Posts Tagged ‘tea party’


July 2, 2011

A rather prolific blogger has had a rather good time bashing the supply side economics theory as of late. His education in economic theory appears to come from the populist genre’ and not from any sort of formal training.

If trickle down economics does not work, then how does the reverse occur? When those with Capital; You know, the big bad people with the money and corporations. Don’t invest and create jobs, thereby spreading and creating wealth because they themselves don’t have enough liquid income to justify the risk what do you call it?

Increasing taxes removes income that could be invested. Creating jobs and spreading the wealth through that medium then becomes less tenable. So how is it that this does not work then..?

Going about my daily routines I hear a lot of whining. Usually having to do with something along the lines of “paying their fair share,” or something close to that. I submit that a fair share would be a flat tax. The same rate for everyone. What a novel idea! To bad that I was not the first to think of that. That little gem belongs to a Roman Emperor I believe.

Then we have various assorted idiots that claim that we are under taxed. Those same people then go on to present fuzzy math based only on a single tax criteria. Failing to add up all the different taxes that we pay. Why not include all the different state and local taxes, fuel taxes, library taxes, and so on? It’s pure speculation on my part to be sure. However, everyone of them appears to be a supporter of ever bigger and expanding government. To me, that is simple dishonesty.

So why lower corporate taxes? To bring back capital investment that has been moved overseas is one reason. That means jobs for Americans here at home. Isn’t that reason enough?



GOP RINO’s attack: Truth in politicing?

October 29, 2010

Seems that there are some behind the scenes activity going on in Wyoming politics. As usual, the mainstream GOP is attempting to co-op TEA Party people, and calling members of the movement out of touch, radicals, and all the usual garbage.

There are a number of letters circulating on the Internet telling people to Google Matt Mead — guns. When they do they are led to several websites (more than one of them designed by the same person giving the impression that there is a whole body of “evidence” regarding Matt’s position on gun control, when in fact just one person is pushing his own agenda). These phony sites are putting out erroneous information concerning Matt Mead’s record on gun issues.

Really? Have you bothered to notice all the comments? Or the fact that this blog certainly isn’t ran by that person?

A California transplant moved to Wyoming and started a blog about gun rights and gun issues. He published that Matt Mead was anti-gun and supported the BATF in lawsuits against Wyoming and Wyoming gun laws. These statements are not true and when confronted, said blogger refused to meet with Matt to correct his misrepresentations.

Sorry, but the facts are otherwise. Not to mention that he uses a website, not a blog… I’m also a California transplant just to let you know. I left there in 1978 because of the stupid anti freedom things that were going on. Now people are trying to pull the same sorts of insanity here..?

Matt Mead is a member of the NRA and has an A rating from them. He has not favored/does not favor gun control. People need to remember that the Internet is a tool which can be a very good source of information, but some who have an agenda can also use it to spread misinformation. Wyoming has seen its share of “dirty politics” but deliberate untruths which seek to malign a person’s character or present false information about him should be rejected.

One of Matt mead’s big campaign points is that he will stand up for Wyoming: FACT; He went after Wyoming as a U.S. Attorney. Just doing his job? Alright, I can understand that. That’s also what those folks said at Nuremberg, and things didn’t work out so well for them. Rightfully so I might add. So what if the NRA gave him a favorable rating? They gave favorable ratings to a lot of people that the membership, such as myself, deplore.

I have found Matt Mead to be very approachable and willing to sit down and rationally discuss any topic. I am certain that Matt will protect your Second Amendment rights as well as other constitutional rights and will be a good governor for Wyoming.

He may be, but if past behavior is any indicator of future actions then the people of Wyoming need to think long and hard about electing a RINO. Not that there is much out there to be had other than the lessor of evils, yet again.



An excellent essay dealing with the times that we live in.

October 16, 2010

Every so often, someone, somewhere writes so eloquently that it is difficult to comprehend just how they did it. What follows are snips, be sure to follow the link to the entire essay.


On Feb. 7, 2009, the cover of Newsweek magazine proclaimed, “We Are All Socialists Now.” Since then, much has transpired, including the sale of Newsweek (the business entity) to the highest bidder for $1. Now, 1 1/2 years later, a more poignant cover story might be “We Are All Tea Partiers Now.”

The Tea Party is the leading edge of a “Great Awakening” in America. In many ways, it appears to have the force and vitality of one of the religious awakenings that have occurred throughout our nation’s history. It is more than a populist movement. It is more than a reactionary group expressing voter dissatisfaction and anger. It can’t be boiled down to election results. It will not be co-opted neatly by the Republican Party. It is something much, much bigger.

The Tea Party movement represents a resounding declaration of the end of big, overreaching government.


The Tea Party movement represents a resounding declaration of the end of big, overreaching government.

Our nation is in the grip of an overwhelming, seemingly inescapable malaise, not because our government hasn’t done enough for us, but because it has tried to do too much. Over the decades, “government” has mutated into “big government,” and its weight is killing us. Recent massive efforts to stimulate the economy or save certain sectors of it through increased government intervention and spending, far from helping us, have only added to the fog of uncertainty and oppression.

Washington’s presumed role of always knowing what is best for every aspect of our lives is over. One by one, people are waking up and realizing that perhaps they know what is best for themselves, their families, their local communities and their states. The Tea Party movement is not just an expression of disfavor with how things get done in government. It is the promise of a tectonic shift of decentralization and reduction of government.


For more than 200 years, the United States has been a repository of the most incredible truth in the world about man’s desire for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and how to secure these as a nation. In some ways, this truth has been in a deep freeze just as a steak might safely be saved in your freezer at home. If you offer a frozen steak to a hungry guest, it’s of no practical use to him. But if you put that steak on the grill with a fire under it, suddenly the fat starts to sizzle, the juices begin to run, and you begin to smell the aroma of the roasting meat. That steak becomes enticing to the hungry person. The Tea Party movement is the vehicle, the tiny match, by which the fire is lit under old truths so that even those who have never given a thought to their unalienable personal rights and the role of government now have a voracious hunger to experience these truths in their own lives.


Many people now see that our nation is at a crossroads: Our personal liberties, economic prosperity and the place of the United States within the world are at risk. Their eyes have been opened to the reckless stewardship of the political class in Washington, which, by creating an ever-growing government with massive, unsustainable entitlements, sweeping unintelligible legislative reforms and volume after volume of free-market-choking regulations, has charted this ill-fated course toward its progressive vision for America.


For the past year and a half, the media and other detractors have dedicated themselves to snuffing out the Tea Party movement through tactics of mockery, dismissiveness and false accusations. From Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi insinuating that grass-roots protesters at town-hall meetings last summer were Nazis to President Obama using mocking sexual innuendo, calling the Tea Partiers “tea baggers”; from the unsubstantiated claims of Tea Party violence and racism during health care reform protests on Capitol Hill in March to the NAACP’s unwarranted charge of Tea Party racism to the constant drone of politicos and pundits about Tea Party extremism during the primary elections, the assault on the Tea Party has been relentless. If Tea Partiers were a protected class rather than a targeted one, most of the media, academia and political intelligentsia would be on trial for hate crimes.


The Tea Party is more than an angry political movement, as it is frequently described. Something much deeper is going on here. It is a living expression of bedrock truth about humanity’s rights and our own human nature – that men and women have a yearning to be free and to self-govern while participating in and enjoying civil society.

My hats off in appreciation to Doug Manwaring.

Witchy Woman: Who gives a damn?

September 20, 2010

Seems like we are entering that insane time of year that always happens just before an election… Christine O’Donnell made some comments years ago, about things that had happened years before that, and now those words are coming back to haunt her. Perhaps it’s because of the upcoming Halloween..?

Karl Rove, disapproves of the lady, of course. Then again, he disapproves of the entire Taxed Enough Already movement. He has power and prestige where he sits with the establishment country club Republicans In Name Only, and is part and parcel of what needs to be cleaned out from in the minds of freedom and liberty loving people.

Democrat light, also known as Republicans, are not what the American people are interested in. Moderation, is no virtue when it comes to core values.

Read the whole thing HERE.

Is the Tea Party Becoming the New Grand Old Party?

September 3, 2010

I came across this in my email, and I think it’s an interesting read. Be sure to follow the link.

Is the tea party the new Republican Party?

The grass-roots network of fed-up conservative-libertarian displayed its power in its biggest triumph of the election year: the toppling of Sen. Lisa Murkowski in Alaska’s GOP primary. Political novice Joe Miller is the fifth tea party insurgent to win a GOP Senate nominating contest, an upset that few, if any, saw coming.

With the stunning outcome, the fledgling tea party coalition and voters who identify with its anti-tax, anti-spending sentiments proved that democracy is alive and well — within the Republican Party. Don’t like who is representing you? Rise up, fire them and choose someone new.

The tea party has taken hold in the Grand Old Party, unseating lawmakers, capturing nominations for open seats and forcing Republicans to recalibrate both their campaign strategy and issues agenda. Out is talk of delivering federal dollars back home; in is talk of fiscal discipline.

Within minutes of Murkowski conceding late Tuesday night, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., was among the conservative Republicans cheering Miller.

“He pulled off the upset victory of the year because he ran on principles and because Alaskans, like all Americans, want to stop the massive spending, bailouts and debt that are bankrupting our country,” said DeMint.

Taking a shot at Murkowski if not the entire Republican establishment, he added: “Joe Miller’s victory should be a wake-up call to politicians who go to Washington to bring home the bacon. Voters are saying ‘We’re not willing to bankrupt the country to benefit ourselves.'”

Full Story

TEA Party Shell Groups

August 28, 2010

The Tea Party has been so successful this election year that Democrats are resorting to political trickery. We’re shocked — shocked! A day before the primary in the Florida governor’s race, GOP candidate Rick Scott touted the endorsement of the “TEA Party.” As it turns out, the “TEA Party” was a shell group set up by leftists and funded in part by Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL). The group ran its own candidates state-wide in an effort to siphon votes away from conservatives. “This is a new low for the fake political TEA party,” said Tea Party activist Don Hensarling. But upon learning the real story, Scott rejected the endorsement — and went on to win the primary against state Attorney General Bill McCollum. Similar Democrat political stunts have been uncovered in Nevada and Michigan, so be warned.

Tuesday’s Primaries and the Core Debate

August 28, 2010

Tuesday’s primaries in Arizona and Alaska pitted well funded and entrenched incumbent Republicans against upstart Tea Party-backed challengers. The Arizona incumbent survived, but the Alaska incumbent is left hoping to make up ground in absentee ballots.

First Arizona. Sen. John McCain, the GOP’s 2008 presidential nominee, faced the fight of his political career against former congressman J.D. Hayworth. Unfortunately, Hayworth turned out to be a weak candidate and McCain’s $21 million media blitz was too much for him to overcome. In the end, the race wasn’t even close, with McCain outspending Hayworth 7-1 and winning nearly 2-1.

Hayworth, now a radio talk-show host, staffed his campaign with Tea Party activists and tried to run to the right of McCain. While in Congress, however, Hayworth had a penchant for earmarks and, after losing re-election in 2006, he participated as a pitchman in a video offering advice on how to get “free money grants” from the federal government. One could argue that earmarks are just part of the game and congressman should fight to get their constituents’ money directed to their own district, but after numerous silly projects have been highlighted over the years, voters are souring on the idea. And pitching “free money”? Not exactly the Tea Party’s core message.

McCain successfully countered Hayworth by running to the right himself. He has been remarkably frugal on earmarks through the years, offsetting any advantage Hayworth might have had on fiscal issues. The senator also moved right on immigration, going so far as to do a commercial along the border in which he called on the federal government to “complete the danged fence.” Of course, McCain’s lifetime American Conservative Union (ACU) rating of 82 is nothing to write home about, and now he’ll be in the Senate for another six years.

In Alaska, incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski trailed upstart Joe Miller by more than 1,600 votes as we went to press. Several thousand absentee ballots remain uncounted, but those are mostly military voters who may lean to Miller. The count may stretch into September.

The Murkowski family has dominated Alaska politics for decades. Lisa’s father, Frank, held one of Alaska’s Senate seats for three terms before winning the governor’s mansion. He then appointed his daughter to fill his seat. Joe Miller, the heavily outspent challenger, is a West Point grad, decorated Gulf War vet and a federal magistrate backed by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. If he pulls off the upset, it would count as the second major knockout of the Murkowski clan for Palin, who beat Frank Murkowski in the GOP primary for governor in 2006.

To put it in generous terms, Murkowski is a moderate. Her lifetime ACU rating is a paltry 70 and 2009 only brought that lower. She half-heartedly opposed ObamaCare but refused to rule out a government-run system. She declared in a debate with Miller that the nation could suffer if the government funded only those things enumerated in the Constitution.

That sums up the debate: Are we a nation under the Rule of Law, or the rule of men? Is government limited by the Constitution, or can it, in the words of Rep. Pete Stark, “do most anything in this country.” We know that the debate is over in the Democrat party — to them, government can do anything a majority can pass. Republicans like Lisa Murkowski and John McCain all too often agree. This primary season and the upcoming election, however, provide an opportunity for constitutional conservatives to begin righting the ship.


The very angry Tea Party: That’s putting it mildly

June 17, 2010

The people that make up the Taxed Enough Already Party are indeed very angry. For a variety of reasons.

The seething anger that seems to be an indigenous aspect of the Tea Party movement arises, I think, at the very place where politics and metaphysics meet, where metaphysical sentiment becomes political belief.  More than their political ideas, it is the anger of Tea Party members that is already reshaping our political landscape.  As Jeff Zeleny reported last Monday in The Times, the vast majority of House Democrats are now avoiding holding town-hall-style forums — just as you might sidestep an enraged, jilted lover on a subway platform — out of fear of confronting the incubus of Tea Party rage that routed last summer’s meetings.  This fear-driven avoidance is, Zeleny stated, bringing the time-honored tradition of the political meeting to the brink of extinction.”

Full Story

One would think that those politicians would get the message. Rather than that, they are coming up with all sorts of excuses for not listening to the American people. Afraid of a little tar and feathering perhaps?

“In his brilliant exposition of why sweeping policy changes often have unintended consequences, the late sociologist Robert K. Merton wrote that leaders get things wrong when their “paramount concern with the foreseen immediate consequences excludes the consideration of further or other consequences” of their proposals. This leads policy makers to assert things that are false, wishing them to be true.

Which brings us to President Obama’s many claims about his health-care reform. Take his oft-expressed statement that if you like the coverage you have, you can keep it. That sounds good—but perverse incentives in his new law will cause most Americans to lose their existing insurance.”

Full Story HERE and it is more than simply another case of unintended consequences…

How’s the ECONOMY working out for you obamanites?

The climate change bill: Another stupid bill on the hill, and more

May 15, 2010

The climate change bill, better known as cap-and-tax, was unveiled this week in the Senate. Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) are still determined to push this idiocy even though South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham recently walked away from the compromise they had crafted over the course of several months. The bill would tax large emitters of carbon emissions at $12 per ton, and it includes a mish-mash of regulations and subsidies for industries and transportation systems. Kerry and Lieberman yanked out the provision that called for expanding offshore drilling, hoping to make it more attractive in the wake of the Gulf oil spill. Investor’s Business Daily has a chart of new programs, studies and reports created by Kerry-Lieberman. It’s extensive. Without Graham on board, though, the bill won’t find nearly the support it could have previously received, so chances for passage are much slimmer.

Barack Obama has called for legislation that would raise the cap on damages for which oil companies such as BP would be responsible in the event of a spill or other accident. Currently at $75 million, bills in the House and Senate would raise the cap to $10 billion. Fortunately, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) blocked the Senate bill Thursday. But the president also wants to punish BP and other oil companies with an unconstitutionally retroactive one-cent-per-barrel tax hike to help pay for the cleanup of the Gulf. Of course, we all know who will pay that tax in the end — consumers at the gas pump.

Republicans are vigorously fighting Democrat attempts to restrict free speech by nullifying the Supreme Court’s recent Citizens United decision that struck down certain corporate restrictions on political campaign advertising. The Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act, which has been introduced in the House and Senate, seeks to force corporations and major donors to make on-air endorsements of political ads they fund. The bill would also place new measures on coordination of candidates and outside supporters.

In a frightening assault upon law-abiding citizens exercising their constitutional right to free speech and assembly, the Terrorist Expatriation Act (and here we thought TEA stood for “Taxed Enough Already”) was introduced in the House and Senate, stirring a vigorous debate that blurs the customary partisan lines on the issue. The bill, which has bipartisan sponsorship in both chambers, would allow the government to revoke the citizenship of Americans who ally themselves with “terrorist organizations.”

Supporters indicate that any American who signs up with a “terrorist group” basically rescinds his rights as a citizen in any event. Of course, why then should they be Mirandized? Revoking citizenship would block American “terror suspects” from (legally) re-entering the United States, and it would also make them eligible for military rather than civilian prosecution just when the Obama administration is moving real non-citizen terrorists into civilian courts. Concerns have arisen about the constitutionality of the measure, and skeptics believe that suspects would need to be convicted of a crime before their citizenship could be revoked. Since the Obama administration has already labeled conservative groups as “terrorist organizations,” TEA partiers and the like should check their visas.


Wishful thinking: Times Square Bomber and the left

May 9, 2010

When the first description of the Times Square would-be bomber Faisal Shahzad was released to the media, it raised the hopes of many. No, fellow Patriots, we’re not speaking of normal American hopes such as a quick capture of the would-be mass murderer. Unfortunately, what some were hoping was that this “middle-aged white guy” would be a right-wing Tea Party nut.

Fox News’ resident lefty Bob Beckel pontificated that he thought it might be a “right-wing militiaman” and Geraldo Rivera salivated over the white male suspect that was initially reported. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg suggested it might be “somebody home-grown, maybe a mentally deranged person or somebody with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something.” MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer couldn’t help but allude to the Hutaree Militia in Michigan while lamenting, “I get frustrated and there was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country.” One could almost taste the blood in the water as the frenzied Leftmedia homed in on the “real” right-wing threat they just knew had finally been revealed.

Unfortunately for them, however, this latest attempt at a “man-caused disaster” on American soil wasn’t perpetrated by a homegrown militiaman, nor by a member of the Tea Party, nor by an anti-ObamaCare zealot. Despite all the dashed “hopes” of the Left, this guy was just another Muslim jihadist. Worse is the news that Shahzad is a naturalized Pakistani-American with apparent Taliban and al-Qa’ida training. Furthermore, he drew inspiration from Anwar al-Awlaki, the same radical Yemeni-American cleric that inspired Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan. The only good news, despite irresponsible media efforts to correct the mistake, was that this nitwit must have flunked Bombing 101.

In the face of the evidence, even the administration came around. Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano informed the nation in the hours after the bombing attempt, “We’re treating it as if it could be a potential terrorist attack.” Nothing gets by her.

“I worked in homeland security. I’m from intelligence, and I’ll tell you, one of the largest threats to our internal security — I mean terrorism has an Islamic face — but it really comes from racial supremacist groups. Its the kind of thing we keep a threat assessment on record [for].” —Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN) on the Tea Party


%d bloggers like this: