[Co-opted] Tea Party Sheds the Libertarian Fig Leaf, Goes Full Fundie | Firedoglake

Tom Usher commented or added the following:

Okay, so what was the Glenn Beck "Restoring Honor" rally all about?

First, the Tea Party was almost strictly Ron Paul types. They were limited government, laissez-faire capitalist, and anti-interventionist/anti-war. Their roots are really Jeffersonian, "let us have our slaves and right to secede," and "a man's home is his castle" no matter how small. Blend in the near worship of mammon (gold), self-defense, rugged individualism, and you've pretty much got it. Plenty of them were racists, but plenty were not. There are Black "Patriots," as the original Tea Partiers call themselves. They were all also a mix of Christians and atheists.

Second, when the neocons saw that the Movement was picking up steam and Ron Paul was moving up in the polls and public consciousness, the neocons moved in and co-opted the Tea Party Movement. That meant pro-war, pro-Zionism (of course). Sarah Palin has no problem there.

Third, Glenn Beck decided that the thing that was most emotional was religion. This is nothing new. George W. Bush used it to get close enough to the Presidency that the U.S. Supreme Court could steal it for him with plausible deniability. So, the Rally was a spiritual revival.

Now, if you take out the violence (militarism) and greed (laissez-faire capitalism) and separate it from being a rally really to garner votes in a secular election, then a real spiritual revival is great. This though was a phony spiritual revival built on top of greed and violence that come out from lust in general.

In fact, the rally was ostensibly to raise funds for the Special Operations Warrior Foundation. (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=196633) Think about that in conjunction with all the "Christian" overtones or image making going on at that rally. Special Operations are those guys who drop in on Afghan boarding schools and wipe out all the 12-year-old terrorists in their pajamas. Think of the perversion of mixing Jesus with machine-gun firing "warriors." That's what that rally was, and it's disgusting. It's obscene. It's pornography of the soul coming out from Glenn Beck's circus of nightmares in his heart.

The fact is that Glenn Beck is every bit as phony as is Barack Obama. Beck is a shill for Rupert Murdoch and Murdoch's fellow Zionist-elitists. There's no doubt about it.

As for Obama, he's saving capitalism from socialism even more than Franklin Roosevelt did, but he's caught with a more reactionary crowd in general in the US thanks to Rupert Murdoch. Obama has been a fool to have kept Bush-43's economic team, and he's gonna pay Hell for it.

Beck is going to obfuscate and twist for the sake of Murdoch's empire, which isn't fairing as well as Rupert had hoped because he hasn't been able to rein in the Internet (yet). His subscription sites haven't proven themselves duplicatable. Murdoch needs more anti-Populist neocons in office to drive through regulations to restrict the Internet so he can grab market share the easy way – through campaign contributions buying politicians.

Glenn Beck is a mouthpiece for the monopolist. He's the front man, the clown, the entertainer, the mesmerizer, the PR guy, putting the sort-of human face on the Trusts that Teddy Roosevelt would have busted up.

Also, the people who attended that rally are in the dark about the real history of the founding of the US – that the core Founders, the leaders of the Revolutions, were by and large not "Christians"! They were mostly Deists and Freemasons. They did not found a "Christian" nation, far from it. Far be it from Jesus Christ that his name and Church should be attached to all the terrible wickedness that was done in the founding of America. The Founders were many of them slavers and slave owners. They were elitists all, some just more so than others!

We need a real awakening, not this drivel from Beck and his ilk and Obama and his image-makers who duped the youth movement at such a critical time.

The Beck followers don't all want to bring back George W. Bush, who was a complete disaster, who presided over the economic ruin (bailing out the banksters) that Obama has hardly mitigated via his paltry stimulus package that also went into the hands of the elites and not for public jobs now that were needed then to avoid this (depression).

What did Mr. Murdoch's rag, The Wall Street Journal, have to say? (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703618504575459612802925600.html) "Mr. Beck's television program appears on Fox News, owned by News Corp., which also owns The Wall Street Journal." That's the obligatory disclosure so you won't think about it. So, think about it! "Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a former Republican National Committee chairman, suggested that the rally represented dissatisfaction with Mr. Obama and congressional Democrats. They 'have taken the biggest lurch to the left in policy in American history,' he told CBS's 'Face the Nation.'" Dream on, Haley.

Obama can't hold a candle to FDR in the leftist department, and FDR didn't go nearly far enough. He caved in to the deficit hawks, causing a dip that he had to reverse; he refused to make the public hiring permanent; and he also went along with not giving the unemployed public high-skills training. Rather, he used the war to put everyone back to work. Just think had he employed everyone in a war on poverty without going to war. Now that would have worked and is exactly what Obama ought to push for but won't because he's a lily-livered liar whose afraid to take a bullet or whatever for the sake of the people and regardless of whether his children will be multi-multi-millionaires.

Since Beck got the people there because they are Fox watchers, watch now what the Palin Tea Partiers do to put her front-and-center again. Then the Ron Paul crowd will have to pull a rabbit out of the hate (Did I write hate? I did) with a convention of "Patriots" of the, well, Ron Paul variety, many of whom are Truthers, which Beck hates because Murdoch does because the Mossad does because the Rothschilds, et al. do.

One must remember that Beck is a Mormon convert. He's talked against social justice. He hates the social Gospel. Now, I agree that Jesus was not a secularist, but Beck is trying to mix God and the secular too every bit as much as anyone else. So, after the rally, he started in on Liberation Theology, about which he knows next to nothing, as evidenced by his remarks on the subject. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/29/AR2010082903889.html)

Of course Jesus was for the oppressed. Of course Jesus came to liberate. Who doesn't know that? The only issues that have ever come up about Liberation Theology are 1) should the church (primarily the Roman Catholic) side against the elites 2) should the church side with violent revolutionaries working to free the oppressed from brutal overlords (usually capitalists/dictators) and 3) should the church work within the system of secular government. Well, the third question is the one where most people believe it's settled that the church should work within the system. Although, that's exactly wrong. As for point/issue one, the church should never side with anyone in their iniquity. Elitism is anti-Christ, as Jesus said that the first is the servant of all as the lowest and least. To the second issue, Jesus taught total pacifism in terms of human-to-human engagement. As I repeat often to drill it in, the only place Jesus used coercion was in cleaning the temple. I wrote earlier today, "Consider that the temple was also his body. The temple building was to be a voluntary place to be with known rules before one enters. The temple was, and is, his to do with as he saw, and still sees, fit." Even still, he was not tried for it and drew no blood that we know of. It was for a sign of things to come on a larger scale, since the cosmos is his temple and so is Heaven.

Now, Beck says, and I paraphrase: we can all agree on that everyone deserves a shot; but beyond that, it becomes politics. He says that he doesn't agree in economic justice in the way Martin Luther King saw it. What's Beck talking about? He's talking about exactly what Rupert Murdoch wants. Everyone gets a shot at being turned down by Rupert Murdoch because he or she doesn't toe the elitist line. Beck toes it. He toes it completely because he was going to kill himself and saved himself (he falsely imagines) by coming up with this caving into Satan's spiel. Beck says, "People of faith that believe that you have an equal right to justice, that is the essence; and if it's not the essence, essence, then we've been sold a pack of lies. The essence is, everyone deserves a shot."

Look, politics and economics and justice and freedom and faith in God are all the same things. They are inseparable in Christianity. Beck is speaking nonsense. The Church is not secular, never has been, and never will be. Everything else is a fake. Jesus didn't come running for Caesar's office. He rejected that for a higher calling of being last therefore first – beautiful – right on. It doesn't get any better than that. Ask God.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 – present, website developer and writer. 2015 – present, insurance broker.

    Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration.

    Volunteerism: 2007 – present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.

    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.