Image 01 Image 03

“Progressive Tea Party” Dream Already In Tatters

“Progressive Tea Party” Dream Already In Tatters

Cognitive dissonance

I’m not sure whether to be pleased or amused that we were so successful that the progressive left is now trying to recreate and manufacture a progressive version of our truly grassroots Tea Party movement.

One aspect of their inchoate “resist we much” campaign to recreate our powerful movement is the left’s new-found respect for all things related to the Constitution and their adoption of things like our use of “we the people.”  I find this amusing.  Less amusing is their own unique twist, one that includes being purposefully offensive and violent.

For example, watching the coverage of the inauguration yesterday, my jaw dropped when I saw the report about a limousine that was set on fire in DC . . . with the words “we the people” written on it.  Talk about cognitive dissonance.

The problem for them is not only that they seem incapable of gathering in groups of more than three without throwing a brick through a window or setting something on fire; it’s that they have no rhyme or reason for being.  The Tea Party, by contrast, had a very clear message and a very clear raison d’être.

We were horrified by the fiscal irresponsibility and vast expansion of government under President Bush (43), and when we saw what Obama had in mind, we just couldn’t take it.  We wanted fewer and lower taxes (“Taxed Enough Already”), and we fought against ObamaCare.  There were other issues that drew people in, many of which are off-shoots of these two: limited government, greater individual liberty, a freer free market, protection of our Second Amendment rights, etc.

What we did not do was conduct “women’s marches” or other random-sounding protests based in identity politics.  We knew exactly what we were protesting and why.  This isn’t to explain the left’s irredeemable behavior; after all, we never threw bricks, set things on fire, or in any other way required the police to break out the tear gas, smoke bombs, and full SWAT riot gear to keep us in line.  What it does show is that we can expect a lot more cognitive dissonance from this lawless, rudderless, and embarrassing rabble.

A second glaring example is the wearing of the American flag as a hijab by many in the “Women’s March.”  And no, it’s not because they ran out of pussy hats.

The artist who came up with the Obama “Hope” poster has come up with a “We the People” poster depicting a woman wearing the American flag as a hijab.  He urges the protesters to carry a sign with his image on it during the march.

The Boston Globe reports:

Fairey, a Los Angeles-based artist, won worldwide fame for creating a red, white, and blue portrait of former President Barack Obama, with the single word “hope” written beneath it, during the 2008 election.

Using a similiar [sic] ink block print style, Fairey’s three new portraits have different slogans, each beginning with the phrase “We the people,” calling for Americans to reject fear, protect each other, and to “defend dignity.”

Some of the (men and) women are going one step further than carrying a sign and are actually donning the American flag as a hijab for the march.

Clearly, there is nothing wrong with wearing a hijab by choice in America, including by non-Muslim women seeking to score some incomprehensible point. The part that I found jarring was fashioning a hijab out of the American flag.  Our flag—a symbol of light, of freedom, individual liberty, and unalienable rights—being used as one of the Muslim world’s darkest, most poignant symbols of oppression is unconscionable to me.

It’s particularly so given that western feminists have abandoned any attempt to help women living under crushing oppression and subjugation. Indeed, rather than object to laws requiring the wearing of the hijab and the repercussions for not doing so, today’s feminists contort themselves trying to explain how it’s really a symbol of freedom.  Maybe it is in America, where one has a choice, but it certainly is not in Islamist nations.

For example, one woman in Saudi Arabia posted a photo of herself without a head covering and was arrested soon after for this crime.

In Iran, several models were arrested and forced to make public statements after posting photos of themselves without a head covering.  In another Iran incident, a group of Iranian woman urged Western tourists to defy the compulsory head coverings, stating, “When compulsory hijab affects all women, then all women should raise their voice.”

The compulsory hijab is neither a joke nor a symbol of freedom to those women living under Islamist tyranny who do not want to wear a head covering at any time they—or their photographed images—leave the privacy of their homes.

For a group of people losing sleep about the “cultural appropriation” of Americans eating tacos or wearing “offensive” Halloween costumes, these progressive feminists are arrogantly, almost comically devoid of self-awareness as they don the American flag as a hijab to strut down Pennsylvania Ave.

It should be noted that wearing the American flag as a hijab is not the brainchild of Shepard Fairey.  The first time I saw it was on Fox News . . . worn by a Republican Muslim woman who was trying (and failed) to make the case that this desecration of our flag was reasonable and meaningful; she claims it is “patriotic.”


As outrageous as all of this is, I take heart in seeing that the radical left intends to stay the course.  Americans just rejected them.  Again.  Yet they’ll keep being violent, disruptive, deeply offensive, and cartoonishly tin-eared.

Keep it up, Progressives!  Resist you much!  Don’t just replicate the failures of Occupy and Black Lives Matter; double-down on them.  Break windows, set cars on fire, wipe your bum with the American flag, wear it as a hijab, poop on police cars . . . you reveal yourselves while simultaneously elevating (and yes, normalizing) every single Trump voter and alienating anyone who might be on the fence about supporting a Democrat for office in the near future.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Is this the 2017 version of Play60 for the kiddies?

A Progressive Coffee Break characterized by bigotry, violence, and hate.

Hate Loves Abortion

nordic_prince | January 21, 2017 at 8:35 pm

Why don’t they use the Saudi flag for their head covering?


The Tea Party was a brilliant idea. Unfortunately, it was hijacked by the Establishment, just as the Conservative Movement was and became irrelevant.

While the Tea party was a ;positive force, initially, making the case for fiscal responsibility, such responsibility never came to pass. The US Congress, under both Democrat and Republican leadership approved the same nearly 1 trillion dollar stimulus plan for 8 straight years. Did anyone ever wonder why no federal budget was ever presented and why the Republican House never demanded one?

What the liberal/Progressives are doing now has nothing to do with saving this country and everything to do with destroying it. Make no mistake. This is not a grassroots movement, it is orchestrated from the top. It uses the terrified, delusional population as cannon fodder.

    Tom Servo in reply to Mac45. | January 22, 2017 at 12:10 am

    I disagree with you slightly as to the effectiveness of the Tea Party; I would make the case that they were as effective, and maybe moreso, than any other 3rd party movement in American History. The function of 3rd party’s in American politics is NOT to cohere into some new party that displace one of the existing 2; no, we are stuck in a binary system because of the way our winner take all elections are set up. Most 3rd party’s simple do nothing and fade out of existence (anyone remember John Anderson?) but a few make an impact and have their positions adopted by one of the majors, and a VERY few shift the entire political conversation of the country.

    I would argue that the Tea Party shifted the entire trajectory of this country dramatically, and that Trump is one of the prime results of that shift. So the Tea Party has faded away – of course it did, everyone should have known that was going to happen from the start. The real question was always how much of a change could they make before they were gone? And I think the answer is, a hell of a lot.

      CloseTheFed in reply to Tom Servo. | January 22, 2017 at 8:32 am

      In reply to Tom Servo’s post:

      I would agree and go further. I’ve been active in politics on and off for almost 30 years. What tends to happen is a particular grievance will cause a group of us to form and work on that, and then we fade away. A few years later, a new grievance will arise and we re-form under a new name, work on it, and fade away, and so on and so forth. I’ve been a member of many groups, one after another.

      And it is accurate that the major parties pick up the ideas of the minor parties. The Georgia GOP has picked up many of the idea of the Georgia Libertarian Party and I’ve seen this first hand over all these years. You don’t have to win, you just have to get the ideas an airing. This is why we pushed and pushed and pushed Georgia Public Television to put our candidates in the debates. They finally did, and it helps.

      The “Tea Party” was nothing more than the first public manifestation of the current anti-Establishment movement which put Trump into office. It was never a 3rd party, being largely composed of disgruntled conservative Republicans. The main thrust of the movement was for fiscal responsibility. A unifying organization was set up, ostensibly to direct the actions of the myriad independent entities comprising the movement. But, it was quickly co-opted by Establishment personages. The movement was singularly ineffective in promoting ANY fiscal responsibility at all. If it had been, then it is likely that we would not have a President Trump.

      Milhouse in reply to Tom Servo. | January 22, 2017 at 4:23 pm

      Category error: Despite the word “party” in its name, the TEA Party movement was never a “3rd party”, so the history of such parties is irrelevant. It was a grassroots political movement, like the civil rights movement, the “green” movement, etc., and was never intended to attempt to win elections on its own. The “party” in the name was merely a reference to the events of ’73.

    Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | January 22, 2017 at 8:56 am

    Well, the sun rose this morning in the East, and you’re posting utter bullshit.

    All as normal.

    Barracula presented budgets…I believe in every year late…during his reign.

    The conservative movement was no co-opted, and is about to show you how “irrelevant” it is as a foil to the Collectivism of Der Donald, who, I’ll remind you, was no friend to the TEA party in its day.

      Tom Servo in reply to Ragspierre. | January 22, 2017 at 10:15 am

      I’m coming to realize that the word “Conservative” must be much the same as the “People’s Front of Judea”.

      My bad, I should have said that no federal budget was ever passed. What is telling is the the Congress, which was controlled by the Republicans since 2011, never passed a budget. It would seem improbable that a Democrat controlled Congress could not pass the budget provided by a Democrat President. And, It is equally improbable that a Republican controlled Congress could not agree on a modified budget which the President would have to veto, if he did not like it. This never happened, however. The Congress simply passed continuing resolutions which all contained the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The nearly #1 trillion [$852 billion – #552 billion in spending + #288 billion in tax relief] in stimulus, incorporated into the act, were supposed to be a one time deal, as most of them were unfunded. But, they were refunded every single year since 2009. It was Congressional Republican who kept pouring this slop into the trough every single year.

      The Conservative movement of the Republican Party was made irrelevant, as an organization, years ago. First, the “leadership” was composed of certain established politicians who promised the membership to abide by their desires, then the GOP begged for their support to thwart the take over of the US government by the heinous Democrats who would squander their treasure. When the support was given, the GOP politicians either rolled over for the Dems or actively joined them in squandering the people’s treasure. It got so bad that the man most despised by the conservatives, John McCain became the GOP nominee in 2008. The conservative wing of the GOP proved to be totally powerless for decades. Until an outsider emerged as their champion. Now, people, such as yourself, are claiming that the “Conservative Movement” will work against the man who seems to embody the very ideals that they hold dear. Interesting.

        Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | January 22, 2017 at 12:17 pm

        Again, you’re full of shit.

        T-rump NEVER “embodies” conservative anything. He is ANTI-conservative, anti-liberty, anti-Federalism, and anti-market.

        Interesting that you lie like a Collectivist.

          Let’ see. The Tea Party is supposed to be composed of conservatives. It wanted fiscal responsibility. Trump is touting fiscal responsibility. It kinda sound like Trump is on the same page with conservatives on this issue.

          Look, Conservatives do not like Trump because he is not a part of the Establishment Conservative organization. It has nothing to do with philosophical orientation and everything to do with POWER. The Conservative organization thought that it would achieve power through a Ted Cruz Presidency. That didn’t happen and now they find themselves on the outside looking in; again. Sorry that things did not work out for you.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 23, 2017 at 7:52 am

          You are an idiot liar. T-rump is about a new NEW DEAL, you moron.

          Tax and spend has become the new cool. THIS is why…one if the MANY whys…conservatives loath Mr. Establishment.

          He’s also EXPRESSLY stated that entitlements will be fully funded. THAT cannot happen. Not for much longer. So THAT’S another instance where he’s just lying to the American people, selling his snake oil.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Mac45. | January 22, 2017 at 2:19 pm

        Trump a conservative, let alone a conservative leader, is bullshit. He’s *currently* a centrist populist.

      True. His budgets were so preposterous that the Republicans refused to support them, and Reid and Pelosi would not consider rational budgets (even pseudo-rational ones proposed by progressives in the GOP!). Republicans knew that they didn’t have the numbers to override an Obama veto even if they could force changes (which they also didn’t have the numbers for at first). So no budget. For years.

        But, the Republican could have refused to pass a continuing resolution for the six years that they held power. They did not. Instead, they passed continuing resolutions which refunded the spending provisions of the ARRA. Why?

