The Tea Party’s dysfunctional family tree

Now, before anybody comes back trying to link Obama to Karl Marx or George H.W. Bush to the Bildeburgers, all these connections are documented and spoken of quite openly by the people in question. Just Google them and you will see.


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  1. #1 by logiopsychopath on December 28, 2010 - 9:52 pm

    1) Randall Terry is too radical to be connected to any movement that actually wants to control government.

    2) Francis Schaeffer had a connection to Falwell, without a doubt, but so did Norman Geisler. Although Schaeffer and Geisler were/are conservative evangelicals, I would hardly call either fundamentalists–and although Franky Schaeffer defended Dubble-U, Schaeffer Sr., from what I have read, seems to have moved to Switzerland and avoided American politics. In fact, he seemed to be more of an Apostle to Hippies than straight-laced conservatives.

    3) Dobson is a knee-jerk Republican in the strictest sense of the word, but is a Dyed-in-the-Wool State-ist, as was Falwell. They want big government (in spite of the jibber-jabber to the contrary by Dobson) they would just be upset by WHO is in control, not government in general. Remember, both have been known to be expansionist imperialists–and if you ever want to hear a militaristic tome, find an audio version of Dobson’s interview with Nuke Pilot Paul Tibbetts.

    4) I don’t know about Pat Robertson, but he seems to be a Post-Millennial state-ist (as is D. James Kennedy). Robertson also sounds like a Libertarian, who wants to go on a date with Mary Jane, if you get my drift.

    Also, you are quite accurate in saying OC is a Conservative Christian hot bed, but again, the definitions are somewhat fuzzy. On the one hand, we had the Goldwater true-believers, who are really of a different ilk that the Conservative, politically and religiously, Christians of today. These two lines were alive and well when we lived there, and I do keep in touch about Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, but the only reading of the OC Register is to keep up on high school football scores, on occasion.

    On the third hand, Sarah Palin has joined on to the tea party to line her own pockets, plain and simple. She couldn’t stand in the same room as Goldwater, so to speak, but she has exemplified politics of the 2000s–lose a race and parlay her 15 minutes of fame in to millions of dollars of personal gain–which is really what Glenn Beck is after.

    • #2 by Christian Beyer on December 28, 2010 - 11:11 pm

      OK, but Shaeffer initially was known as a Swiss commune founding fee spirit, peace, love hippy type Jesus freak who was accepting of gays, ended up being the godfather of Christian dominionism (with Rushdoony being the father). Rushdoony was a California guy who (along with Shaeffer) influenced Terry and Dobson and Robertson et al. Frank Jr has come out hard against his dad, and against fundamentalism, of which he claims his father was true acolyte of.

      I don’t include Goldwater in any of this but the Birchers have ties to Rushdoony as well, but not on a religious level, only as to how they held the common belief that the current government was in the hands of Commie/satanists

      Palin is a tool, a useful idiot who has been able to break free of her masters to serve her own needs, Nevertheless she and Beck speak the same language as Welch, Rushdoony, Dobson etc. You are right – they want big Government but big Christian government. Same as Robertson and the late JD Kennedy.

      There are many more strands to this web.

  2. #3 by logiopsychopath on December 28, 2010 - 9:58 pm

    I think the Goldwater folks, who were also Christians, were more concerned about economic freedom than about telling other people how to live. These, like my friend J. W. are probably saddened by the way Christians are truly UNINFORMED about politics, and how they blindly allow Dobson and Rush to do their thinking for them.

    Even the Birch society folks were way-smarter than the typical Palinite. They may have been knee-jerk reactionaries, but the only one I knew was well-informed, and may have been more fair-minded that these people around today.

    • #4 by Christian Beyer on December 28, 2010 - 11:15 pm

      Yeah, my dad was a Bircher for a bit, until they became too wacko for him. Even WFB paid them lip service at first. But they are wackos. And they are firmly entrenched in the Tea Party today but known as something else – the Robert Welch Foundation or something like that.

      Remember that Falwell and the Moral Majority started out as a reaction to federally mandated desegregation – they were a essentially a Christian white supremacist movement in the South until that became politically untenable. Shaeffer turned them on to the anti-abortion cause and helped them to join ranks with the hated Catholics. He preached Christian insurrection, much like Rushdoony.

  3. #5 by logioetc. on December 29, 2010 - 2:33 am

    I have to admit most of my knowledge of Schaeffer comes from a children’s biography (which had some great info, BTW), and a few articles in CT–plus having read The God Who is There and Escape from Reason. I also read an early Franky Shaeffer book, from like 1982 (in which Jr. indicts the liberal media).

    Overall, when I first heard of Schaeffer, people who followed him seemed to oppose my comfort zone in OC Christianity. When I started reading his work, especially The God Who is There, I found an emotional affinity (although he is too presuppositional for my tastes). I related to him because he didn’t hide behind his collar, so to speak, and his wife didn’t protect his image (she discusses his hot and destructive temper). I looked at him as more of a modern moral philosopher, like Bonhoeffer, than as a preacher.

    I have not heard of Rushdoony, and have vague recollection of Christian Dominionism(like Pat Robertson, correct?) but from the name I would assume it is intertwined with Calvinism/Post-Millennialism of some sort.

    The connection with the Moral Majority and segregation also escaped me–although it fits many of the people who have come out of this movement–doubly although I never made the racist connections.

    Sarah may have been a tool, but she seemed to repress her obvious intelligence during the 2008 campaign. She must have been told to act stupid, for some reason, but love or hate her, she certainly has shown a far more savvy side (Sounds like a Sears commercial).

    Again, the only true-blue Bircher I met wass the husband of my former principal–he had all of the credentials, except that his wife earned most of the $$$, and he was a DJ turned food-service warehouse salesman for Canteen Corp, or some outfit like that (Hmm, sounds like
    O. C. B.).

    Anyway, you draw an interesting Conspiracy Theory diagram, for sure.

    On hand number 4, maybe we need a true Christian insurrection.

    On hand number 5, as I said, we need a true revolution in this country. We should split into 5 or 6 regional zones, loosely connected in a confederacy (sort of like the European Union). In other words, stay connected militarily, economically, and somewhat politically. But everything else, should be regionally decided. My co-worker says this would be too expensive, but I disagree. For example, each zone would be responsible for paying into the pool for defense, like with the Articles of Confederation. However, regional councils would make most of the decisions, making the uber-expensive federal government mostly obsolete–and the imperial presidency would become a thing of the past, replaced by a parliamentary style figure head Prime Minister (or Presidium, led by Dr. Alper’s triumverate idea).

    I guess this could best be described as a libertarian confederacy.

    As for Sarah Palin’s role in this new order? She would be assigned the job of making sure the Russians didn’t take back Alaska–monitoring the Evil Empire from her porch in Wasilla.

    • #6 by Christian Beyer on December 29, 2010 - 11:19 am

      Well your suggestion has been made before, sort of, though those that I’ve heard also include Canada and (sometimes) Mexico. Sounds nice but I don’t think you’ll likely see this outside of the Sci-fi section at Borders.

      A Christian insurrection huh? I don’t know if ‘insurrection’ is compatible with ‘resurrection’, but then not much of Christianity has had anything to do with Christ. At least not Jesus’ teachings.

  4. #7 by logioetc. on December 29, 2010 - 2:48 am

    I add ideas as the come, for some reason I think as I go.

    I think at first, the people who were in many of the Town Hall meetings to oppose the Health Care Fiasco Act WERE the Goldwater types. They simply wanted less Big Government. But as you have alluded to, the opportunists like Palin and Beck saw their opportunity and pounced.

    Overall, I believe people are SICK of what will become an overbearing Federal Government, and the approaching oppression that will accompany “Health Care” (we can’t have European or Candian style universal care because of the essentially selfish nature of the bureaucrats who run our government–THEIR bureaucrats are much nicer than OUR bureaucrats). Plus, we don’t have the deep British or Scandanavian paternalism and sense of community; sort of a perfect storm for bureaucratic abuse.

    Honestly, when gas hits $5.00, in about a year, people will rebel, mark my words. They will demand development of our dormant but rich mineral resources, held in check because of the Arab connections with the US oil business (I know this seems to be off topic, but hang on). Obama will respond by pointing out the Gulf disaster, and that Alaska’s environment is too fragile, etc.

