... because they're
very serious. And although not one of their members has ever referred to the DemocratIC party by its correct name-- please don't sneer or make fun of the Pea Tardiers, because they are
very serious. Long after the government bailouts began, but only weeks after Obama was inaugurated, the Pea Tardiers assembled and decided they were OUTRAGED over spending, or taxes, or stimulus, or deficits, or the impending threat of white slavery
(thx to Jesse Russell, Madison WI for the photo)
or Obama's plans for a taxpayer holocaust
(thx to Tony Romao, Chicago for photo),
always keeping in mind that when Bush expanded medicare it's "compassion", but Obama's attempt to expand healthcare is "socialism"
Since we must take the Pea Tardists seriously, what with their ultra-selective outrage and sophisticated sense of
historical comparison, wouldn't it behoove us to see what some of them have planned for 2010?
Holy Dog Shit! One of the arms of the Pea Tardy Movement
plans to "STRIKE" on January 20th, 2010!!! That sounds like an awesome way to mobilize this crack outfit of grassroot revolutionaries. What are the details of this
"NATIONAL DAY OF STRIKE", I wonder?
My Fellow Patriots,
The National Day of Strike has received tremendous response in the first four days of our existence thanks to the hard work of all of you helping to spread the word. We already have nearly 3,000 people signed up on the facebook page and this Ning.com website with 2,000 more on twitter. We have received commitments of support from the national movement as well. January 20, 2010 will be the day the TEA Party movement moves into the next phase, TEA 2.0, of taking our country back and you are a vital part of that.
TEA 2.0!! Think of the possibilities. I just peed my pants I'm so excited.
Webster's Dictionary defines a strike as a: to aim and usually deliver a blow, stroke, or thrust (as with the hand, a weapon, or a tool) b : to arrive with detrimental effect c : to attempt to undermine or harm something as if by a blow:It is this definition that we are using not that of the labor unions where workers with no vested interest in the wellbeing of the company seek to harm someone else in order to get their demands met.
OK! I got it. Let's "blow, stroke, or thrust" our opponents into submission. Who are our opponents, anyway?
We The People should do nothing to harm or try to over throw the very government we established. We must however stop those who would seek to "fundamentally transform this nation" as some on the lunatic left have boasted and are now delivering. So how do you stop someone who has large donors, labor union thugs, Hollywood elites and major media propagating our destruction?
I don't know how you stop them. It seems hopeless. What do you propose?
You take their advantages away from them.
F-cking A! Why didn't I think of that? Take their advantages away. But how? Do you hook em up to an "advantage removal machine"*, or what?
On January 20, 2010 we will demonstrate our power and reach to those companies who employ individuals backing the leftist agenda in every major city, every congressional district and every small rural town in America to spread one unified message. That message is simple: Stop funding socialism. When they refuse to stop backing the major opponents of Liberty, liberal media outlets and socialist leaning elected officials, then we proceed to financially cripple them.
Financially cripple the companies who employ individuals who donate to Democrats-- effing brilliant!
This strategy is about sending a clear message to the people that fund our opposition. We will identify those who operate with blatant disregard for the Constitution and attack your personal liberties, challenge them and give them a warning, to either renounce this behavior or we will be back on February 27, 2009 and we will march again against you. The February march will come with a national boycott of all of the companies that do not stop donating to people like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Dodd et al. Politicians, especially democrats, are scurrying around trying to find money for the election next year, if we are shaming their donors out of backing their measures they can't win reelection.
Will we win? Yes – only with the support of every one of you as ambassadors to the greatest confrontation in the modern history of America.
There you have it. The Pea Tardiers are going to put the companies that employ unpatriotic, advantaged, leftist Democrat-donors on notice. And if they don't renounce their support to Democrats, the Tardiers will return in February of 2009 (presumably in a convoy of suped up DeLoreans) and boycott them all into submission.
I can't wait to see the list of targeted companies the Pea Tardiers put together, and am eager to see which liberty-seizing Democrats make the cut and which don't. Will a Republican be thrown into the mix for "balance"? If I were Rep. Anh Cao, I'd be getting pretty nervous.
The "greatest confrontation in the modern history of America" is less than a month away. Civil Rights marches were just a prelude to the National Day of Strike. Are you ready?
Already, 2010 feels like it will be a memorable year.
---
* "advantage removal machine" is also a decent
song by The Cult
Labels: Pea Tardy movement
16 Comments:
Your humble conservative friend from the Northshore has been intrigued by a recent news narrative having nothing to do with Tea Parties. What's stuck in my craw pertains to the Xmas day pantie bomber.
Shortly after Napolitano said the system worked like a charm, members of the administration and media began demanding we do a better job "connecting the dots" to anticipate and prevent future attacks. What does it mean to connect dots, and are liberals able to do it? These are my questions for you and your readers, Benevolent Bivalve.
"Connecting the dots" refers to the game of drawing a picture by tracing lines from one known point to another. Most games only provide ten or twenty reference points. Making the proper choices about which lines to draw requires making certain assumptions about how the final product might look based upon the initial layout of the dots. Do the dots set out a pattern resembling an elephant or a mouse? If it's more like an elephant, which assumptions do I need to make about where the lines go to reach that end result?
I don't believe liberals really have the stomach to connect the dots. Why? Because successfully connecting the dots necessarily means making certain assumptions about how people will behave in the future based upon a few factual reference points regarding past conduct of similarly situated individuals. For example, we know that many (if not all) of the past efforts to blow up airplanes have been carried out by young, Muslim men with darker skin. Does this mean only young Muslim men with dark skin can blow up planes? No. Not at all. Does this mean all Muslim men with dark skin intend to blow up planes? No. Not at all. If we could reach those conclusions with any degree of certainty, there wouldn't be any dots for us to connect. Instead, we're given a partially completed picture containing a few reliable reference points.
Our assumptions will occasionally be wrong. When that happens, we can then erase the lines we have incorrectly drawn and start again, taking another look at how the pieces should fit together.
This exercise involves profiling. It involves stereotyping. That's why I believe liberals will never be able to do what it takes to connect the dots when it comes to national security. Instead, they will demand we continue airport strip searches of 90 year-old widows from Omaha, as we look the other way when a young, male Nigerian Muslim named Muhammed (who was on a watch list and whose father warned us about his radical behavior) prances without scrutiny onto a trans-atlantic flight wearing plastique in his jock. Does this mean that, one day, a 90 year old widow from Omaha won't stuff TNT in her Depends and blow up a 747? No. If/when that happens, God forbid, we can place that dot on our unfinished picture of human atrocities and start over. Making judgments about people based upon their appearance, religion, nationality, and age is anathema to liberals. The ACLU so deeply fears incorrectly connecting the dots about any one person that they would rather connect the dots about no one, whatever the costs.
One other point, by treating terrorism as a law enforcement problem (e.g. trying KSM in NYC, closing Gitmo) rather than a national security-military problem, Obama's making it that much harder to "connect the dots." With the exception of conspiracies, which are EXTREMELY difficult to prove in court, crimes are not committed until the dots have already been connected. People afforded the rights of US citizens can't be prosecuted for thoughts or intending to do something. So once the crime occurs, there is nothing left for us to connect. The damage is already done.
While I know you would never disparage me, I suspect some in your audience will call me a racist wingnut tea bagger. Though patently untrue, no offense will be taken. It will simply prove the validity of my argument.
Your Humble Servant, Medium Jim
Your meditations are always welcome, Medium Jim. Hell, if you want to guest post at YRHT, the floor's yours.
I'm sure Walmart has nothing to worry about, as their parking lots are the only places big enough for these patriots in their Winnebagos to congregate. Universities tend to hire liberals. Will the Tea Baggers continue to boycott higher education?
thanks for ending my year with a smile.
your muse has been on fire lately.
happy teens decade to you and the poil goils cuz.
Can you shoot?
Baby baby baby baby baby I fell from the sky
Yesterday you blew my mind, oh yeah
Having trouble with my direction
Upside down psychotic reaction...
If they were really, really very very serious, they'd fly the Unknown Who Dat in to give the keynote address. Capitalize off his downright supernatural power to inspire. Or something. I'd like to see the lunatic left come up with an advantage removal machine that could combat THAT!
Is there such a disease as "Tea Party Derangement Syndrome"? I believe you have the symptoms, bivalve.
Did you miss all the unhappiness with the Repubs expressed by conservatives during the Bush years, especially from 2004-08? The national angst exemplified by the tea party crowd is cumulative. It began sotto voce during the Bush years and found its voice with the palpable lurch to the extreme left by the president and his compliant minions in Congress.
Let's call it like it is. Making judgments about people based on their skin color or religion or nationality is anathema to liberals, yes, but it's also still the wrong thing to do, period. How is the U.S. standing up for liberty and being the society so well worth fighting for because of what it stands for when the U.S. is steadily dismantling protections of peoples' liberties? And not only that, but, really, what's the difference between saying now that it should be OK to make judgments about Middle Easterners based on their skin color and advocating going back to segragation of the races, Jim Crow, etc. as well as discrimination against Italians and Irish and other immigrant groups as well as the pogroms against Jews?
Anonymous, Big Molluski, this is totally off-topic, perchance not, but you have keyed the inside of my skull with that word: "anathema".
Slooowly I toin...
Neil Stevenson has a new book out titled "Anathem", and I got it for Christmas! It's great, in that Stevenson-Huge-Book sorta way...
Anathem: (1) In Proto-Orth, a poetic or musical invocation of Our Mother Hylaea, which since the time of Adrakhones has been the climax of the daily liturgy (hence the Fluccish word Anthem meaning a song of great emotional resonance, esp, one that inspires listeners to sing along). Note: this sense is archaic, and used only in a ritual context where it is unlikely to be confused with the much more commonly used sense 2. (2) In New Orth, an aut by which an incorrigible fraa or suur is ejected from the math and his or her work sequestered (hence the Fluccish word Anathema meaning intolerable statements or ideas).
See Throwback.
~~The Dictionary, 4th edition, A. R. 3000
That's close, right? Riiight...anyway, I highly recommend this book, or any of Stevenson's during Days Like These.
Nobody told me there'd be days like these.
Strange days indeed...most peculiar, Momma!
I respect your point of view, Anonymous. Many of Oyster's readers are probably like minded. And it proves the point of my post. You guys are so afraid of being branded as racists (even when dealing with non-citizens afforded no Constitutional rights, until Holder graciously bestowed them by trying KSM in NYC), that you're either unwilling or unable to connect the dots when it comes to national security. Your guilt/fear over Jim Crow, etc. renders you incapable of making tough decisions regarding our security. That's fine. My only request is for Obama and the rest of his crew to stop singing the "connect the dots" tune, when we all know it's a poll-driven PR ruse. He's more afraid of the greivance merchants like Sharpton/Jackson/ACLU than he is Al Qaeda. Got it. Let's just shoot straight with each other. Tell us up front you have no intention of connecting the dots (which I think your post essentially did). That way, I can make my own value judgments about where and how I travel, etc.
Medium Jim
I'll resond to Medium Yim Yim in a post when I get a chance.
I look forward to hearing what you have to say, Most Munificent Mollusk. M Y Y
Good discussion.
BTW-oyster...Have you taken the time to correct yourself when using the term Democrat to describe the Democratic Party?
Just curious...
Go: Point out the time where I used the term "Democrat Party", and I'll correct it.
nice post. thanks.
Saying "Democrat" is not the same as saying "Democrat Party." The former is an acceptable term. The latter has become a sly (?) term of disrespect among Republicans that is doubly childish because not only is it wrong, but it's supposed to make Democrats seem petty for pointing out.
Since we must take the Pea Tardists seriously, what with their ultra-selective outrage and sophisticated sense of historical comparison, wouldn't it behoove us to see what some of them have planned for 2010?
