Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Coming to the T.E.A. Party?

There has been a lot of activity this past year from the “T.E.A. party” groups throughout the country. My husband and I have been fortunate enough to be able to attend several and were thrilled to be publicly expressing our displeasure with this current administration’s policies.

Unfortunately, the pundits all over the place (including the generally reasonable FNC bunch) are having a grand ole time speculating about whether the T.E.A. “party” is “a party,” whether it is “against” the Republicans, whether it will fracture the republican vote and ultimately defeat itself to the advantage of the liberals now in control.

Lots of hullabaloo, lots of speculation, lots of provocative commentary. So what?

I think what is being missed here – and utilized to great advantage by the liberals and progressives – is that there is no "Tea Party" per se! There is no official or unofficial third political party operating under the name “Tea Party.”

There is, however, a broad based, grassroots movement of extremely concerned American citizens who gather beneath the banner of "T. E. A." which stands for "Taxed Enough Already." It seems that few remember that little fact already. This is not a "party" unless one listens to those who try to denigrate, fracture, and incite conflict among those of us trying to withstand the progressive onslaught.

This is not a new or separate party. I do not believe that it was ever meant to be a new, independent party to complete with either the current republican or democrat parties.

The T.E.A. "party" movement was created out of the frustration and anger – yes, progressives, “anger” – of American citizens as we came to understand what kind of "fundamental change" Mr. Obama meant when he campaigned. Very few among the electorate understood exactly what he meant at the time; he was elected. Now that the majority of folks understand clearly what he meant, he can get "un-elected."

That is how the voices of those of us under the banner of T.E.A. want to be heard and want to have an effect on our government. Those candidates who present themselves as thoroughly understanding and supporting the need to get our Country back on the path as a Republic, with a strong, solid – not fluid – Constitution, Bill of Rights, and economic independence will get our votes.

We do not need a third party in order to get this done. What we DO need is to make sure the Republican/Conservative candidates are true to the ideals we hold dear in our Country: the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the limited role of government in our daily lives, controlled government spending, no encroachment on our civil liberties and freedoms through unending government imposed regulations and rules, etc., etc.

Those candidates who convince us of their sincere belief and intent to support those ideals will get the votes of those who have protested under the T.E.A. banners.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Republican "Hypocrisy"?

The headline today on the Drudge Report ( -- above the title, no less -- is about our newest Senator, Scott Brown voting for the so-called "Jobs" Bill. I have not yet read the article but the headline immediately reminded me of the most recent grating 'laments' from the democrats. Apparently, it is suddenly a very, very bad thing to accept government funds if some of one's party voted against the allocation of those funds in the first place.

Well . . . here's another example of a chunk of non-logic floating off on a plank of the ridiculous spin-stream.

As a fiscal conservative, I am against all of the government spending that has gone on since the last year of President Bush's administration. (We were against the prescription drug program, regardless of its intent, because it was unfunded and added to the deficit.) We were against the bank buyouts, the automobile manufacturers/union buyouts, and certainly against the wall street buyouts. We do not believe there is anyone or anything "too big to fail."

If an individual or a company mismanages their business enterprise to the brink of failure through their own bad choices and decisions -- they deserve to fail.

However, when the federal government grabs more chunks of taxpayer monies from ALL states and spreads those funds around -- then ALL states have a right to that money, whether or not the representatives of a particular state voted for the funds.

Why? Because it is TAXPAYER money that the government is spending -- not "democrat" or "republican" money, to be used only by the party that voted for its expenditure.

Simple fact of the matter is NONE of those the funds should not have been spent in the first place -- our Country did not and does not have the money in the bank. We could not and cannot afford all that expense: from the TARP to the Return of TARP to Stimulus to the "Jobs" Bill (aka Son of Stimulus), we could not and cannot afford any of the money this administration has been spreading about like so much popcorn practically since the first weeks of this administration!

The fact, however, is that the money is available for states to use to the benefit of the states (aka the TAXPAYER). The money has been allocated by the Federal Government -- from the same pot of tax dollars that all states pay into. How, then, is it hypocritical to accept funds from the pot into which ALL TAXPAYER funds have been included?

I will support the democrats' lament about supposed "hypocrisy" when there is a "republican" and a separate "democrat" pot of TAXPAYER funds. Until then, whatever goes into the pot from the TAXPAYER is equally available to ALL taxpayers.

All this sidesteps, of course, the issue that this kind of spending should not have happened at all. All this ignores, too, that our Country is pretty much dead broke and getting broker by the minute. Is it any wonder China and Japan pretty much own us?

The discussions should not be between who is "eligible" for taxpayer funds or not . . . it should be about who is going to sign the check when Japan and China call in their IOUs.
02/23/2010: Originally posted on ""