    Unfortunately, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck will have answers, as misguided as they may be. We will see classic “Law of Non-Contradiction/Thesis-Antithesis situation” (to quote Francis Schaeffer). This will bring the oppossing forces to a tipping point, and I am afraid we might see disaster–and many of the “Security Measures” put in place under the pretext of the “War on Terrorism” might be turned on the American people.

    Then we could see chaos and bloodshed.

  5. #9 by logioetc. on December 29, 2010 - 10:41 am

    and i’m not kidding

    • #10 by Christian Beyer on December 29, 2010 - 11:22 am

      I know. You are very serious. Very definite. That’s the problem. And you are not alone. “We will return right after this important message from Goldline.”

  6. #11 by logioetc. on December 29, 2010 - 3:34 pm

    1) I don’t watch Fox News, unless you consider Fox 45 to be the same outfit.

    2) Yeah, maybe I’m embellishing the facts, but okay.

    3) Do you really think the People will tolerate much more of the B. S.?

  7. #12 by logioetc. on December 29, 2010 - 3:43 pm

    Honestly, I get a lot of this stuff from WBAL’s Ron Smith–who is very negative–but has many credible guests, such as Dr. Peter Morici from UMD.

    We may see hyper deflation (which could happen if the government subsidies end, and demand drops off), followed by inflation–and with a fiat currency, the economy could very well collapse.

    What will happen then?

    As far as our energy policy, if we don’t drill for the oil in Alaska, the Chinese or Russians will (just like the Chinese will soon be drilling off of Florida
    (see,2933,193665,00.html for more details–yeah, its Fox, I know).

    In other words, our government not only is not doing anything to support the middle class, they stand idly by while the world picks at our resources.

    The rich will be okay, they have money and influence; the poor will thrive because of government subsidies given to buy votes, but the rest of us will see drastically changed circumstances.

    • #13 by Christian Beyer on December 29, 2010 - 4:19 pm

      Look, I think there is a problem when we pick from a large buffet of national and international problems and call it a either Liberal or a Conservative meal (or any other label). It’s not that black and white.

      Take the oil reserves in Alaska or off shore. I think we should be tapping into them but I also think we should be looking at alternatives to oil. The problem is that as long as we have easy access to the oil, the American consumer is not interested in costlier alternatives. Until it’s too late and energy prices blow through the roof and no alternatives have been developed (just like now). Oil prices will increase when demand goes up and demand will go up as the economy improves – no other way around it. But if you think developing the North Slope or the Catalina canyon has anything to do with helping the middle class, well, then you must still believe in the trickle down mythology.

      The problem with Republicans like Smith (but maybe not Smith himself – he can be an independent thinker) is that they really, really believe that the market should be left to itself, that being fully impartial it is the only truly fair system possible. But the fallacy is that it is never left alone, that cronyism and patriarchal dynasties have tipped the playing field in one direction for years and years so that government is then forced to get involved, efficiently or not. The system has always been weighted towards those that already have power and those that have power have used that system to hold to as much power as they can. It’s human nature. Which is OK unless you happen to belong to the other 6 billion people on the planet (or the 98% of Americans earning much, much less than $250K (adjusted) a year.

      Do you really think things would be better if the fetters were thrown off of business? That when deregulated that business would restrain itself and mike wise and long term decisions beneficial to society at large? Jeesh, just look at the record . DDT, Monsanto, Enron, Love Canal, Sinclair’s Jungle, Exxon Valdez and now the BP fiasco.

      No easy answers. Especially with all the hysterical clamoring. We need to be informed, wary but sensible.

      I’d think, listening to you, that your gripe should be more with the Republicans than with Obama and the Democrats. One problem is that I think you are ill informed on the health care wedge issue.

  8. #14 by logioetc. on December 29, 2010 - 5:15 pm

    ooh–I am not for unfettered business, but both Republicans and Democrats seemed bent on running our economy into the ground.

    I am not misinformed on the health care fiasco, because, unlike Nancy Pelosi, I READ THE BILL (or about half of the original House Bill).

    As far as the other 6 billion people, the answer is to undo the World Bank and IMF, and to take them out of the hands of the same people who control the TARP money (huh?)

    Also, maybe we can be weened off of oil, but for the time being, we need to stop the ruse of “Alternative Energy.” We have heard the same schtick since the first energy crisis in 1973, and what has it gotten us? Nothing but a bunch of unsightly (and expensive) wind turbines, and inefficient solar “cities.”

    The problem, overall, is that the oligarchs who control the world economy will not let the reins go. We were fortunate to be born here–but we will never see a diffusion and equalizing of money and power on a worldwide scale. It is sad, but true.

    • #15 by Christian Beyer on December 29, 2010 - 5:30 pm

      Alternative energy does not always equal wind turbines. The reason we get the same schtick is because the energy crises don’t last and we keep going back to old habits. Here are a couple of things to chew on:

      There was small local solar power company on the outskirts of Frederick that was recently bought up by…ta-da!…BP. With their money it is about three times it’s original size. Someone thinks solar is viable.

      Ever heard of the Chevy Volt? Wouldn’t have happened if gas hadn’t gotten so expensive (and Obama didn’t push them). Sure, it ain’t perfect. But neither was the first Honda hybrid. Now look at ’em. We should be taxing the hell out of the gas guzzling cars and SUVs and trucks, or goofballs will keep buying them. Two door’s over my neighbor just came home with a brand new and huge Chevy Tahoe. And she lives in a town house. She’s doing her best to keep the prices high at the pump for you and me.

      And lets not forget nuclear power. Time to reconsider, hard. Especially when you consider what a low carbon footprint it carries.

      As far as a worldwide diffusion of money – well, China and India have something to say about that. But we can do something about it as well, by not rewarding Wall St. with our dollars, tax or otherwise, and voting with our pocket books for those companies who are at least trying to be more responsible to people other than those who sit on their boards. Boycott Wal-Mart, if you can afford to do so.

    • #16 by Christian Beyer on December 29, 2010 - 5:32 pm

      So you don’t like the health care bill? Does that mean that you are happy with the health care system as it has stood for the past 30 years or so? And if not, what should we do? The same old schtick?

  9. #17 by logioetc. on December 29, 2010 - 6:06 pm

    Woah! Chris sounds like he has convictions.

    1) The Health Care bill does not provide health care to the teeming millions, any more than the $250.00 will help Social Security recipients. My solution is simple–provide subsidized catastrophic coverage for those without insurance (many of whom are already covered by other government health insurance programs).

    2) Nationalized care ain’t bad at its heart, but the new law ain’t about health care. It is about making sure the health insurance companies and Big-Pharma labs join the corporate welfare dole that Lockheed, Northrup-Grumman, Boeing, and General Dynamics have enjoyed since December 7, 1941.

    3) It is not the health care provisions, per se, I have a problem with, it is the HUGE new beauracracies (and technocracies) that will grow by leaps, bounds, and exponential growth, all on the backs of the middle class, and that places where health care are needed most, rural areas, will be under new and ridiculous regulations.

    4) I think that the Volt is Okay, but too much $$$. What needs to happen is for small companies, like Tesla motors, to be allowed to develop their products free of GM, Toyota, and Ford–but Toyota has already stepped in bed with Tesla, ensuring a stymied R and D on a reasonably priced electric car.

    5) I think we should go full-bore with nuke power, but the potential environmental impact is scary.

    Boy Chris, you have really stirred the drink today. Thanks, I think.

  10. #18 by logioetc. on December 29, 2010 - 6:09 pm

    Oh yeah–we recently bought a mini-van (used). But I don’t think we are making the price of gas go up . . .

    • #19 by Christian Beyer on December 29, 2010 - 6:43 pm

      Bottom’s up.

      And no, minivans are actually pretty efficient, when you factor in everything that they can do. Our old minivan got 18 mpg city and 26 highway. Chevy is advertising 11 city and 16 highway and that’s on Biofuel. Gotta sell a lot of Volts to make up for the big SUVs and trucks.

    • #20 by Christian Beyer on December 29, 2010 - 6:44 pm

      For the Chevy Tahoe, that is.

      BTW – you make some excellent points about government mandated health care. And I hope it doesn’t come to that, though government’s track record is not that good when it comes to efficiency.

      But the situation was awful and untenable and getting worse every year. At the rate it was going soon everyone would be going to the ER for routine problems or paying 50% of their income in premiums.

      Here’s a thought: in 1960 the American family paid over 20% for food and less than 5% on medical care. Now the numbers are roughly reversed. Hmm.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: