Ask George III if Demonizing the Tea Party Works

American Thinker ^ | April 17, 2011 | Lee Cary

[neverdem]

Future historians will describe the Democratic Party's demonization of the Tea Party movement as a major political blunder that put them squarely on the wrong side of America's 21^st Century financial crisis.

When Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on a conference call that he'd been instructed by "the caucus" to use the word "extreme" when referring to the Tea Party, he carelessly revealed the previously obvious but unacknowledged truth.  Democrats have a coordinated plan to demonize the Tea Party movement (TPM) via their oft-repeated meme that implicitly characterizes law-abiding citizens as terrorists -- as with fundamentalist Islam or domestic militias, contemporary lone gunman or historical mass murderers (recall Nancy Pelosi's comment about Nazis in conjunction with TPM gatherings).

Using "extreme" is an extreme tactic on the part of Democrats.  And a dumb one, guaranteed to galvanize the TPM into a stronger and more determined effort.  One might ask: How could Democrats be so brazenly stupid as to think the tactic will be widely successful, particularly with independents?  Even with the support of the legacy liberal media?   

Maybe they just don't know much about early American history.  They should, since many of them have law degrees.  And all of them can read...or, at least, most of them.

They should know that the historical precedent for the TPM wasn't the Tea Party event in Boston Harbor on December 16, 1773.  Significant for American history as that was, and still is, it isn't the precursor of today's TPM.  Something else was.

The Continental Association, established on October 20, 1774, was the first Tea Party-like movement in American history.  On that date, Peyton Randolph, President of the First Continental Congress, signed a document on behalf of those self-identified therein as "We, his majesty's most loyal subjects."  The document came in response to the so-called Intolerable Acts passed by the British parliament.

The Intolerable Acts were a set of four acts: The first was the Boston Port Act, which closed the port of Boston to all colonists until damages from the Boston Tea Party were paid. The second, the Massachusetts Government Act, gave the British government total control of town meetings, taking all decisions out of the hands of the colonists. The third, the Administration of Justice Act, made British officials immune to criminal prosecution in America and the fourth, the Quartering Act, required colonists to house and quarter British troops on demand, including in private homes as a last resort.

When Lord North became Prime Minister of the British Parliament in 1770, he embodied the hard line King George III took toward the Colonies.  With regard to the Boston Port Act, North said, "Now is the time to proceed with firmness and without fear. They will never reform until we take a measure of this kind."  Parliament crammed the Intolerable Acts down the Colonists' throats just as Democrats stuffed ObamaCare down ours.  Mistakes on both their parts.

Today's Democrats think that to "take the measure" of the Tea Partiers also means calling them "extremists."  Parliament's response had the same impact on the Colonies that the Democrats' extreme language is having on the TPM -- it stiffened resistance.  

The document that came from the First Continental Congress, less than a year after the Boston Tea Party, was a collective nose-thumbing (or, perhaps, another crude hand gesture deploying a finger specially chosen for the occasion).  It established a network of locally-based committees designed to facilitate the boycott of British-made goods.  The goal was:

To obtain redress of these grievances, which threaten destruction to the lives, liberty, and property of his majesty's subjects, in North-America, we are of opinion, that a non-importation, non-consumption, and non-exportation agreement, faithfully adhered to, will prove the most speedy, effectual and peaceable measure; And, therefore, we do, for ourselves, and the inhabitants of the several colonies, whom we represent, firmly agree and associate, under the sacred ties of virtue, honour and love of our country, as follows:

A list of fourteen actions came next. Number eleven described the Continental Association of committees that would monitor and enforce the boycott.

11. That a committee be chosen in every county, city, and town, by those who are qualified to vote for representatives in the legislature, whose business it shall be attentively to observe the conduct of all persons touching this association; and when it shall be made to appear, to the satisfaction of a majority of any such committee, that any person within the limits of their appointment has violated this association, that such majority do forthwith cause the truth of the case to be published in the gazette; to the end, that all such foes to the rights of British-America may be publicly known, and universally contemned as the enemies of American liberty; and thenceforth we respectively will break off all dealings with him or her.

When the Democrat-controlled Congress crammed ObamaCare down the throats of the American people, it gave legs to a movement bringing together citizens from all political affiliations -- though most are self-described fiscal conservatives.  What they hold in common is that, for years, they've watched, with mounting alarm, the uncontrolled growth of the federal government and the national debt.

Unlike the Continental Association of October 1774, the TPM wasn't created by Congress.  Nor is its primary objective to influence a foreign monarch.  It target is a domestic aristocracy of another kind, a soft tyranny, so far, that grows ever more intrusive on American freedoms.

Similar to the Continental Association of 1774, the intent of the TPM is to affect another boycott, of sorts.  In today's case, it's against electing politicians likely to contribute to America's mounting fiscal crisis and bludgeoning government, regardless of their political party affiliation. 

By labeling the TPM as "extremists," the New Democrat Socialist Party mirrored the response of King George III and his minion, Prime Minister Lord North.  Not smart on the Democrats' part.  Proving once again...the most damaging impact upon an opponent's cause can sometimes be one of the opponent's own making.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Or ask the British army that landed at New Orleans in 1815. Or ask the Imperial Japanese forces that bombed Pearl Harbor. Or ask the Wisconsin public employees unions. Or ask Charlie “Green Iguana” Crist....

[ClearCase_guy]

Palin was the first to fight back. She fought back harder than anyone else. Then, she seemed to back off a bit, and tempered her remarks on Libya, the birth certificate, etc. At that point Trump stepped in and opened with both barrels and he fought back harder than Palin -- and he got enormous amounts of good publicity.

The lesson is clear: We The People want to see Republicans bring out the big guns and fight back to the bitter end. Don't mess with the Tea Party, you'll only make us angry. You wouldn't like us when we're angry.

[kjo]

You are exactly right...fight back! The first thing that needs to be done...is that when a conservative is being interviewed in the MSM, and the “reporter” is talking the Obama talking points...call them on it!

A congressman did this on THIS WEEK, today, with the Euro-lefty who has been given the program. Call the media out!

[reg45]

King George III had a good excuse - he was insane. Can the same be said for Barack 0bama?

[JLAGRAYFOX]

Or ask the British army that confronted General Daniel Morgan, his militia & regulars at the CowPens during the American revolution. Yes, today’s Tea Party is the American Revolution of the 21st century. Obama is King George III, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Castro, Farrakhan, Wright, Jones,etc. all wrapped up in their hate of American freedom, choice and individual liberty. Democrats, Obama and all his minions in the media will not deter the tea party from flushing Obama & his destroy America lock-steppers down the toilet into the forever obscurity they so richly deserve!!!

[ClearCase_guy]

We certainly don't see enough of that.

This is sort of a boring observation for those of us who pay attention, but I am still amazed by the double standard pushed by our unbiased media. I've seen one segment with a reporter who interviewed a Democrat and then interviewed a Republican. I paraphrase:

"Can you tell us how your plan will save the economy?"
"You've met with the president -- do you have his full support?"
"What do you say to the people who want to stand in the way of this, who want to do nothing?"

And then with the Republican:

"You want to help the rich! You obviously don't care about the poor!"
"Some people are trying to solve problems and introduce new ideas, but you oppose everything! How can you possibly defend your record???"
"The senate opposes you, the president opposes you, the courts oppose you, the people oppose you -- at what point do you finally say 'Maybe I'm wrong??'"

Republicans need to see Obama as Enemy #1, but they need to see the Reporter in front of them as Enemy #2. Fight back!!

[GloriaJane]

"Tea Party>" Song

[RipSawyer]

Anyone who ever says one word that makes perfect sense is an extremist according to the left. Only those who spout nonsense are not extremists.

[matthew fuller]

You tell me:

Diagnosis:

[edit] DSM-IV-TR 301.81

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fourth edition, DSM IV-TR, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental disorders, defines narcissistic personality disorder (in Axis II Cluster B) as:[1]
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following: 1.Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
2.Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3.Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
4.Requires excessive admiration
5.Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
6.Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
7.Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
8.Is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
9.Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
10.Often mild to moderate paranoia, that others are out to do him in.
11.Predominant “name dropper” boasting or suggestion association with people or affiliations of importance.

It is also a requirement of DSM-IV that a diagnosis of any specific personality disorder also satisfies a set of general personality disorder criteria.

[Iron Munro]

[RJS1950]

George III was not insane; he had porphyria which can cause bizarre behavior which the person has no control over. He was the king and like obama considered himself to be the ruler and everyone should do his bidding regardless of the situation or consequences but the difference is that George was a heriditary king and his people expected him to rule with parliment keeping him under some control. It was his worthless son and his cronies in the government and media who tried to usurp the king, not the people of Britain. Here it is the cronies in government and the media who are propping obama up. King George was not attempting to destroy his country and economy on purpose like obama and the democrat party.

FUBO & FAD

[matthew fuller]

Also see this one:

DSM-IV-TR 301.50

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fourth edition, DSM IV-TR, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental disorders, defines histrionic personality disorder (in Axis II Cluster B) as:[6]
A pervasive pattern of excessive emotionality and attention seeking, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following: 1.is uncomfortable in situations in which he or she is not the center of attention
2.interaction with others is often characterized by inappropriate sexually seductive or provocative behavior
3.displays rapidly shifting and shallow expression of emotions
4.consistently uses physical appearance to draw attention to self
5.has a style of speech that is excessively impressionistic and lacking in detail
6.shows self-dramatization, theatricality, and exaggerated expression of emotion
7.is suggestible, i.e., easily influenced by others or circumstances
8.considers relationships to be more intimate than they actually are.

It is a requirement of DSM-IV that a diagnosis of any specific personality disorder also satisfies a set of general personality disorder criteria.

[DrC]

The progressives are fond of claiming they are on the “right side of history.” Indeed, this arrogant mentality is what drove them to overrule the simpleton voters and ram through Obamacare. Of course, to be on the right side of history, you first have to remember it, and then you have to understand it. I’ve seen no evidence this president has either ability.

[neverdem]

I asked the admin mods why did they put this energy story in Chat. So they put the 1st link from Nature News in Bloggers and Personal.

Natural gas greenhouse emissions study draws fire - Gas industry dismisses claim that shale-derived natural gas is worse than coal for the climate.

Energy: A Tale of Two Narratives They're fracking in old oil fields now.

Mark Landsbaum: Your money's gone with the wind (and solar)

NATO running low on bombs in Libya

Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Walkingfeather]

Palin has played her political capital perfectly. She is going to let Trump pummel and then she will benefit. You have no idea how smart this woman is.

[bert]

I have long considered the residual that didn’t migrate westward from Massachusetts as Loyalists.

If extreme is good for conservatives, Loyalist is a good for leftists. They are more loyal to the euros than to America. They prefer the king to the people

[GOPJ]

Thanks for the ping.

[neverdem]

I have long considered the residual that didn’t migrate westward from Massachusetts as Loyalists.

I wonder what folks with relatives dating back to Lexington, Concord and Bunker(Breed's) Hill would think.