        The point is that the Republicans were in no hurry to give up a slush fund of over a half a billion dollars a year in unsecured spending. The President’s 2012 budget was voted down 99-0, in the Senate. Not a single Democrat supported the budget of a Democratic President. Why was that, do you suppose? The doubling of the US deficit can not be laid entirely at the feet of Barack Obama or the Democrats. The Republicans own it right along with Dems. They are all part of the Uniparty and march to the same drummer.

          Why? Because the few times they threatened to and the one time they did shut down government, they were castigated and shamed. Obama shut down national monuments, had veterans removed from memorials, shut down vital programs (including military pay) that hurt Americans. He won.

          As to the broad brush you use here about what the GOP House could do with a Dem Senate and a Dem president, this is something on which we have disagreed in the past and will continue to disagree on. 🙂 My comments are all here to be reviewed if you are interested in what I think about this. No need to rehash old arguments/points.

          Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | January 22, 2017 at 4:28 pm

          They passed the continuing resolutions because they had no other choice. If they’d refused to pass them 0bama would have shut down the government, people would suffer, and they’d get the blame. No amount of public explanation would change that. No, it makes no sense that government shutdowns are always the GOP’s fault no matter who’s in the White House and who’s in Congress, but it’s nevertheless a fact. and therefore the GOP cannot afford shutdowns, while the Dems can.

          Mac45 in reply to Mac45. | January 22, 2017 at 4:42 pm

          There are all kinds of ways to justify the actions of the Republicans in Congress. However, justifying it on the basis of cowardice does not seem to be a very good idea. “Wah, we couldn’t stand on principle and fight for your rights, because we would be blamed for the negative results that the Democrats caused. So, we’ll just go along with the Dems and you all can pay for it for the next 20 years.” Thanks a lot. And, the Republicans wonder why the people don’t trust them.

          Mac45 in reply to Mac45. | January 22, 2017 at 4:53 pm

          Correction: That should be: “The point is that the Republicans were in no hurry to give up a slush fund of over a half a TRILLION dollars a year in unsecured spending.”

          Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | January 22, 2017 at 5:34 pm

          You have a strange definition of “cowardice”. The Republicans simply had no way of refusing a continuing resolution without causing a government shutdown for which they’d get the blame. That was not an acceptable price to pay. They saw in ’95 how it plays out (and in ’87 how when there’s a GOP president and a D congress it plays out exactly the opposite), and they just couldn’t afford it. There just isn’t a way to win a fight like that. You can make a stand for a short time, but then you have to back down, having achieved less than nothing. So what’s the point? Just to make you happy?

Henry Hawkins | January 21, 2017 at 8:57 pm

Please note that the burning limo tagged ‘we the people’ is also tagged with the Anonymous symbol. This is not grassroot anything, it’s just another anarchist group doing what they do, as ineffectually as ever. Ask a marketing pro what it means when customers fail to recognize your logo.

    Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 22, 2017 at 9:06 am

    It is a cardinal error to confuse the work of black anarchrists…who will subvert even the most peaceful leftist protest…with the rest of left-of-center people.

    This is how we Balkanize the US, as I know you know Hawkins, but others here seem to relish.

      Some of the people involved in these protests are well-meaning, if delusional people. After all, they are protesting something(s) which have not even happened, nor which anyone is attempting to cause to happen. They are simply moonbats. But, being a fool does not excuse one’s actions.

      However, there are a number of groups who are acting to simply harm this country through disruption and fear. And, there is significant evidence that they are organized, controlled and directed by a central authority.

      It’s funny you should point this out, Rags, as I considered addressing this and contrasting it with how the Tea Party handled the “crashers” who hoped to co-opt our rallies (the post just got too long and too focused on our fabulousness). Anyway, throughout the height of the Tea Party, our rallies and gatherings were constantly crashed by people holding up crazy signs or spewing hate or otherwise not representing our movement. We shut them out, shouted them down (Andrew Breitbart was GREAT at this), and in some cases had them psychically removed.

      Yes, leftist radicals do latch onto any movement and make it about something else (the prof covers this with the BDS movement nudging into everything they think they can). A lot of genuine Occupiers bemoaned this at the time and shuffled back to their parents’ basements in despair. But letting themselves be co-opted is the problem; they can break away if they want, and we know this because we didn’t allow it. Heck, leftists had websites telling others how to “infiltrate” our gatherings and cause mayhem; they were working at it. Hard.

