or nothing?

Nancy Kete, joined the Rockefeller Foundation in January of 2012, as Managing Director, leads the foundation’s global work on resilience (cities), including developing strategies and practices for infusing resilience thinking.  (Nancy wants you to live the ways she desires, not they way you desire. The goal is to change your consumption patterns to suit her strict requirements.)
Nancy has been a diplomat, and a Climate Change negotiator, (WRI). Kete, with 13 years at the World Resources Institute (WRI), first as a director of the Climate Energy and Pollution Program and then as founder and director of EMBARG, a program that catalyzed environmentally sustainable transport solutions to improve quality of life in the cities,  causing rezoning and loss of private property.  ALL based on lies using computer citing the precautionary principle (If I think it can happen then we must regulate for it) while carrying an expensive price tag destroying the American economy.

Dr. Kete provided recommendations on unilateral steps the industry should take to improve safety above and beyond what the regulations would require. (forcing small business to close as they could not comply)   Dr. Ketes, worked for the EPA where she led the development of the acid rain control title of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, the first and as of yet most successful application of market instruments for pollution control. (like burning food for fuel causing food shortages resulting in escalating food prices doing nothing for pollution, or regulating wood burning stoves).
Dr. Kete holds a PhD in Geography and Environmental Engineering from John Hopkins University. It would be tough to fathom that his wife Nancy Kete did not know about the Million dollar fraud!

Both John Beale and Nancy Kete work directly with the U.N., and contribute to their goals in Sustainable Development (aka Agenda 21), using the fraud in Climate Change and global warming, along with the Trillions of taxpayer dollars that the U.S. has invested in the United Nations scheme.
Her program decided: The West must pay for under developed countries. Closing western industry is the way: NAFTA, GATT, Free Trade Zones, outsourcing anyone???

Today building in Florida followings International Code (ICC) for “Sustainable Building” also based on this fraud.  Hundreds of small construction companies were put out of business because they could not comply with the high cost of new education, permits and fees mandated by the UN, ALSO BASED ON FRAUD.  Why is Florida being forced to follow anything from the UN WHEN FLORIDA MIAMI-DADE CODES WERE THE BEST IN THE WORLD?
Answer:  MONEY and POWER.   Instead of using American companies, Florida is now being sold to HUGE international corporations who can comply with the fraud regulations instead of small American Businesses who can not comply.

Everything we do, every policy we have is based on the Man Made Global Warming Fraud, designed to make the rich richer by destroying your business and community, while telling you they want to “HELP the Middle Class”. Yes they want to help the middle class… out of existence.

Just check your flood insurance premium, permits, building, zoning now based on a computer model of oceans rising. The oceans are not rising.  How do we know? We measure using rulers not computers.
So sorry, computers do not control the climate. Do these fraud policies affect you?

The fraud of man made global warming has:

1.  Cost Americans trillions of dollars outlawing and restricting construction methods forcing the use of international code.
2.  Forced small companies out of business: cars, lightbulbs, energy, fishing and farming etc to name a few.
3.  Destroyed communities: permitting, rezoning, blowing dams, holding back water, ESA, eminent domain, conservation easements
4.  Destroyed wildlife:  Killed over 200,000 head of cattle so far, eagles, birds
5.  Destroyed farming:  with ridiculous regulations, withholding water for farmers. forcing Americans to buy food from uninspected farms overseas bringing disease and bugs.
6.  Confiscated private property and land due to phony charts and computer models – claiming wetlands, wildlands, flood zones, corridors “Greenways/Blueways”
7.  Created phony off limits for land masses with phony conservation schemes while requesting more money – Florida Forever owns over 28% of Florida.  These programs taking land off the tax roles constantly require more money for more conservations programs…Where is the BP money? The bank fraud money?  in your hands, no it is now in the hands of environmentalists with more fraud schemes.  Has it helped you?
8.  Eliminating cheap energy replacing with phony expensive taxpayer subsidized  “green” energy that fails.
9.  Using tax dollars to subsidize fraud “green” sustainable development programs that that follow the Model City Plan of DETROIT.
10.  LYING to the people in order to steal in the form of phony carbon taxation
Connecting the Dots…
Fraud government regulations close small business.  Big Biz must use subsidies (your tax dollars) to force you to buy new overly expensive products that do not work and often cause more harm than good. Because these businesses fail, the government steps in with your tax dollars, bails out the business and takes over nationalizing that sector of commerce
Big business then repays the legislators with huge donations so they will stay in business.

·        Legislators bet in the market on your industry failing and their new favored industry succeeding.  Check to see how much money your legislator made this year.
The middle class, You, lose your business, job, house, retirement while you are being told you bought houses that you could not afford.  Yes, you could afford that house when you bought it because you were employed. EPA, IPCC, Government agencies continual fraud put you out of business.

·        With you gone, more profit for the corporation enabling the government to scream “income inequality.” Of course, your layer of income just went to the corporation profit column. With the middle class gone, the CEO gets this money.  The day the IRS changed designations and made many sales companies into ne W2 employees eliminating “Independent contractors” the hand writing was on the wall.
The middle class is the mid level citizen who had pride in ownership, morality, loved their family, community and was extremely charitable.

·        With the middle class focused survival, their energy is fractured and more regulations no one notice the excessive government control.
In all your tax dollars have allowed the Fraud to filter into every industry in America, in the world. It has allowed the elimination of the middle class while screaming they want to help the middle class.

Victory on Arms Trade Treaty

by Dick Morris

Dear Friend,
As a result of our persistent efforts (mainly yours'), I am pleased to announce that the Inhofe Amendment to the Defense Appropriation Bill has passed and been signed by the president!

The Arms Trade Treaty will not receive any money for implementation for all of 2014!

As you may recall, the Treaty -- a backdoor UN gun control effort – was signed by Secretary of State Kerry in March of 2013.  While it has not been ratified by the Senate (and probably cannot be), under the Vienna Convention, it acquires the force of law in the U.S. until it is either turned down by the Senate or withdrawn by the president.  Harry Reid will not bring the Treaty up for a vote, so it would remain in force for the duration of the Obama presidency.  By 2017, its structures and commitments would have bitten deep into American law and practice.

But.... Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) saved the day by inserting a ban on funding for the Treaty into the Defense Appropriation Bill for 2014.  With the Administration eager to get the money, he was able to keep it in the final bill that was signed by the president on Thursday.


Now we need to capture the Senate so we can get the signature expunged and kill the Treaty entirely.

Thanks for all your help!  Spread the good word!

Dick Morris

Source: Published on December 29, 2013*


Demo-publicans Active

Moderate GOP PAC That Promised to Beat Back Tea Party Challengers Bankrolled by Labor Unions by Eric Odom

It’s no secret moderate, dynasty GOP groups inside the beltway fear losing their iron grip on power in Washington. Conservative candidates continue to gain traction while moderates like Mitt Romney, Tommy Thompson and Scott Brown continue to be shown the door by general election voters.
One major new group, Republican Main Street Partnership, has openly declared war on conservatives. It was one thing when it was just known as moderates fighting to keep their thrones, but it’s another when you look at who is bankrolling their efforts.

The Republican Main Street Partnership has emerged as an outspoken, deep-pocketed player in pro-business GOP plans to beat back tea-party challengers next year. But the group’s new super PAC has an unexpected source for its seed money: labor unions.
The super PAC, called Defending Main Street, has not yet submitted a major donor disclosure to the Federal Election Commission. But documents filed by other groups show that two labor organizations, the International Union of Operating Engineers and the Laborers’ International Union of North America, directed a combined $400,000 to the Republican group in September and October.

Main Street says it has raised roughly $2 million total between its super PAC and an affiliated nonprofit group so far—and that means labor has supplied at least 20 percent of those funds.
In other words, liberal Republicans can’t beat conservatives without labor union support? If that’s the case then what exactly is the point of having a Republican party?

Sunday, December 29, 2013

NYT Backs Off Its Syria-Sarin Analysis

by Robert Parry

Exclusive: For months, the “slam-dunk” evidence “provng” Syrian government guilt in the Aug. 21 Sarin attack near Damascus was a “vector analysis” pushed by the New York Times showing where the rockets supposedly were launched. But the Times now grudgingly admits its analysis was flawed, reports Robert Parry.
The New York Times has, kind of, admitted that it messed up its big front-page story that used a “vector analysis” to pin the blame for the Aug. 21 Sarin attack on the Syrian-government, an assertion that was treated by Official Washington as the slam-dunk proof that President Bashar al-Assad gassed his own people.

But you’d be forgiven if you missed the Times’ embarrassing confession, since it was buried on page 8, below the fold, 18 paragraphs into a story under the not-so-eye-catching title, “New Study Refines View Of Sarin Attack in Syria.”
Secretary of State John Kerry (center) testifies on the Syrian crisis before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Sept. 3, 2013. At the left of the photo is Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. and on the right is Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. No senior U.S. intelligence official joined in the testimony. U.S. State Department photo)

But this Times article at least acknowledges what has been widely reported on the Internet, including at, that the Times’ “vector analysis” – showing the reverse flight paths of two missiles intersecting at a Syrian military base – has collapsed, in part, because the range of the rockets was much too limited.
There were other problems with the “vector analysis” that was pushed by the Times and Human Rights Watch, which has long wanted the U.S. military to intervene in the Syrian civil war against the Syrian government.

The analytical flaws included the fact that one of the two missiles – the one landing in Moadamiya, south of Damascus – had clipped a building during its descent making a precise calculation of its flight path impossible, plus the discovery that the Moadamiya missile contained no Sarin, making its use in the vectoring of two Sarin-laden rockets nonsensical.
But the Times’ analysis ultimately fell apart amid a consensus among missile experts that the rockets would have had a maximum range of only around three kilometers when the supposed launch site is about 9.5 kilometers from the impact zones in Moadamiya and Zamalka/Ein Tarma, east of Damascus.

The Times’ front-page “vectoring” article of Sept. 17 had declared: “One annex to the report [by UN inspectors] identified azimuths, or angular measurements, from where rockets had struck, back to their points of origin. When plotted and marked independently on maps by analysts from Human Rights Watch and by The New York Times, the United Nations data from two widely scattered impact sites pointed directly to a Syrian military complex.”
An accompanying map on the Times’ front page revealed the flight-path lines intersecting at an elite Syrian military unit, the 104th Brigade of the Republican Guard, based northwest of Damascus, near the Presidential Palace. This “evidence” was then cited by U.S. politicians and pundits as the in-your-face proof of the Syrian government’s guilt.

The Times/HRW analysis was especially important because the Obama administration, in making its case against the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad, had refused to release any evidence that could be independently evaluated. So, the “vector analysis” was almost the only visible nail in Assad’s coffin of guilt.
Short-Range Rockets

In Sunday’s article – the one below the fold on page 8 – the Times reported that a new analysis by two military experts concluded that the Aug. 21 rockets had a range of about three kilometers, or less than one-third the distance needed to intersect at the Syrian military base northwest of Damascus.
The report’s authors were Theodore A. Postol, a professor of science, technology and national security policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Richard M. Lloyd, an analyst at the military contractor Tesla Laboratories.

The Times noted that “the authors said that their findings could help pinpoint accountability for the most lethal chemical warfare attack in decades, but that they also raised questions about the American government’s claims about the locations of launching points, and the technical intelligence behind them. … The analysis could also lead to calls for more transparency from the White House, as Dr. Postol said it undermined the Obama administration’s assertions about the rockets’ launch points.”
Finally, in the article’s 18th paragraph, the Times acknowledged its own role in misleading the public, noting that the rockets’ estimated maximum range of three kilometers “would be less than the ranges of more than nine kilometers calculated separately by The New York Times and Human Rights Watch in mid-September. … Those estimates had been based in part on connecting reported compass headings for two rockets cited in the United Nations’ initial report on the attacks.”

In other words, the much-ballyhooed “vector analysis” had collapsed under scrutiny, knocking the legs out from under Official Washington’s certainty that the Syrian government carried out the Aug. 21 attack which may have killed several hundred civilians including many children.
The Times article on Sunday was authored by C.J. Chivers, who along with Rick Gladstone, was a principal writer on the now-discredited Sept. 17 article.

The erosion of that “vector analysis” article has been underway for several months – through reporting at Web sites such as WhoGhouta and – but few Americans knew about these challenges to the Official Story because the mainstream U.S. news media had essentially blacked them out.
When renowned investigative reporter Seymour Hersh composed a major article  citing skepticism within the U.S. intelligence community regarding the Syrian government’s guilt, he had to go to the London Review of Books to get the story published. [See’s “Deceiving the US Public on Syria.”]

Even Ake Sellstrom, the head of the United Nations mission investigating chemical weapons use in Syria, challenged the vector analysis during a Dec. 13 UN press conference, citing expert estimates of the missiles’ range at about two kilometers, but his remarks were almost entirely ignored. [See’s “UN Inspector Undercuts NYT on Syria.”]
A Replay of Iraqi WMD

Besides the deaths from the Sarin itself, perhaps the most troubling aspect of this episode has been how close the U.S. government came to going to war with Syria based on such flimsy and dubious evidence. It seems as if Official Washington and the U.S. mainstream news media have learned nothing from the disastrous rush to war in Iraq a decade ago.
Just as false assumptions about Iraq’s WMD set off a stampede over that cliff in 2003, a similar rush to judgment regarding Syria brought the U.S. government to the edge of another precipice of war in 2013.

The New York Times and other major U.S. news outlets propelled the rush to judgment in both cases, rather than questioning the official stories and demanding better evidence from U.S. government officials. In September 2002, the Times famously fronted an article linking Iraq’s purchase of some aluminum tubes to a secret nuclear weapons program, which — as Americans and Iraqis painfully learned later – didn’t exist.
In the case of Syria, another potential catastrophe was averted only by a strong opposition to war among the American public, as registered in opinion polls, and President Barack Obama’s last-minute decision to seek congressional approval for military action and then his openness to a diplomatic settlement brokered by Russia.

To defuse the crisis, the Syrian government agreed to destroy all its chemical weapons, while still denying any role in the Aug. 21 attack, which it blamed on Syrian rebels apparently trying to create a casus belli that would precipitate a U.S. intervention.
With very few exceptions, U.S. news outlets and think tanks mocked the notion of rebel responsibility and joined the Obama administration in expressing virtual certainty that the Assad regime was guilty.

There was almost no U.S. media skepticism on Aug. 30 when the White House stoked the war fever by posting on its Web site what was called a “Government Assessment,” a four-page white paper that blamed the Syrian government for the Sarin attack but presented zero evidence to support the conclusion.
Americans had to go to Internet sites to see questions raised about the peculiar presentation, since normally a decision on war would be supported by a National Intelligence Estimate containing the judgments of the 16 intelligence agencies. But an NIE would also include footnotes citing dissents from analysts who disputed the conclusion, of which I was told there were a number.

The Dogs Not Barking
As the war frenzy built in late August and early September, there was a striking absence of U.S. intelligence officials at administration briefings and congressional hearings. The dog-not-barking reason was that someone might have asked a question about whether the U.S. intelligence community was in agreement with the “Government Assessment.”

But these strange aspects of the Obama administration’s case were not noted by the major U.S. news media. Then, on Sept. 17 came the New York Times front-page article citing the “vector analysis.” It was the Perry Mason moment. The evidence literally pointed right at the “guilty” party, an elite unit of the Syrian military.
Whatever few doubts there were about the Syrian government’s guilt disappeared. From the triumphant view of Official Washington, those of us who had expressed skepticism about the U.S. government’s case could only hang our heads in shame and engage in some Maoist-style self-criticism.

For me, it was like a replay of Iraq-2003. Whenever the U.S. invading force discovered a barrel of chemicals, trumpeted on Fox News as proof of WMD, I’d get e-mails calling me a Saddam Hussein apologist and demanding that I admit that I had been wrong to question President George W. Bush’s WMD claims. Now, there were ugly accusations that I had been carrying water for Bashar al-Assad.
But – as John Adams once said – “facts are stubborn things.” And the smug certainty of Official Washington regarding the Syrian Sarin case gradually eroded much as a similar arrogance crumbled a decade ago when Iraq’s alleged WMD stockpiles never materialized.

While it’s still not clear who was responsible for the Aug. 21 deaths outside Damascus – whether a unit of the Syrian military, some radical rebel group or someone mishandling a dangerous payload – the facts should be followed objectively, not simply arranged to achieve a desired political outcome.
Now, with the New York Times’ grudging admission that its “vector analysis” has collapsed, the pressure should build on the Obama administration to finally put whatever evidence it has before the world’s public.

[For more details on this issue, see’s “NYT Replays Its Iraq Fiasco in Syria.” For more of our early reporting on the Syrian chemical weapons attack, see: “A Dodgy Dossier on Syrian War”; “Murky Clues From UN’s Syria Report”; “Obama Still Withholds Syria Evidence”; “How US Pressure Bends UN Agencies”; “Fixing Intel Around the Syria Policy.”]

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his new book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and For a limited time, you also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer   
Source:  December 29, 2013

R.I.P. Republican Internationalism

By Leslie H. Gelb & Michael Kramer, Council on Foreign Relations

It’s right to view the Tea Party’s members and fellow travelers as fixated on domestic politics and policy. But it’s wrong to reckon that they will fail to have a serious and invariably disruptive impact on future foreign policy. Indeed, their power is likely to grow, despite their defeats in October over the federal budget and the debt ceiling. Their sway will mount because they still face little effective opposition from within the Republican Party in most parts of the nation. And there is little doubt about the damage they can and will inflict: They will threaten what remains of the Republican Party’s great tradition of internationalism and further strain the ability of any U.S. President to conduct diplomacy, to negotiate, and to compromise. To Tea Party members, these three staples of a successful foreign policy are akin to unilateral disarmament.
Republican and Democratic internationalists should not console themselves because of the apparent divisions among Tea Partiers over foreign policy—the seeming divide between unashamed isolationists like Rand Paul and unabashed hawks such as Ted Cruz. It would be wrong to bet on those differences marginalizing the movement’s impact. More likely, the Tea Party’s varying messages will fuse into a reborn and more potent form of hawkish isolationism.

This fusion will be reminiscent of Barry Goldwater’s brief triumph over Nelson Rockefeller in the race for the 1964 GOP presidential nomination, during which Goldwater warned against foreign entanglements, but applauded General Curtis LeMay’s nuclear “bombs away” prescription. After Goldwater, the traditional Republican thread reasserted itself for more than two decades, led by Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, George H.W. Bush, James Baker, George Shultz, and Brent Scowcroft. Their realist policies and shrewd agreements with adversaries defined Republicanism abroad.
The new hawkish isolationism, however, will reassert itself in the 2014 congressional races and in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries. The Tea Partiers proved their power in earlier elections when they toppled conservatives like Utah’s Bob Bennett and Indiana’s Richard Lugar. The latter represented Republican internationalist realism, and his defeat was devastating, symbolically and practically. The Tea Partiers are now gunning for others formerly considered conservative stalwarts, such as Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, Lamar Alexander, and Thad Cochran, four senators rightly seen as at least semi-internationalists.

The fight to retire those four is just the beginning. Heritage Action—the political arm of the Heritage Foundation run by former Republican Senator Jim DeMint—recently had its best-ever fundraising month. Sitting on that cash is not in the cards. And as increasing numbers of Republican officeholders face defeat because Tea Partiers deem them RINOs—“Republicans in Name Only”—it is probable that traditional conservatives under attack will seek a form of cheap grace. If they continue to oppose fiscal hostage-taking, they will likely attempt to “get well” with the Tea Party by endorsing its opposition to free trade, immigration reform, and attempts to resolve disputes involving Iran, Syria, and China with diplomacy.
Tea Party isolationism is just a somewhat new variant of the old Robert Taft position. On the surface, there is the Marco Rubio/Ted Cruz wing that wants increased defense spending and tough, if ill-defined, action against Iran and China. They sound something like neoconservatives. The Rand Paul libertarian wing talks much more like traditional isolationists. They want a near-total focus on domestic issues without any global distractions.

But look beyond such headline rhetoric and a common thread emerges: a Tea Party-wide reluctance to engage with the world, except for those they view as true U.S. friends, such as Israel.
Like most Americans exhausted by too many inconclusive foreign military engagements, the Tea Party flees from the thought of a ground war in Syria. But they wouldn’t mind clobbering enemies there if they could get them from afar (although some, like Sarah Palin, would gladly sit by and “Let Allah sort it out”). For many Tea Partiers, an outsized defense budget is not meant as a prelude to military intervention; rather, it is their unrealistic way of keeping threats as far from America’s shores as possible.

Count on three consequences then. First, a stronger, even more vociferous Tea Party. Second, a growing isolationist, anti-world impulse among its adherents. Third, much rougher opposition for any President wanting to conduct necessary business abroad.
In today’s world, Presidents must work with and through international institutions. Tea Partiers distrust every one of them (especially the United Nations) as they rail against any “loss” of national sovereignty.

There is no doubt that the Tea Party is going to make international negotiations difficult. Anything that requires give and take—such as forging decent working relations with China—will face hostility from those who won’t tolerate any give at all. In fact, some, like Senator Rand Paul, have talked only about the “take”—threatening a trade war with China in the quixotic hope that such a stance will cause Beijing to pressure nations like North Korea to bend to U.S. wishes.
Perhaps the most vexing problem facing the West involves Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The chance to improve relations with Tehran, a potentially monumental event of Cold War-ending proportions, will require the Obama Administration to offer proposals that not only protect American interests but are acceptable to Iran as well. That will mean reducing, and over time ending, the sanctions that are crippling Iran’s economy. But in many instances, rolling back sanctions will require congressional approval, which will require House acquiescence, which in turn will require Tea Party assent. And that is just not likely, especially if Israel continues to oppose any serious diminution of economic pressure. As the elements of a possible deal with Iran become clearer, Marco Rubio’s position, which is likely shared by other Tea Party leaders, is virtually indistinguishable from Israel’s. Rubio has said he will support lifting sanctions only if Iran agrees to “completely abandon any capability for enrichment or reprocessing” of nuclear materials. This is a nonstarter for Tehran, since it would require nothing less than Iran’s total capitulation.

It is already extremely hard for any U.S. President, especially a Democrat, to make deals with presumed devils. Richard Nixon may have established a new working relationship with China and Ronald Reagan negotiated far-reaching arms control agreements with the Soviet Union. But neither accomplishment would have happened without the active support of both Republican and Democratic internationalists. If the Tea Party continues to extend its sway over congressional Republicans—and it remains to be seen if a plausible countertrend can succeed—the ability of Barack Obama to embrace the essential compromises of diplomacy could face an insurmountable wall.
Source: Council on Foreign Relations and, Issue #31, Winter 2014R.I.P. Republican Internationalism by Leslie H. Gelb & Michael Kramer To read the other essays in the “Is the Party Over?” symposium, see Democracy Journal

Leslie H. Gelb & Michael Kramer are, respectively, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and a former columnist for The New York Times, and a playwright and former columnist for Time magazine

This is accurate. Tea Partiers want to fix the U.S. economy with a myriad of Private Sector enabling legislation to return manufacturing to the U.S. We also want a return to the U.S. Constitution (as written).  We realize that we cannot regain our economic strength without these reforms.  That may make life more complicated for global companies, but again it may not. We certainly want the U.S. to quit the U.N. in retaliation for the costly global warming hoax and the damage and waste being endured by U.N. Agenda 21 implementation in the U.S.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

No Republicans in Illinois

A State with No Republicans by James A. Hall

The State of Illinois. Think about this. Some interesting data on the 'state' of Illinois ... There are more people on welfare in Illinois than there are people working. Chicago pays the highest wages to teachers than anywhere else in the U.S. averaging $110,000/year. Their pensions average 80-90% of their income.

Wow, are Illinois and Chicago great or what? Be sure to read till the end. I've never heard it explained better. Perhaps the U.S. should pull out of Chicago ? Body count: In the last six months, 292 killed (murdered) in Chicago . 221 killed in Iraq ; AND Chicago has one of the strictest gun laws in the entire US.

Here's the Chicago chain of command: President: Barack Hussein Obama · Senator: Dick Durbin · House Representative: Jesse Jackson Jr. · Governor: Pat Quinn · House leader: Mike Madigan · Atty. Gen.: Lisa Madigan (daughter of Mike) · Mayor: Rohm Emanuel · The leadership in Illinois - all Democrats. ·

Thank you for the combat zone in Chicago . · Of course, they're all blaming each other. · Can't blame Republicans; there aren't any! · Chicago school system rated one of the worst in the country. Can't blame Republicans; there aren't any!  State pension fund $78 Billion in debt, worst in country. Can't blame Republicans; there aren't any! >> Cook County ( Chicago ) sales tax 10.25% highest in country. Can't blame Republicans; there aren't any!

This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois and he is going to 'fix' Washington politics for us?  George Ryan is no longer Governor, he is in the prison.  He was replaced by Rob Blajegovitch who is that's right, also in the prison.  And Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. resigned a couple of weeks ago, because he is fighting to not be sent to...that's right, prison. The Land of Lincoln , where our governors make our license plates. But you know what? As long as they keep providing entitlements to the population of Chicago, nothing is going to change, except the state will go broke before the country does.

"One of the penalties of not participating in politics is that you will be governed by your inferiors." - Plato

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery" ... Winston Churchill

Source: Democratic, November 7, 2013, by James A. Hall, posted by Juagen,,  Note: I received the following email from a conservative friend. I have tried to find a rebuttal, but have failed to locate one. I'm sure there are plenty of DUers who have some facts to add to this corruption of information . HELP!  -  Juagen

"Anybody who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian." Don’t forget Detroit another good example.

Some of you might find these data interesting. ALL SHOULD. There are actually two messages here. The first is very interesting, but the second is absolutely astounding -- and explains a lot!
A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.
Dorothy Hallden 12/28/13
UN International Health Organization Survey
Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:  U.S. ---- 65%  
England -- 46%   Canada -- 42%
Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:  U.S. -- 93%
England -- 15%   Canada -- 43%
Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:  U.S. --- 90%
England --- 15%  Canada --- 43%
Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:   U.S. ---- 77%
England --- 40%   Canada --- 43%
Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:  U.S. ---- 71
England ------ 14     Canada ------ 18
Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":  U.S. ---- 12%
England ------ 2%     Canada ------ 6%
And now for the last statistic:
National Health Insurance?  U.S. ------ NO
England ------ YES     Canada ------ YES
And check this last set of statistics from, October 8, 2012:
The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet.....You know what the private business sector is. A real-life business, not a Government job. Here are the percentages:
T. Roosevelt …......... . 38%
Wilson  ........................ 52%
Harding......................... 49%
Coolidge....................... 48%
Hoover ..........................42%
F. Roosevelt.................. 50%
Eisenhower.................... 57%
Kennedy........................ 30%
GH Bush..........................51%
Clinton .............................39%
GW Bush..........................55%
Obama.............................. 8%
This helps to explain the incompetence of this administration: only 8% of them have ever worked in private business!
 That's right! Only eight percent -- the least, by far, of the last 19 presidents! And these people are trying to tell our big Corporations how to run their business?
 How can the president of a major nation and society, the one with the most successful economic system in world history, stand and talk about business when he's never worked for one? Or about jobs when he has never really had one? And when it's the same for 92% of his senior staff and closest
advisers? They've spent most of their time in academia, Government and/or non-profit jobs or as "community organizers." They should have been in an employment line.

Dorothy Hallden 12/28/13