GOP leaders and Democrats unite against the Tea Party

The Tea Party genie is out of the bottle. This movement is causing all kinds of problems for the Establishment, especially because its original message is neither Republican nor Democrat but rather Constitutional, and the leadership of both parties have a severely guilty conscience when it comes to the Constitution, both having violated it egregiously. The Republican leadership can't decide which way to jump. They want to control it, so they can neutralise it. They don't want to let in any outsiders to their cozy club, not least outsiders that actually believe that stuff about low taxes, small government, states' rights, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In fact, these Benedict Arnolds would rather the Democrats win than that happen.

Meanwhile the demonisation from the left-wing media continues apace, on this side of the Atlantic as well as in America. Here we have the scumbag Guardian doing its job to keep everyone on the plantation and within the two-party-paradigm. This is how they describe Rand Paul, Senate candidate in Kentucky:

An ophthalmologist and founder of Kentucky Taxpayers United, Paul is running for a Senate seat in Kentucky. He has built his political career on a platform of abolishing most taxes and has called for a "modern-day revolution" against a dominant federal government.

Paul created a stir this year when he criticised part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which abolished segregation, and Jim Crow laws as unconstitutional because it bars business owners from excluding someone on the basis of race, religion or national origin. Paul says "community pressure" should govern such issues, not laws.

As Republican leaders recoiled at the damage done by his comments, Paul released a letter saying he "abhors racism" and that he would not back any efforts to repeal the civil rights act.

Paul wants to see the abolition of the Federal Reserve and its role in controlling money supply and interest rates. He opposes national government involvement in the provision of health care. And he favours changing the constitution to ensure that the children of illegal immigrants do not become US citizens.

But Paul is not afraid of contrarian positions. He opposes the US Patriot Act, cornerstone of neo-conservative legislation passed by the Bush administration after 9/11 which permits widespread intrusions on personal liberty including warrantless searches and surveillance. He says he would have voted against the invasion of Iraq. He also favours the legalisation of marijuana for medical use and believes US states should decide the issue of same-sex marriage, although he is opposed.

He opposes abortion in all cases but is in favour of access to the morning-after pill.

Again we see the use of the phoney Civil Rights Act 'controversy', and again we see the Guardian doesn't know what the fuck its talking about, by calling his positions against the Patriot Act and in favour of marijuana legalisation 'contrarian'. These are standard libertarian views. It's just the Guardian can't grasp what a libertarian view is. He's against the Republican leadership, he's not a Democrat, so ... he must be a far-right extremist, but I'm confused because now he seems liberal ... That's right mother fuckers, it's real complicated isn't it. Why don't you go have a nice lie-down, your brain's obviously not used to thinking.

It is imperative that it is the ideas of the Tea Party be central. Leaders can be bought off, manufactured, built-up and knocked down, but if the ideas that brought so many people together can stay the focus, then there is hope, because those ideas are what made America great.

I do not know the guy in this clip, Mark Levin, and expect I will disagree with him on other issues, and he gets in some cheap shots, but what he's saying indicates that there is something stirring in America, at least I hope so.