      And the left has the media on their side! If they wanted to call out the violent and offensive elements, they would have a national stage on which to do it. They choose to go along or be silent and let it rage while they distance themselves or join in (there is a certain mob mentality at work, too).

      Anyway, yes, there are normal people who are center-left; they tend not to go to these rallies or take part in these demonstrations because these marches and rallies have no point at all. Nothing to prompt a normal person to action.

        Ragspierre in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | January 22, 2017 at 12:22 pm

        Just to be clear, Fuzzy, there were never black anarchist who showed up to TEA party events that I know about.

        If they had, there would have been violence because that is what they do, and lots of us who were at those rallies are vets who would not have allowed that unopposed.

        A lot of center-left people don’t know how to deal with that, except watch in consternation.

          They didn’t show up why, though, Rags? If they can just muscle in and take over peaceful protests by normal center-left people, surely they could manage it with we normal center- and conservative right? I just think that this is not as black and white as you have stated it. Yes, anarchists show up, but no, they are not solely responsible for the violence, and etc.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 22, 2017 at 12:35 pm

          Can you cite to any time when black anarchists came to a TEA party event and did what they do?

          I know of no such instance, and I can assure you if they had at any of the events I attended in the greater Houston area, they would have been put down and out post haste.

          It is pretty black and white.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | January 22, 2017 at 2:22 pm

        Fuzzy: “We shut them out, shouted them down (Andrew Breitbart was GREAT at this), and in some cases had them **psychically** removed.”


Tea Partiers left the streets and grass malls cleaner than they started. What do these leftist loons leave in their putrid wakes?

One problem for the Democrats is that they only have one playbook, Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Sure it has worked for decades, simply by yelling “racist” and “fascist”, they could effectively intimidate their opposition. But now that play has been so overused that a preference cascade has been reached. Its effectiveness has run out. They are like the football coach who keeps calling the same play over and over.

Until the Democrats recognize that they need a new playbook, they are going to keep on losing.

I read a theory that the original reason for the marches was to celebrate Hillary’s election. That did not happen, but the reservations had already been made. Hence, the dissonance.

As for the artist, he’s a commie using an old propaganda style. He’s not terribly creative, but he’s getting paid.

    Tom Servo in reply to Valerie. | January 22, 2017 at 12:12 am

    What the marches are really about are the residents of both coasts protesting the fact that the middle of the country refused to listen up and wouldn’t do what they were told to do.

I looked at SNL opening and opening Monologue tonight.
The nutcases are in full freefall.

I eagerly await the EO assigning a drone for Soros, but I will accept extradiction to Russia.

    CloseTheFed in reply to RodFC. | January 22, 2017 at 8:36 am

    In reply to RodFC:

    Yes, that Soros is a piece of work. It angers me that a foreigner who worked for the Nazis, literally, could get American citizenship, then proceed to use that citizenship to destroy America.

    We need tougher citizenship laws.

4th armored div | January 22, 2017 at 1:12 pm

The ‘Taqqiyaization’ of the dumb left proceeds apace.

Lenin used to say that the West will sell us the rope to hang them with.

The Muslims are doing this, using no-brain Lib-Rules.

Way too late arriving to have anyone read this comment, but: I knew Muslim women in Cairo who were horrified by the return of the hijab, which their mothers had fought against. The use of the hijab as a symbol at an event supposedly in favor of women’s rights is twisted and confused.

    You’re not too late, Kate! 🙂 This post hasn’t even been up for 24 hours yet, but I know what you mean. We seem to flash through news and ideas so quickly these days. It’s kind of depressing.

    Egypt is a particularly sad situation. I read a post a couple of years ago, and I was actually shocked by how much had changed and how quickly. Here it is in case you are interested:

      tarheelkate in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | January 22, 2017 at 4:49 pm

      Fuzzy, it changed while I was there. Many, many more hijabs in just two years, 2007-2009, and we began to see niqabs (face veils) in Cairo. They were already common in Alexandria. My Muslim women friends said they crossed the street to avoid walking near women with hidden faces, saying there was no way to know who it was, or even if it was a woman. When we say that kind of thing here we get called Islamophobes.