We have, as a group, been prevented from certain groups that have piggy-backed off our grassroots efforts, to effectively create a comprehensive media message campaign. We made the mistake of trying to partner with some Washington insiders that thwarted many of our genuine concerns for keeping this apolitical and grassroots. While we support many of those groups common causes for Veterans, we do not support the manner in which they go about it. We chose instead to not incite or create panic.
The fact that these soldiers were set up to die in a no return operation is obvious they had knowledge that Obama didn’t want leaked. This is the Seals that killed Osama Bin Laden. I don’t believe this story. He is alive call me crazy but, Osama Bin Laden is our President Obama do your research. The CIA has been preparing for this since he was a boy. They have same height, bone structure, hands and ears both are left handed the Osama face was created by Hollywood. The fox is in the hen house.”
You can find it here. Unfortunately, this is not that big of a scandal — not really a scandal.
Here are some other facts. Of the 300 targeted groups, 75 were Tea Party. Not, Party, as in Political Party. Others were Democrats. If you look at the process, I have to agree with Scott Hodge of the non-partisan Tax Foundation when he said, speaking yesterday on Morning Briefing, that there is no crime, but at the most, some boundaries may have been stretched. Further, there is no connection established to the White House, unlike the last President. The problem is, is that we do profile expected problems. Duh.
The IRS inspector general will release an audit sometime this week, but congressional aides gave several media outlets a draft of the audit. According to the document, IRS employees in the Cincinnati office used several troublesome phrases to single out 501(c)4 applicants for review — including, at various points between 2010 and May 2012, groups that “criticize how the country is being run,” aim to educate Americans “on the Constitution and Bill of Rights,” and lobby to “make America a better place to live.”
In order to avoid paying taxes under section 501(c)4 of the tax code, groups are supposed to have “social welfare” as their primary goal. And while advocating for issues and legislation can be a secondary goal, outright politicking is forbidden, especially for individual candidates. After the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in January 2010 allowed 501(c)4 groups to raise unlimited amounts of money, the IRS was flooded with applications.
This article (above) is about the most non-partisan, least fear-mongering one I can find.
Here’s the deal — a lot of hands are in this one. Bush appointees, Obama appointees. Congress. Decade-old reorganization. Stuff like that. But, more. SCOTUS with their citizen’s united decision. What happened? Read the article.
So, you have groups with the sole purpose to not pay taxes, to violate laws regarding the first amendment, and you expect the Government not to keep an eye on them?
We want the Government to watch out for every dark-skinned person (dark, and I mean just this side of Chickasaw County, Mississippi) person, but the very people telling you they want to “take their country back” and they respect no laws expect the Constitution (not that they have clue as to what that means)… these people you want to go free?
Not to mention, the IRS under the previous administration investigate liberal groups.
No — ideology should not be the driving factor in investigation…but read the article.
Now, we are four days into this. Don’t make up your minds. Because if you do, it is likely no amount of facts will sway you.
Oddly enough, this is not the first time a far-right Fascist Party has co-opted the pro-Constitution, pro-America spill.
Maybe they are. Maybe they understand the role white people were originally meant to play in this country, at least the role assigned to them by the Founders and enshrined in the Constitution under the word “people.” Let’s not kid ourselves into thinking the effective history of the great check mentioned by Dr. King was really what the Founders intended.
Oh, and I dare anyone to tell me with a straight face the Tea Party is not about racism…
All one really has to read, if they can do so honestly and objectively, is the first line of the Author’s Note. Brody calmly and serenely states, “I didn’t want to write this book but history forced me to.” This is the sort of neurosis which psychoanalysists have discovered is common to Americans (see Horney’s work), and indeed, it is the type of arrogance which recent polls have identified as a root cause of the mass exodus from the American Church. Further, he relates that the push to write the book is no less emblematic of John’s call to heaven to witness God’s actions on earth (see Revelation 4). Indeed, I am simply saddened that the poetic license was not extended to make the event, like John’s, take place on a Sunday. If the reader isn’t yet concerned that what they are going to read something which would secure a less well-connected individual to a court-mandated psychiatric institution for weekend monitoring, then more than likely, the reader is what Brody describes, ironically, as a product of the marriage of Church and State, aptly named the Teavangelical.
Beginning with a story which is seemingly anti-Catholic and showcasing the worst of what Deitrich Bonhoeffer would have labeled, and rightly so, cheap grace, Brody begins to identify what a Teavangelical is. What is most worrisome, thus far, is that Brody has nailed down the complete lack of theological connection which Evangelicals have with Scripture and the rest of Church Tradition. To say that he is theologically inept is to put it mildly, but then again modern leaders of modern Evangelicals are on the same level. Of course, the political side of the coin, libertarians, share a certain political ineptness which mirrors Evangelicals as well. He would rather base both his theology and economic policy on Ralph Reed than Scripture. He sites Mike Huckabee as well, although one should have checked the fiscal shape of Arkansas after the former Governor left the mansion. In trying to confuse theology and fiscal policy, suggesting that a social conservative will be a fiscal conservative, he notes only poll numbers and a story about abortion. I’m not sure how his vision of “a direct connection between money and morality” would be received by either the New Testament writers or the whole of Christian Tradition which has historically not been capitalist, American, or democratic. His stories of Christianity (especially conversion) are always bound with politics. What did the Christians do before they sought to convert people when there wasn’t capitalism and democracy? His first chapter is a poor attempt to confuse Church and State, with no moral, legal, or Scriptural authority to do so.
His second chapter, which includes a test to see if you are Christian enough, is the most telling. After all, he rails against the media, but proclaims Fox News and is, in fact, a member of the media. He acknowledges that it is the President first and foremost which the Tea Party is after, but does so almost in a joking manner, as if it is okay to be discriminatory because the President is, um, liberal. Yeah, that’s it. Because he’s liberal. When he does finally get around to Scripture, it is Proverbs, and as it often is in the hands of Evangelicals, pulled out of both the literary and social context of the original work. His test at the end is silly. He starts with the usual Evangelical notion of ‘salvation.’ Does he mean to suppose that if you love Jesus then you will be a member of the Tea Party? The complete inconsistency of the positions of the Tea Party are shown ever more clearly in this book. Santorum is hailed as an example of economic responsibility. Herman Cain as what it means to go back to the roots. Laughable because of Santorum’s record and because the original constitution of the Founders would have had Cain unable to speak with the white women he is accused of accosting, not to mention the fear many of the Founders had of Catholics and their anti-Adam Smith stance. Finally, the issue of abortion and ‘traditional’ marriage is a major concern, and so much so that they seek Government involvement to control it or prevent it; yet, a Government who mandates communal care in some form, perhaps through national healthcare, is not God-centric. Scripture speaks more of the care and concern for one’s neighbor than it does regarding abortion (the only time it does, Evangelicals wouldn’t like what it has to say) and gay marriage (something Jesus refused to speak about). Are we to trust leaders who are so little read in their source material but make grand, sweeping statements as if they know what they are talking about?
His third chapter is a laughable attempt to make his readers believe that these groups are actually solid Christian groups dedicated to Christian principles. David Barton of Wallbuilders is a well-known ‘revisionist,’ whose books usually get only the copyright correct. Tea Party Patriots, FreedomWorks, and Americans for Prosperity are hardly grassroots organized, but instead funded by the same Corporate America who led the way in causing the economic blowout with, oftentimes, diverse social policies (not that the Koch brothers support gay marriage). Indeed, the people mentioned in this short chapter have given the world more misinformation in the last four years than it has had in the last 6000. The fourth, along this same vein, likes to project stereotypes. For instance, he seems to want us to believe that only at Tea Party rallies do they pray. As one who has attended Union rallies and Democratic Party events, I can say that the stereotype of the unpraying liberal is nothing more than a Fox News creation. One thing he does get right, however, and I’m not sure it is supposed to help his case or not, but he does make out the Teavangelicals to be an idolatrous bunch, venerating next to the Ten Commandments (although not the whole of Scripture which includes parts like Matthew 25) the platform of the Republican Party. The evolution which is coming will soon give us a Republican Party who is the party of the Savior. Mein Fuhrer, indeed, as he suggests that the blatant racism of the Tea Party, evidenced in the polls, is still a Godly thing. He notes that Tea Party members, as Ron Paul has suggested himself, believe that the Government should stay out of civil rights because it interferes with economic concerns. These red flags, including Glenn Beck, is something Brody acknowledges and moves past as if they no longer exists if he says they we have nothing to be concerned about or that the media (and he is a member of the media) has misinterpreted them.
As this is a pre-publication copy several chapters are missing, including chapter 5 and the forward by Mike Huckabee. Chapter six relates several ‘power houses’ of the Tea Party Movement, including Sarah Palin, Mike Pence (someone whom I liked before 2008), Marco Rubio (who has been caught lying about his background), and Allen West (who has spoken ill of his neighbors without evidence, or as Christians say, he lied and gossiped). In the seventh chapter, he plainly advocates taking over churches, or perhaps like Beck did and only going to churches which are Tea Party connected. He includes, and I find this particularly funny since he seems to think that racism doesn’t exist, a note regarding Rick Scarborough. Scarborough advocates for a nearly all-white America, or else God will no longer support us. And yet, this man is a leader of the non-racist Tea Party? And then, there is Ayn Rand, whom he tries to sanitize by suggesting that she doesn’t play a role in the Tea Party. Yet, Rand Paul whom he cites earlier is named in her honor. Allen West also uses her in his speeches. And, of course, as Brody notes only in passing, so does Paul Ryan. Chapters 8 and 9, which charts the future of the Tea Party, which I can only assume to be either Berlin or Hell, is lacking.
Brody’s humor is rather immature and often detracts from his point. This attempt at disarming is worrisome, for it portrays Brody as someone who is taking his ‘mission’ lightly, or as one who knows exactly what he is doing, that of telling a joke at the guillotine about losing one’s head. He places Tea Party types and Evangelicals outside the political system, something which is also said of white males in other books on the subject. It is not that either group has been placed outside, but that they have chosen not to get involved until now, after one of the largest deficit creators, a Republican conservative Christian, left the White House to a Democratic pragmatist with a darker shade of skin. He hides behind cheap grace and poor theology, never coming close to substantive discussion on how a Christian can, or should be, a member of the Tea Party or what theological principles (besides a few proof texts from Proverbs) serve to guide Christians to be members of the Tea Party. Indeed, he seems to suggest that all Evangelicals, or Christians who are really Evangelicals but just don’t know it, must be a part of the Tea Party. Further, the sum total of his theology is easily summed up as, if you love Jesus, can ignore racism and social inequality, and hate gays, then you too can be a Teavangelical. What worries me, is that Brody is not alone. What he has done is to encapsulate, perfectly, the confusion of Church and State which has taken place within the last three years. His voice is not a radical one, but one which fits well the Becks and the Bartons as the trumpeter of a new revision of American history and future and Christian theology. His voice scares me.
I’ve published this on Amazon entitled, This Generation’s Mein Kampf
The Teavangelicals is a one-of-a-kind book chock-full of original reporting from the 2012 presidential race with an up-close look at how evangelicals and the Tea Party are plotting strategy to reclaim America. In his trademark breezy, funny, and engaging style, David Brody takes you inside the blossoming Teavangelical movement and describes how it is having a major effect on today’s politics with an eye on dominating the political affairs of tomorrow. The author takes his niche for getting interviews and inside access with all the big-name political and evangelical newsmakers and now shares that exclusive access with readers.The author offers a rare, behind-the-scenes glimpse along the campaign trail within the three key factions working tirelessly to overcome President Obama and his political machine: evangelicals, the Tea Party and the GOP presidential contenders. Brody, embedded with leading Tea Party and evangelical groups, shares what he learned from private emails, memos, and conversations that shed light on campaign strategy and voter mobilization efforts. In addition, this book highlights Brody’s exclusive interviews, stories, and travels with all the 2012 GOP presidential candidates as they try to be the candidate that takes on President Obama and ultimately change the course of direction in America.The author travels to the key early Primary states of Iowa and South Carolina where Evangelicals will have a major say in who the GOP nominates for President. The author gives readers the inside scoop on the power of evangelical groups and how they’re making a difference early on in the process. Additionally, how will these GOP candidates appeal to evangelicals and how well will it work out? At the same time, the candidates are catering to the Tea Party crowd. We’ll go inside the living rooms of major Tea Party organizers to get inside access on the chatter. Are these presidential candidates passing the Tea Party ‘smell test’?
As part of the ‘marketing campaign,’ Zondervan seeks to position the author as a ‘political, Christian voice during the 2012 presidential campaign.’ Further, there will be a launching event at the Republican national Convention in August.
Say, isn’t Zondervan owned by Murdoch who owns Fox News, the stealth Super PAC for Mitt Romney?
For as longest time, it has been my Christian duty to be an iconoclast. It’s just how I have fun, and for a while, my iconoclasm knew no bounds when I was a Left Libertarian. But even possessing such a nuanced position, I became disaffected, turned off by Paultardation and Paulinian Messianism, as if there was One Chosen White Man from Texas to “restore liberty.” Really, who grants these superpowers in the first place?
So, a few months ago, I kissed libertarianism goodbye. I still believe in the free market, that Keynsian economics is stupid, Obamacare was plain idiocy, and non-interventionist foreign policy is right. In fact, I would say one of the things that first attracted me to Ron Paul was his foreign policy. The USA is rather arbitrary when it comes to choosing which nations’ affairs to intervene with, and like it or not, racial bias plays a role exactly where our troops land. Somalia? Kosovo? Anyone?
That being said, the Libertarian cases against things such as FEMA and public education started to turn me off, and I realized that I did not affirm those positions. The best way to ensure freedom from tyranny is to have an educated electorate, an education accessible to everyone. Many of the America’s Founders believed.
Recently, followers on Twitter and Facebook friends have expressed disappointment in my posting and re-tweeting Ron Paul’s Newletters, a Twitter feed that quotes Ron Paul’s newsletters from the 80s and 90s, that have been scanned. Check the link for details. Imagine for a second. I am up for a job at a church, and I may not be the ideal candidate, and I have said a lot of crazy things on Political Jesus, Twitter, and Facebook, and especially Twitter. What if I said, hey, yah, that really was not me. That was all Joel. He blogged for me, and I let him under my name. Should I be held responsible? I think your answer should be yes. Just as certain celebrity politicians who pay people to write books for them are responsible for what is written, so should Ron Paul be held responsible for what he allowed and permitted Lew Rockwell to write in his name.
This is exactly RESTORING WISDOM should be about. “A good name is better than fine perfume, and the day of death better than the day of birth.” (Ecclessiastes 7:1) “A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold.” (Proverbs 22:1) The mistake that Ron Paul made as a Christian was that he chose power (appealing to the basest desires and emotions of his political base) over having a good name, a reputation, when Scripture informs us that it should be the reverse. The apostle Paul wrote to his son in the faith Timothy that a Christian leader should have a good reputation with outsiders (1 Timothy 3:7), operating in Wisdom. Fact is, Ron Paul claimed to not have written these newsletters as late as 2001, putting his story into question.
Days of Rage/Occupy Wall Street — The sixties-style tent city protest, which seemed to fizzle after its September 17 launch, now has momentum and is expanding to cities across the nation, including Washington, D.C. Organizers of the movement (e.g. ACORN, labor unions, and other far-left leaders and groups) have been given new life by the sycophant liberal media, Hollywood celebrities and leading Democrats in Washington, including President Obama. Six arrests were made when one hundred demonstrators conducted an illegal demonstration inside a Senate office building (see Gullible, Who’s Behind it?, Official Website, Senate Building).
May God prevent these radical organizers from stirring revolution and distracting voters from the elections and keeping watch on our elected leaders (Num 16:1-14; Is 1:4-6; Pr 12:11-12; Mt 26:41; Eph 4:28; 1 Tim 6:3-10; Heb 13:5-6).
First, to the lies – ACORN is gone. Labor Unions didn’t organize this, and only later joined the group.
Second, the shear hypocrisy:
Our current TEA Party movement in America takes its inspiration from the Boston Tea Party of 1774. That’s when Americans — demanding their rights as Englishmen, protesting against King George III’s violations of Magna Carta — dumped English tea into the harbor. Our TEA Party activists are right to protest against an all-powerful, all-taxing, all-spending government. (here)
Finally, as my co-author Ken Klukowski and I discuss in our new book, “Resurgent: How Constitutional Conservatism can Save America,” the Balanced Budget Amendment must have the type of guidelines set forth by Tea Party champion Sen. Mike Lee of Utah. Not only will it require expenditures to equal revenues, spending would be capped at an approximately historical 18 percent of GDP, and all future tax increases would require a two-thirds super-majority vote for approval. (here)
Taxes have frustrated Americans since before the nation’s founding. Recently, the tea party movement has brought renewed attention to how tax rates are hurting families and the companies where they work.
Of course, today’s movement is not new, but rooted in our nation’s founding. And the name–and values–of the first tea party leader might surprise you.
The modern tea party movement began with Rick Santelli’s famous rant on the fl oor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. CNBC carried him live on Feb. 19, 2009, as he protested the Obama administration’s new mortgage bailout plan: “The government is promoting bad behavior. This is America!” He called for another American tea party, and the rest is history. (here – a lie which is continued to be spread)
There appears to be a concerted effort among the political Left and many mainstream media people to demonize and marginalize the expanding citizen-based movement known as the tea party movement. This effort flows from both a fear of what these tea parties represent and a contempt for everyday Americans. But those ordinary citizens are poised to be the ones laughing when it’s all over, when democracy takes its course. (here)
You can go to their site, via Google, and find lots of pro-Tea Party op-eds, but when others get together, well, then, they are dirty, no good commie hippies bent on destroying our Republic!
This is the hypocrisy of the Family Research Council. And why are they afraid of it? I submit to, some of the links below:
In tonight’s debate, the moderator, Wolf Blitzer of CNN, asked Ron Paul about health care. He gave a hypothesis and finally said, ‘should we just let him die?” The guy couldn’t pay for healthcare and had to have medical attention to live. In the audience, one loud voice rang out ‘Yeah!’ while several others cheered.