Teaparty alive and well, set and primed for 2014 . . . much to the disappointment of the Establishment GOP, and, "they" thought we were going away just after winning the 2010 elections for Boehner and Company.

According to Breitbart.com:  On Monday, FreedomWorks PAC, the grassroots conservative organization, will officially back some of the most prominent Tea Party members in Congress--like Reps. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), and Tim Huelskamp (R-KS)--for reelection.

The group will also endorse Sens. Tim Scott (R-SC - pictured right), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), and Jim Risch (R-ID). Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY), Matt Salmon (R-AZ), Tom Graves (R-GA), Jim Bridenstine, Mark Sanford (R-SC), Louie Gohmert, Tim Huelskamp, Ron DeSantis (R-FL), and Ted Yoho (R-FL - pictured left) will all receive FreedomWorks' endorsement.

Over the weekend, GOP Senators admit there is little to nothing they can do to stop Obama’s dictatorial use of presidential powers.

Editor's notes:  Of course Congress can do something about a rogue,  wannabe dictator,  but first,  it must let go of its concerted effort to destroy the teaparty influence in Congress - and,  at last count,  there are 162 Constitutional conservatives counted in both houses.  On the other hand, the teaparty crowd needs to learn when to compromise and stop wasting the opportunities given to it to win national elections and fight with power,  on another day.  

Washington Republicans on Sunday restated their argument that President Obama has violated the Constitution by using executive orders to alter the Affordable Care Act but acknowledged they likely have no recourse or ability to stop another incident.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, . . . . . . . .

Anyone still believe there to be a political equivalency between Occupy and the teaparty, grassroots movement?

Van Jones,  Obama's first "green czar" (2009),  was an admitted communist for ten years (see Politifact, here) and hoped to use Occupy,  as near a "communist front,"  in this country,  as one get,  as a base for a grand political third party,  complete with representatives in each of the 50 states,  a national convention and a national presidential candidate (2012).  Of course,  none of this happened,  and Occupy never grew out of the anarchist/adolescent stage of its so-called "development."  But, the fact that Jones was more than amenable to the goals and antics of Occupy,  is all the proof this editor needs,  to continue thinking of Jones as an undeclared communist,  in his present life.  

Occupy celebrates its 2nd anniversary,  this week.  At no time has Occupy had more than 5,000 dedicated members,  nation wide,   who did more than show up and vandalize businesses.  Van Jones' decision that "now" was the time for a national restructuring of the State via a political party that would grow out of Occupy,  demonstrates the idealistic immaturity of this man who joined Obama in working for fundamental change to this great nation.  The difference between Jones and Obama,  noteworthy, however.  While their announced goals are the same,  Van Jones is consistent and, even,  honest in his socialist pursuits.  Obama is not,  and has become a major disappointment to those who thought radical change was coming to America.  

In May of 2008,  in a speech in Puerto Rico,  Michelle Obama announced the radicalism of her husband when she spoke these words:   "Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation." 

You cannot sound more radical than this without calling for a violent uprising. 

Today,  while Occupy "celebrates" its meager existence per the demonstration pictured in this post,  teaparty types have rolled into DC,  more than 1 million strong (hoping for 2 million) and established the reality that conservatives and the teaparty alliance are as strong as ever.  

It should be noted that while Obama has grown this country's ruling class,  he has failed miserably to fulfill the words of his radicalized wife.  Understand that this is not simply "Obama's failure."  Rather,  we are watching the failings of a world ideology that is failed in every nation in which it was tried. 

Whether or not you agree with that statement,  certainly,  it is clear that a state sponsored socialism that feeds off the suppression of US Constitutional rights,  does not work in this country.  There is something to be said for the fact that capitalism expressed and grounded in individual rights  is more than a core principle in the creation and function of this country;  it is systemic to its very nature as a nation,  and cannot be change with a dictatorial overthrow of the system,  as a whole.  And,  that will not happen before the next civil war.    

Time for a third party. Time to put Karl Rove in his place.

Commenting on Karl Rove’s decision to use his Crossroads organization to weed out those candidates (mostly from the teaparty) who are not experienced in the ways of politics,   Ben Shapiro of Townhall,  complains about this,  asserting that Rove is no conservative and wondering why Crossroads did not set out to train and condition conservative representatives instead of working to exclude them from the process. 

Why didn't Rove and company tell the Times that they were interested in training conservative candidates in media fluency? Why didn't they approach the Tea Party instead, and offer their get-out-the-vote services and electoral strategies?

Because, at root, there is a clash at the heart of today's Republican Party. The Tea Party wants to change tactics. The establishment wants to discard principle.

The question is whether this will be the party of Ronald Reagan or the party of George W. Bush. The establishment opposed Ronald Reagan in 1980; they backed George H.W. Bush, convinced that Reagan was too extreme, not quick enough on his feet, no match for the more intellectual Jimmy Carter. Thank God they lost.  (go to Townhall.com for the full article).

Rasmussen reports "8% of the nation's voters identify with the teaparty." Translation: there are still 13 million teaparty folks left to fight another day . . . . and there is more to say on this matter:

<<<  Teaparty strength is down, as is Progressive alliances.  Here are where teaparty chapters are located

From Rasmussen:   Views of the Tea Party movement are at their lowest point ever, with voters for the first time evenly divided when asked to match the views of the average Tea Party member against those of the average member of Congress.  Only eight percent (8%) now say they are members of the Tea Party, down from a high of 24% in April 2010 just after passage of the national health care law.   

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 30% of Likely U.S. Voters now have a favorable opinion of the Tea Party. Half (49%) of voters have an unfavorable view of the movement. Twenty-one percent (21%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording.

Editor’s notes:

This is not as bad a report for the teaparty as it might seem.  

First,  the fact that so many have a negative view of the teaparty is not a mark against the teaparty.  Rather,  it is a testament to the effectiveness of the Left Wing Press.  

Secondly,  understand that 8% of the voting public is equal to 13 million folks . . . .  no small constituency  . . . .   and these are active folks.  

When they say that 21% are undecided,  that simply means that 21% of the folks interviewed had some favorable opinions of the teaparty or they would not be “undecided.”  You could be looking at another 18 to 20 million voters,  if the GOP could come up with a solid and likeable conservative candidate.  

This is during the same period that Progressive numbers fell by 12% as measured against the 2008 election.  

Point of post:  both sides of the aisle have lost "membership,"  or,  at least,  interest from within the national community.   In other words,  the teaparty is just as strong,  comparatively speaking, as it was in 2010.