Saul Alinsky drops by for some "T.E.A."

I have been concerned about this happening for some time; The "Alinsky-ites" in Barack Obama and Tom Perriello's party have taken some of their heroes' "rules for radicals" and have turned them on to the T.E.A. Party movement again.

Having been incapable of conceiving that a group of citizens would, without financial considerations, gather for hours to show that they've had enough of the state-ist, big-brother government that had been growing like a tumor in Washington, DC (and, on a smaller scale, in Richmond, at the Lane Auditorium and at C'ville City Hall). They applied rule five in the Alinsky's chapter on tactics: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage." This manifested in those juvenile references to obscene sexual acts made by Keith Olbermann, Anderson Cooper, Bob Schultz and Rachel Maddow daily, designed to cause T.E.A. party membership to break apart in embarrassment.

Having seen this inevitably fail, they have now moved onto rule #4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." For this, we jump to my e-mail in-box this afternoon (2/03/10), when this TPMuckraker story was forwarded to me:

'We Might As Well Be Able To Vote For Disney': Tea Partier's Slam Citizens United Ruling


The e-mail goes on to quote several 'TEA Party members' in the following fashion: "Shane Brooks, a Texas-based Tea Party activist, told TPMmuckraker in an email:...", "In a recent blog post, Kevin Smith of the Nashville Tea Party wrote that...", "Jim Knapp, a Sacramento based Tea Party activist, went even further, telling TPMmuckraker via email:...". The only verifiable "TEA Party" person the e-mail story references is Dale Robertson of the website, 'teaparty.org'. I 'surfed' to that site and, it pains me to say this, if there was ever someone who appeared to be a 'plant' of the leftists in the TEA party movement, it'd be this guy and his website. I say that because he's been conveniently photographed with egregiously inflammatory signs that the Ariana Huffington's of the world conveniently got a hold of for their website campaigns to paint the TEA Party-goers as dangerous. His website also leaves me with a curious feeling of 'faux-TEA' (or fawl-TEA, maybe?). Exhibit one in my defense of this feeling is the big page celebrating Scott Brown's election and most of the dyed-in-the-wool TEA Party activists that I know are ambivalent at best over his election.
 
Using this model, I could be tell people that I'm a member of "Code Pink" and say how nice George W. Bush was when I met him. Is it indicative of anything real? No. However it does fit into a nice campaign, which is what I fear is being put together. A campaign to diminish the opponents that these leftists fear will stand in their way of election or re-election by fragmenting their support.
 
We need to be aware of the potential for this to continue (just look at how long the 'tea-ba**er' comments have continued) and diligent in vetting anyone who is promoted as "so-and-so from the Walla-Wall TEA Party" to tell us we are wrong in our Constitutional Conservatism.

Which, by the way, tells us that in reference to the Supreme Court's decision, you cannot ration our God-given rights because; A) A right is either always a right or never is and; B) Unless you are God, they aren't yours to ration!!