Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

Accustomed to languishing at the tail end of the party primary calendar — a dispiriting position for a state that has long been treated as an ATM for East Coast candidates seeking national office — Californians have awoken this year to the prospect of much greater influence on selecting Republican and Democratic presidential nominees.

“It’s totally conceivable that both the Democratic and Republican primaries could stretch on for months,” as the Los Angeles Daily News surmised. “Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are locked in a tight Democratic race that no one imagined a few months ago. And three or four strong GOP candidates in a still-crowded field could easily emerge from the battles of Iowa and New Hampshire as front-runner Donald Trump continues to amaze and confuse most political observers.”

Wild cards

But analysts, keenly aware that the fluid race could also result in a surprise consolidation of the fields, suggested “waiting at least a few weeks before getting too excited,” according to the Daily News.

“By then, we’ll know if Sanders is able to upset Clinton in Iowa and whether Ted Cruz managed to wrest any [more] victories away from Trump ahead of Super Tuesday on March 1, when voters in 11 (12 for Republicans) mostly Southern states will cast ballots.”

Even more importantly, for Republicans, the national GOP jiggered its rules for apportioning delegates in a way that could work to extend uncertainty well into the primary calendar. The Republican National Committee has required all states holding Republican primaries in the first half of March to “award delegates proportionally to candidates who clear a certain threshold,” as the Los Angeles Times reported, “between 5 percent and 20 percent of the vote.” That means that key votes, including all the Super Tuesday primaries, won’t offer campaigning Republicans the chance of scoring any winner-take-all prizes.

“Why is this change so important? Because nearly half the national delegates will be selected during this two-week window. Proportional representation suggests split outcomes in most, if not all, of these key Republican primaries.”

Opinion remains divided, however, on the question of which sort of Republican candidate is most likely to cash in on California’s primary. Some analysts portrayed Golden State Republicans as more likely to advantage candidates mustering a relatively more diverse coalition. “Early voting states like New Hampshire and Iowa get all the fanfare, but their populations are anything but representative of the nation’s diversity,” suggested San Jose State University professor emeritus in the Times. “Republican voters in California — a true cross section of the party’s electorate — will deliver a long overdue reality check of the GOP’s true values.”

But the conservative grassroots, more in tune with the insurgent candidates leading in the early states, has envisioned a different scenario. John Berry, media coordinator for the Redlands Tea Party Patriots, told the Press-Enterprise that party activists could play kingmaker. “We’d get to flex our Tea Party muscle,” he said, putting Donald Trump or Ted Cruz ahead over a “token establishment guy.”

As for California Democrats, a quirk of their state party’s primary rules has upped the stakes for Hillary Clinton’s and Bernie Sanders’ campaigns. As the Sacramento Bee noted, the California Democratic Party, has allowed independent voters to cast votes in its primary for over a decade. “If the heated contest between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont continues past earlier primary states, California’s independent voters would be a significant target for both Democratic campaigns leading up to June 7,” observed the Bee.

A mixed bag

Californians haven’t always had to worry about bringing up the rear of the parties’ primary seasons. But under Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, their experiment with an early debut in the race went awry. “Candidates did come to California, and they did talk about issues pertinent to the state, such as clean energy and immigration. But 33 states moved their primary to Feb. 5 or earlier, weakening California’s influence,” the Press-Enterprise recalled. And shifting the timetable “cost the state $97 million at a time when California’s finances were strained,” the paper added, noting that the state’s presidential primary slipped back to June in 2011.

Photo by Justin LoFranco

In a broad turnabout, the fortunes of California Republicans in Congress have waned as conservatives on the Hill have gained the advantage.

The shift, which began with Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., withdrawing abruptly from a race for Speaker he had seemed certain to win, has sidelined other members of the GOP’s California delegation. “Despite his lead over other candidates,” the Los Angeles Daily News recalled, “McCarthy had failed to win over a small but crucial bloc in the House GOP: the hardline Freedom Caucus. This group of 30-plus uncompromising conservatives drove Boehner to resign by threatening a floor vote on his speakership. On the eve of [the] vote they announced they would oppose Boehner’s No.2, McCarthy, and back one of his rivals instead, Rep. Daniel Webster of Florida, a former speaker of the Florida House.”

Fresh fissures

Rather than hinging on ideology, tough tactics have been largely responsible for the obdurate reputation the Freedom Caucus has made for itself. Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., recently announced his withdrawal from the Caucus — despite sterling conservative credentials on the Hill. “A charter member of the House Freedom Caucus when it began earlier this year, McClintock quit the group last month,” as McClatchy reported. “Just last year, the American Conservative Union had given him a 99 percent lifetime support score. Only one House of Representatives Republican was more consistent.”

In an interview with the wire, McClintock said of the Freedom Caucus that “their tactics have become counterproductive for the enactment of a conservative agenda,” singling out its “opposition to a trade bill and its willingness to shut down the federal government over Planned Parenthood funding.” Although those issues have emerged as important to a slice of the Republican base often associated with the Tea Party, the Caucus has come under fire more for using them as wedges to weaken and challenge the establishment GOP leadership in Congress.

Political blowback

But the establishment’s own political acumen — or lack thereof — has fueled the sense among Tea Party sympathizers that the Freedom Caucus has no choice but to combat the sitting GOP leadership. Rep. McCarthy’s unforced error on the Benghazi investigation, which he touted as an effective political weapon against Hillary Clinton, became a sizable boon for Democrats.

For some California conservatives, insult was added to injury when the Golden State’s Congressional Democrats like Rep. Adam Schiff and Rep. Linda Sanchez seized on the opportunity to raise their own profiles during the suddenly beleaguered hearing. “The kind of spotlight Schiff and Sanchez enjoyed Thursday is rare for California lawmakers, particularly those in densely populated Southern California, which has an ultra-competitive media market,” according to the Los Angeles Times. “Such visibility can be helpful for someone like Schiff, who has served in Congress for nearly 15 years and is well-respected by colleagues, but whose name recognition is lower than more prominent members of the delegation.”

Ballot blues

The political crossfire has troublesome implications for the coming election cycle in California, where state Republicans have grown increasingly desperate to field candidates capable of notching some wins. “The National Republican Congressional Committee sent a staffer out to the Golden State last week to search for and meet with potential candidates and convince them to run in competitive districts in San Diego, Palm Springs and Sacramento, according to a source with knowledge of the visit,” Roll Call recently reported. “But after a string of losses in the state, multiple Republican strategists in California are pessimistic about the GOP’s ability to recruit top-tier challengers, especially for 2016, when presidential-year turnout is expected to benefit Democrats.”

While national conservatives have blamed the state GOP’s drift away from core principle, California Republicans have pointed the finger at the kind of truculence they say defines the Freedom Caucus. State GOP consultant Richard Temple told Roll Call “a major problem for Republican candidates running in the state is that they are weighed down by the national GOP’s brand. He said the image could be fixed if the field of candidates Republicans recruit reflected the party’s growing diversity, but he said without donors believing those candidates can win, getting them to run will be hard,” the site noted.

In a twist as sudden as it was unlikely, Republicans appear poised to make Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., the next Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Though he could face opposition from the House’s conservative caucus, McCarthy’s reputation — and solid positioning in the party ranks — have worked in his favor. As Bloomberg reported, some members have already publicly stated that McCarthy, the second-ranking Republican in the House, was likely to prevail. Their ranks included Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., who has been critical of the sometimes calculating, sometimes conciliatory approach of outgoing Speaker John Boehner, R-Oh., who will leave Congress altogether by next month’s end. “The important question is, will things change? Will they change for the better or we simply replace Mr. Boehner with somebody else who do the same thing?” Mulvaney asked.

Courting conservatives

In an email to colleagues announcing his formal candidacy, McCarthy sought to signal his awareness of the skepticism that has grown up around many House conservatives. “We can’t ignore the differences that exist, but we can and must heal the divisions in our conference with work, time and trust,” he wrote, according to NBC News. “If elected Speaker, I promise you that we will have the courage to lead the fight for our conservative principles and make our case to the American people. But we will also have the wisdom to listen to our constituents and each other so that we always move forward together.”

McCarthy has the benefit of some political innocence. Well before Boehner’s announcement, conservatives had begun to discuss the prospect of voting him out of the Speakership — plans that McCarthy played no role in. That helped endear him to some dissatisfied with Boehner. As one member of the so-called Freedom Caucus told the Hill, “I don’t think he’s plotting. I don’t think he’s trying to aid and abet. I just think he is trying to figure out where everyone is. I volunteered to him that, under the right circumstances, I could vote for him for Speaker.”

A historic shakeup

McCarthy’s run for the spot has triggered a scramble for advantage as top jobs in the GOP chain of command opened up. In addition to a challenge to McCarthy fielded by Rep. Daniel Webster, R-Fla., the race for Majority Leader has “already turned into at least a three-way contest,” Yahoo News reported, “with the No. 3 and No. 4 House Republicans, Steve Scalise of Louisiana and Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, aggressively pursuing the job, along with the Budget Committee chairman, Tom Price of Georgia.” Although the House’s tea party members have not put forward a candidate of their own, they do not see McCarthy as a choice that will lead to much change in how the party’s legislative strategy moves forward, Yahoo added.

McCarthy, a relatively low-profile member of the party leadership hailing from a state with few other nationally-known Republicans, has been seen as experiencing something of a political windfall. But if he is elected Speaker, he will have his patience and diligence on the Hill to thank. “McCarthy has tended to this flock of House Republicans more than any GOP leader of the past five years,” the Washington Post observed. “He recruited many of the members to run in the 2010 elections that delivered the majority, he has been their adviser and confidant, he works out with them in the House gym and keeps tabs on family members.” Still, if elected, his rise will have been the fastest comparable since the 1800s. “A Speaker McCarthy would represent a sharp shift in the historical trends of the last 125 years. In that time,” the Post noted, “it took an average of almost 23 years in the House to be elevated to speaker, according to a Congressional Research Service report.”

Obviously, there’s been focus-group testing galore that leads Dems to think this theme is powerful and resonates with independent voters. And so the decision to make the race a referendum on the Tea Party.

But the 52nd congressional district isn’t West Los Angeles or Marin County. It covers mostly affluent coastal and northern San Diego and went decisively for Mitt Romney, a part-time resident of the district, in 2012.

And given the fact that DeMaio is gay, the usual tactic of depicting tea party members as social conservative extremists doesn’t work so well — the “war on women” shtick, etc. Here’s an example of this framing, a Washington Post story headlined “Social conservatives are mobilizing in France, leading to talk of a tea party.”

It’s quite possible that Democrats and some in the media actually don’t realize that the Tea Party is fundamentally libertarian — devoted to liberty and small government — and is not a conspiracy-mongering birther front. When the only people you listen to are those on MSNBC and Daily Kos, and Paul Krugman, you’re inclined to see all Republicans as contemptible haters.

Tea Party no fan of GOP establishment’s views on immigration

Yet the more sophisticated observers get that the Tea Party really is at odds with the modern GOP establishment — not just on its habit of giving in and accepting the big-spending federal status quo but on immigration. This isn’t just an anecdote-based claim. This info is from Thomas Edsall, the veteran journalist who for decades has actually tried to bring political science research into political journalism:

Parker and Barreto conducted surveys to see if Tea Party conservatives differ from non-Tea Party conservatives. … the two kinds of conservatives diverge significantly on key issues: immigration, civil liberties and in how they see President Obama.

The surveys showed that 50 percent of Tea Party-identifying members opposed the DREAM Act vs. 30 percent of non-Tea Party conservatives; 66 percent of Tea Party-identifying members opposed the path to citizenship for illegal immigrants vs. 46 percent of non-Tea Party conservatives; and that 58 percent of Tea Party-identifying members correlated more immigration with more crime vs. 49 percent of non-Tea Party conservatives.

But other surveys show Tea Party members more likely than standard conservatives to reject limits on abortion and gay marriage — the social issue litmus tests. They’re not bomb-throwers on social wedge issues.

Tea Party members I’ve talked with often say they back higher immigration — but with a Canada-style approach valuing applicants with needed job skills, not a system in which immigrants essentially self-select.

DeMaio is in the real-border-security-first camp.

But he’s not making it a key theme in this very interesting congressional race.

Here’s a Breitbart account of how DeMaio is responding to the Tea Party narrative: by ridiculing it.

While national media seized upon the reluctance of Fresno mayor and state controller candidate Ashley Swearengin to endorse Republican gubernatorial candidate Neel Kashkari, more profound was the strong showing of liberty-minded groups and ideas.

At a Saturday luncheon, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul spoke about political subjects not commonly associated with the Republican Party. While Paul certainly got in the expected digs at the Democratic establishment, it was his emphasis on civil liberties that drew the most applause.

Calling for the restoration of voting rights to convicted felons and reforming federal drug policy, Paul argued the party will not sway younger voters talking about taxes and regulations.

“Kids don’t have any money, they’ve got student debt, they’re worried about getting a job and they have a cell phone,” he said. “They don’t care about taxes and regulation.”

Recalling a standing ovation he received while speaking at the notoriously left-wing University of California, Berkeley in March, he argued civil liberties issues have far more resonance across the aisle. “When I went to Berkeley, I had a pretty simple message: What you say or do on your cell phone is none of the government’s damn business,” he said.

‘Legalize freedom’

The vice chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus of California, Robert Vaughn, concurred with Paul’s assessment that a more liberty-oriented message from the party was key to attracting new members.

“Let’s legalize freedom,” said Mr. Vaughn. “If the Republican Party is going to grow, it has to deemphasize the social issues and stick to a more common-sense message of limited government.”

While Vaughn noted that there is at times a tension between liberty-minded party members and the party establishment, the party nonetheless has been more accepting of those committed to focusing on liberty.

“The party has been on the decline in recent years,” he said. “If the party is going to grow, it cannot use traditional social issues to broaden the tent.”

The Liberty Caucus has endorsed numerous candidates, including one of its members, Arturo Alas. A real-estate broker, Alas is running in the 32nd Congressional District against incumbent Rep. Grace Napolitano, D-El Monte.

Alas had one of the largest contingents of supporters at the convention, perhaps second only to grassroots proponents of a potential presidential candidacy of Dr. Ben Carson.

Alas’ youthful campaign volunteers repeatedly emphasized his top campaign priority: liberty. “We have here a libertarian candidate who will defend individual liberty,” said one supporter.

Indeed, it appeared that a focus on individual liberty outweighed more traditional, conservative groups at the Republican convention.

Tea Party

The large Tea Party contingent was focused more on budget issues. Members of the Tea Party California Caucus argued the movement stood for “Maximum Liberty, Minimal Government.”

Robert Jeffers, communications coordinator for the Tea Party California Caucus, said concerns with reining in the state and federal governments were of far greater significance to members than traditional social issues.

“California used to be a great state,” he said. “In order to return to greatness, the state needs to cut taxes, repeal bad regulations and focus on strengthening local businesses.”

While Jeffers said the state Republican Party has “diluted” its message, he did not suggest the party focus on social issues. “If the party wants to succeed, it needs to focus on the principles of individual liberty, limited government,” he said.

Whatever the fortunes of the Republican Party at the polls on Nov. 4, it was clear from its Fall Convention that its most vigorous members are pinning the party’s future on advancing freedom.

For example, NorCal Tea Party Patriots filed a federal lawsuit against the IRS, alleging the suppression of political rights.

It’s continuing. The Mainstream Media didn’t cover it. But the C-SPAN recording of the congressional hearings this past week on IRS abuse is here, so you can watch it for yourself.

And the conservative Heritage Foundation provided this summary:

There were fireworks this week in the House of Representatives as two different committees held hearings on Wednesday and Thursday over the IRS targeting of Tea Party and other conservative groups, as well as proposed new regulations by the IRS that would silence these same organizations (but not unions).

On Wednesday, the House Ways and Means Committee questioned IRS Commissioner John Koskinen. The Committee released an email it had obtained from inside the Treasury Department showing that back in 2012 when it appears that the IRS was in the middle of trying to prevent conservative organizations from being granted tax exempt status, the administration was already planning to draft new regulations restricting the political activity of the same organizations. The email was sent by Ruth Madrigal of the Office of Tax Policy at Treasury to Lois Lerner, the IRS official who refused to answer questions from Congress about the scandal by asserting her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

That June 14, 2012, email indicated that Madrigal and Lerner would be devising the new rules “off-plan,” which is federal government-speak meaning that their plan would not be published on the public schedule of the IRS. What is significant about this email is that it flatly contradicts prior assertions by the Obama administration that the proposed new regulations defining “candidate-related political activity” were planned only after the IRS scandal was made public in order to “clarify” the regulations. Instead, it appears the administration not only tried to delay and prevent conservative organizations from receiving their tax-exempt status prior to the 2012 election, but was also already planning new regulations that would stifle their political speech and potential criticism of the administration. Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) said that “if Treasury and the IRS fabricated the rationale for the rule change it would tend to raise questions about the integrity of the rule-making process.”

The Thursday hearing by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was even more dramatic, with riveting testimony by Catherine Engelbrecht, the head of True the Vote, on how she, her husband, and their business were targeted by the IRS, the FBI, ATF, and other government agencies on 15 separate occasions after True the Vote applied to the IRS for a tax exemption. True the Vote has repeatedly been harassed and sued by liberal groups because it wants to improve election integrity and stop voter fraud. In fact, Engelbrecht announced that she would be filing ethics charges against the ranking Democrat on the Committee, Elijah Cummings (D-MD), for demanding the same kind of documentation and information the IRS was improperly asking for and for publicly defaming her and her organization.  Becky Gerritson of the Wetumpka Tea Party also testified about the problems she encountered.

There was also striking testimony by Cleta Mitchell and Jay Sekulow, both of whom are representing dozens of conservative organizations. It was clear from their testimony that not only is the targeting continuing to occur, since many of the organizations they represent still haven’t been granted their tax exemption, but that the Justice Department does not seem to be doing a real investigation since it hasn’t spoken to any of their clients about their experiences with the IRS. The testimony of these witnesses contradicted recent assertion by Obama that there was “not even a smidgen” of corruption in the apparent effort by the IRS to silence conservative groups.

Read the rest here.

It’s pretty frightening. There are three more years left in the Obama administration, so who knows what will happen. But for the first five years, President Obama’s legacy is the Obamacare disaster, the Snowden revelations of total Orwellian snooping on all Americans, and the IRS suppression of political liberty.

By John Seiler

For once, I wish I was in Washington, D.C., a dreadful place I haven’t been to since 1988, or 25 years. Tomorrow, Wednesday, the Tea Party is protesting the assaults on it and other freedom groups by the IRS-Stasi. I would love to attend. The Daily Caller reported:

“The gathering on the West Lawn of the Capitol is being called the ‘Audit the IRS’ Rally

“‘At noon tomorrow, we are going to tell the world about how the IRS tried to crush the Tea Party movement,’ organizers with the Tea Party Patriots organization said in an email to supporters.

“Thousands of volunteers will rally in the largest demonstration of Tea Party support since 2010.”

It was the Tea Party that was targeted by the Obama IRS to suppress their freedoms of speech and assembly. Doing so spread the notion around the country that the Tea Partiers somehow were evil — a demonization typical of repressive regimes, such as the treatment of the Kulaks.

Of course, the IRS-Stasi will just take their names and repress them even more. No doubt the NSA-Stasi also will be there, spying, harassing, repressing.

Maybe Washington, D.C. is a bad place for such a rally. A better place to start might be at Lexington and Concord.

Update 8:30 pm: The protests have occurred. Please post below any reports of protests you attended or witnessed.

May 21, 2013

By John Seiler

The Tea Party is holding peaceful rallies today at noon across the country to protest IRS abuses. As has been revealed the past 11 days, the Obama IRS targeted an Enemies List of conservative and libertarian groups for harassment. The protests are being held at IRS offices.

I hope people work not just to “reform” the IRS, but to abolish this abusive “service” entirely, and the robbing income tax along with it.

The full national list of peaceful protest locations is here. California locations:

450 GG AVE, SF IRS OFFICE
450 GOLDEN GATE AVE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102

SAN DIEGO IRS OFFICE
880 FRONT STREET
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101

SERVICE CENTER – BUTLER AVE CAMPUS
5045 E. BUTLER
FRESNO, CA 93727

SAN JOSE IRS OFFICE
55 SOUTH MARKET STREET
SAN JOSE, CA 95113

NORTH POINTE IRS OFFICE
4330 WATT AVE
SACRAMENTO, CA 95821

611 W. SIXTH ST IRS OFFICE
611 W. SIXTH ST
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017

NEW BAKERSFIELD IRS OFFICE
4825 COFFEE RD.
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93308

REDDING RALLY LOCATION
1001 HILLTOP
REDDING, CA 96001

SAN BERNARDINO RALLY LOCATION
290 N. D ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401

SANTA ANA RALLY LOCATION
801 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST
SANTA ANA, CA 92701

LAGUNA NIGUEL RALLY LOCATION
24000 AVILA RD.
LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA 92677

290 North D Street
San Bernardino, CA.
12:00 Noon

751 E Daily Dr
Camarillo, CA 93010
10am to 12:30pm

By John Seiler

Tony Quinn just wrote happily of the demise of the Tea Party. Which never had much power in California anyway.

He said that, without them, Republicans might have grabbed control of the U.S. Senate in 2010 and 2012. He wrote:

“In the next four years Obama will probably have an opportunity to place a fifth liberal on the U.S. Supreme Court thus changing it for decades.  His nominee will need Senate confirmation and that he or she will get it. This is a direct consequence of the loss of five United States Senate seats that should be Republican today but are not because of Tea Party candidates.”

Except that the Establishment Republicans that always have controlled the party always rubber-stamp Democratic Supreme Court appointments. They did so with Justices Breyer and Ginsberg back in the 1990s under Clinton. They would do so today under Obama.

Quinn attacked the Tea Party for getting Richard Mourdock nominated for U.S. Senate in Indiana. Mourdock then made really dumb remarks about rape. What he doesn’t point out is that, in the GOP primary, Mourdock defeated one of the all-time GOP sellouts, Dick Lugar, who had been in office an incredible 36 years and was a pillar of the Elite Establishment.

For most Tea Partiers, anybody was better the Bushes, the McCains, the Romneys, the Lugars, the Doles and the other worthless Establishment hacks.

Moreover, without the Tea Party’s outrage and energy, in 2010 Republicans never would have taken back control of the House, nor kept it in 2012.

Sold down the river again

Quinn:

“In the House, Republican Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) began the just completed lame duck session on equal negotiating level with Obama, but after the Tea Party radicals undercut him, he ended up largely surrendering control of the House to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco.  The New Year’s Day ‘fiscal cliff’ bill to save 99 percent of the Bush tax cuts (and avoid a tax increase on 100 percent of Americans) was shepherded through the House by Pelosi with Tea Party members opposing the deal worked out in the Senate, and therefore voting for a massive tax increase on every American.”

Not quite. What happened was that the Tea Party found out the hard way that the GOP sells out — and especially sells out the middle class.

The “fiscal cliff” deal really was a fiscal fraud from start to finish, slamming 77 percent of Americans with massive tax increases. Hey, weren’t there also to be $3 in spending cuts for very $1 in tax increases? Instead the spending “cuts” were as insignificant as a politician’s promises.

Quinn thinks the Tea Partiers were fools for opposing tax increases on the “wealthy.” Except that the tax increases specially will hit small businesses, which file as S corporations. And the increased death tax will hit family farms and businesses.

And, as mentioned, Tea Partiers have found out that “tax the rich” means “tax the middle class, too.” The only way to stop the tax increasers is to Stonewall against all tax increases. Otherwise, things get complicated fast and the GOP bosses start cashiering the middle class, like this time.

Well, the movement is dead now, betrayed by the Republicans they supported. The Tea Partiers won’t have time to campaign, anyway, because they’ll be working longer hours to pay the huge tax increases their Republican pals just foisted on them.

That’s if they even have jobs. If they’re out of work, they’ll spend all their time in unemployment lines.

Meanwhile, there’s a song about where both the majority Democrats and the minority Republicans are taking America ….

By John Seiler

Back in 1995, USA Today reported that broadcaster Sam Donaldson received $84,742 in federal subsidies from taxpayers for a horse farm in New Mexico. So it’s understandable why he defends the current regime of ripping off middle-class taxpayers to give the money to wealthy celebrities such as himself.

Last weekend, he attacked the Tea Party for “driving the Republican Party out of contention as a national party.” He said you can’t win nationally if you don’t know something about “how the country has changed.”

Actually, the Tea Party was behind the Republican Party’s takeover of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010. Then it was sold out by the GOP leadership, which failed to cut the budget deficit and make the Bush tax cuts permanent. But the Tea Party’s influence kept the Republicans in charge in 2012, and likely will boost their numbers in the House in 2014.

But never mind: Sam has his eye on those tax subsidies that the Tea Party wants to cut.

“The Tea Party seems to think that the country can go back 25 or 30 years” — that is, before Sam ripped off taxpayers with his subsidies.

Sam said the slogan he hated the most was, “We ought to take back our country.” That’s understandable. Because if the Tea Party took back the country, he would have to give back the subsidies he ripped off from taxpayers.

“Guys, it’s not your country any more,” Sam huffed. True, Sam and his other left-subsidy beneficiaries grabbed our taxes and kept them for themselves.

He’s right that the Tea Party, despite some victories for the Republicans, mostly has failed. The subsides to Sam and other limousine liberals have helped bankrupt the federal government. And we’re all going to have to live with the consequences of that.

Well, almost all of us. Sam and his fellow champagne socialists will be living it up on our money.

Here’s the video: