Whatever Happened To The TEA Party?

 I'll begin by answering my rhetorical question.  Nothing really "happened to" the TEA Party, but rather, things are happening with and for the TEA Party. And, let me clear up a couple of misconceptions about the TEA Party:

1. The "tea" in TEA Party should always be capitalized, because it is an acronym of Taxed Enough Already. The party was - initially, anyway - founded by fiscal conservatives, and their goal was to let the government know that no nation ever taxed it's way to prosperity.
2. The TEA Party has, of late, been relatively quiet in public (i.e. - no huge rallies covered and distorted by the lamestream media), but that does not mean they are no longer with us. The media only wants to report the negative side of the TEA Party, with accusations of racism, bigotry, and big money. Being unable to prove those unfounded claims, the media have chosen to ignore the TEA Party - that same TEA Party which has gained the recognition of conservatives in both houses of Congress as a show of force by "We the People". TEA Party leadership(s) work busily behind the scenes today. They have expanded their primary charter from strictly taxation issues, to most (if not all) conservative issues.

The mainly left-wing media are concerned that, with any nationally recognized name in their numbers, the TEA Party itself could become a political force with which to be reckoned. The "Rock Star", as opposed to the backup group.

We do need a strong third political party, but it will have to come from a coalition of lesser, scattered parties with highly divergent political philosophies. These are the larger existing 3rd parties (in no particular order):

1. The Green Party -- The informal US-affiliate of the leftist, environmentalist European Greens movement -- is one of the two largest third parties in the nation with 305,000 US registered.
2. The Libertarian Party -- with slightly over 312,000 registered Libertarians, the party bills itself as "America's largest third party" (and, along with the Greens, are definitely among the two largest third parties in the nation). The Libertarians are neither left nor right: they believe in total individual liberty (pro-drug legalization, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-home schooling, pro-gun rights, etc.) and total economic freedom (anti-welfare, anti-government regulation of business, anti-minimum wage, anti-income tax, pro-free trade). The LP espouses a classical laissez faire ideology which, they argue, means "more freedom, less government and lower taxes."            They have something for everybody, so what's not to like about them? Perhaps a few too many "freedoms" for many voters. And, last but not least we have... 
3. The Constitution Party -- created in 1999 as a splinter group from the (now inconsequential) US Taxpayers Party. The 367,000 strong party is strongly pro-life, anti-gun control, anti-tax, anti-immigration, trade protectionist, "anti-New World Order," anti-United Nations, anti-gay rights, anti-welfare, and pro-school prayer. That's a party that I could get behind in 99% of their philosophy! Personally, I have a slight issue with "gay rights". I believe that gays, lesbians, transgenders, etc., should not have any special consideration beyond a fair and equal opportunity in the workplace. In fact, nobody deserves preferential consideration over anybody else when a job is truly based upon the job candidate's perceived qualifications (i.e. - how well do we think they can do the job, and how good a "fit" do they seem to be for our workplace culture?). I believe in the tradition of marriage as it has been practiced in Judeo-Christian beliefs for 2,000 years. "One man, one woman" is what insures the continuation of the human race. Same-sex alternatives to this arrangement are incapable of procreation without going outside the "relationship" in a parasitical and selfish way. (But, on the other hand, they would help to minimize the problem of overpopulation.) Further, I believe that school prayer should be permitted, but not compulsory. Simply the recognition of beliefs - something like a minute of silence for individual religious/moral/philosophical reflection/contemplation - at the beginning of the school day would be my suggestion (if anybody asked me). Religious education is the responsibility of the family and the church, not the taxpayer-funded public school system.

The combined strength of the three above "alternative parties", is currently (and roughly) 984,000±. This certainly isn't enough strength to form a viable Third Party at this time, but the numbers are large enough when combined to have a significant influence on any presidential election - IF they could all get behind a single candidate. (Notice that is a big "IF"). However, without a single, viable Third Party, "We the People" are at the mercy of the two party system. Many people blindly vote for a candidate with no real knowledge of what that candidate is about! But, he/she is a member of the party of their father and his father before him, so they get those votes. They don't know enough about the political process, nor do they care enough about it to do any research, so they vote the "straight party ticket". Occasionally, we are given crap choices from each the two parties, which leaves us in a philosophical and moral quandary - so we vote for the piece of crap that stinks the least. Or... we throw our vote away, by voting for a Third Party candidate that doesn't stand a chance of winning the popular vote, let alone the Electoral College vote (which is the one that really counts anyway). The big question in my mind is, "WHY do people vote like that?" If they aren't familiar with the issues, and their potential impact upon our country, WHY DO THEY VOTE AT ALL? And the answer to that question is, "Because they can."

There are lesser "alternative political parties" (3rd parties) that are barely worth mentioning, much less going into great detail about, so here's the very short list of those with any forward momentum at all:

1. America First Party -- Although the name sounds inviting to those with a strong sense of patriotism, this group is basically composed of ultra-conservative, "Religious Right" types. Similar in many ways to a Christian version of the Taliban.
2. American Party -- another tempting name, but the AP is a very small, very conservative, Christian splinter party formed after a break from the American Independent Party in 1972.
3. American Independent Party -- Governor George C. Wallace (D-AL), a notorious segregationist of the 1960s, founded the AIP and ran as the its first Presidential nominee in 1968. Running on a fiery populist, right-wing, anti-Washington, anti-racial integration, anti-communist platform, Wallace was basically a non-competitor.
4.  American Nazi Party -- Exactly what the name implies ... these are a bunch of uniformed, swastika-wearing neo-Nazis! This party is a combination of fascists, Aryan Nations-type folks, "White Power" racist skinheads and others on the ultra-radical political fringe. As a political party, the American Nazi Party has not fielded a Presidential candidate since Lincoln Rockwell ran as a write-in candidate in 1964 (he was murdered in 1967 by a disgruntled ANP member) -- nor any other candidate for other offices since the mid-1970s. Non-starters.

There are about two dozen other no-chance "political parties"... Google them if you are so inclined.

What really scares the media and is the primary reason why they are willing to go to the extremes of defending the GOP over and against the Tea Party? The media has much to lose if the two parties drift back to hard left and hard right, rather than where they currently reside at left-of-center and center-right. As it stands today, their party platforms are so similarly vague as to be almost indistinguishable from one another.
"American politics in the 21^st century has become little more than a battle of semantics and this is precisely why the media is able to control it. If, as the Tea Party wants, American politics gets back to issues rather than sound bites, the media will instantly lose the upper hand. The internet made the Tea Party a reality, not the media. The media knows this, and they don’t like the prospects of it and they will do everything in their power to keep it from happening. Don’t believe the hype: the Tea Party is far from over. There is too much yet to do."

A closing  prayer - 
Dear God,
Please save our nation from a recurrence of liberal, Marxist/Communist, Socialist-"Progressive", white-guilt voting in the upcoming election, and guide their spirits to VOTE FOR AMERICA, rather than a lying politician. Thanks a bunch... AMEN.

Is This Presidential Election The "Most Important" Election Ever?

Each presidential election is the "most important", at least the most important in the last four years. More consequential, is that it is the "most important" of the next four years, as the outcome determines the social, economic, international trade and assistance, and the legal direction our country will take. In the 2008 presidential election, Barack H. Obama was seen as "the Great Unifier" by many... and as "the Messiah" by some. He won the election, but neither of these expected "roles" were fulfilled. Overall, both groups have been bitterly disappointed. The impending presidential election presents us with two candidates - Obama, in hopes of a second term, and Mitt Romney who hopes to return our country to it's original path... that of a Democratic Republic, as opposed to a Socialist State. Neither candidate would have been my first choice, but I only have these two to choose from: a man whose inexperience has shone through like the Sun in August, and whose captaincy of our "Ship of State" has taken it severely off course, and his challenger - a man experienced (and successful) in both business and government, and one who is capable of making the needed course correction, but only if he gets bi-partisan support from the Congress.

As I see it, one of - if not THE - biggest stumbling blocks to any president's success in office is the Two Party System. Each party has their own agenda, and each will generally take a position diametrically opposed to that of the other party, completely ignoring what may be most beneficial for the nation as a whole in favor of showing party solidarity. Ideally, a strong - and I emphasize STRONG - Third Party would have it's own colloquial "dog in the fight". Something other than a purebred Dalmatian or Rottweiller, a mixed-breed watchdog that would be capable of forming a coalition with either party in order to keep our nation on course, and tipping the balance for or against certain legislation. Our national progress in the last 4 or 5 decades, has been stymied by legislators who have lost sight of their purpose in Congress - TO SERVE THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! There is only one way to get the attention of those who govern us...

Biden Brings Barbarianism to Bear

I'm not a big fan of either of the two major party's offerings for president, so I might be a bit more objective than many folks. However, in my opinion, Biden conducted himself like a man having a mental meltdown. He came across as rude and overbearing, ignoring what was supposed to be Ryan's "exclusive" time to talk by interrupting and talking over him, mugging for the audience and making it quite obvious that his main purpose was to try to unnerve Ryan and throw him off-stride.

Biden and his histrionic stage theatrics

Biden had neither facts nor a record of successes behind him, so he chose to act like a barbarian and buffoon. By disrespecting his opponent he simultaneously disrespected his position as VP, and his political party. He acted like a man with histrionic personality disorder. This morning - if I were a registered Democrat - I would keep it a secret.

And, exactly WHERE was the "MODERATOR"? I have to agree with Sean Hannity's comment  - "Martha Raddatz is the worst moderator ever." He and some others believed she was too quick to cut off Ryan and to let Biden talk over him. Yes, there was that... but in at least one point in the debate, she openly argued with Ryan herself, and accused him of having refused to answer a question! Note the word used - refused. Not "failed to", or "overlooked", or "didn't"... but REFUSED. I watched, and I don't recall Ryan ever saying, "I refuse to answer that" - or did I just miss that? The moderator's job is to ask the questions, remain impartial, insure that decorum is maintained and that the debate rules regarding time and over-talking are followed. To give credit where it is due... Raddatz DID ask the questions, but she did absolutely NOTHING ELSE. She came across as a liberal harpy on a mission.

As I saw it, Biden came across as an ill-mannered rube, Raddatz was obviously "in the tank" for him, and Ryan was the victim of a left-wing tag team. Who put this farce of a debate on... PBS?

How Confused Can We Remain?

This morning I read an online article by Thomas Sowell that I found a bit confusing. (For those of you who may be unfamiliar with his name, Dr. Thomas Sowell is a black American economist, social theorist, political philosopher, and author. A National Humanities Medal winner, he advocates laissez-faire economics and writes from a conservative and libertarian perspective. He is a graduate of Columbia and Harvard Universities.) I generally find myself in complete agreement with Dr. Sowell's writings, so far be it from me to challenge the intellect of a graduate of those two prestigious universities. But... today's article left me wondering, "What did they do to Dr. Sowell, and where did they hide his body?"

The thrust of the article is (as I read it, anyway) if we want better government, we must pay the politicians more money. The figure he suggested was $1M per annum. Can you see my confusion now? The ones we currently have are severely overcompensated for their "service". We wouldn't be getting our money's worth if they were being paid minimum wage! They are totally irresponsible when it comes to managing our money. The universal attitude in D.C. should be, "Let's spend the taxpayers money as carefully as we would spend our own money." But, it isn't. It's more like, "We just won the lottery! Let's spend it like drunken sailors." We are far from getting our money's worth at yearly freshman's salary of $174,000! We don't need better "politicians" in office, we need better human beings there. Most human beings could live very nicely on half of $174,000 a year


The good Dr's rationale behind increasing the compensation of our nation's "leadership" is somewhat simplistic, in that he believes more money will entice a better, more responsible class of people into government service, and they will be more resistant to bribery. He completely overlooks the fact that, in any nation's government, the true compensation is in POWER and PRESTIGE. Who seeks public office? Those who see themselves as "the ruling class". Who can afford to seek public office? Those who either already have significant money of their own, or those who become indebted to others who have provided them with the money necessary to successfully campaign for office. "Joe The Plumber" doesn't have the money... neither does Bob the bus driver, or Carl the clerk.

A great part of the problem in our legal system, is that our laws are made by state and national legislatures, which are composed primarily of lawyers. Lawyers are practitioners of the law. Why would they want to make our laws simple and easy to understand, when to do so would work against their raison d'être? Why else do our laws provide greater protection to the criminal than to the criminals victim? Why did our Congress support election laws legalizing PACs (Political Action Committees), when those laws are nothing less than a workaround of previously existing election laws? Particularly "Super PACs". In the 2012 election campaign, most of the money given to Super PACs has come not from corporations, but from wealthy individuals. According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, the top 100 individual super PAC donors in 2011–2012 made up just 3.7% of contributors, but they accounted for more than 80% of the total money raised. Do you believe that those big money donors are kept anonymous, or that your $5-$1,500 personal contribution is even noteworthy (much less appreciated)? If you answered "Yes" to either part of that question, you may now take a seat in the Fool's Section.

As for the monetary compensation of politicians, in one respect it's no different than the monetary rewards experienced by Wall Street investors... for them, there's no such thing as too much money! Those who serve in our government today are very different than our first round of Congressmen (Yes, Virginia, they were in fact all men). The first Congress received no pay, and they all had independent means of income. Most were farmers, some were lawyers, and almost all had common sense and believed in doing what was best for the country. Today most are lawyers, few display any common sense, and almost all are greedy. "Greedy", as I use the term herein, is not necessarily a desire for more money - which meets most people's definition of greed. There are many types of greed, demonstrated at various levels of society. Most educators have a greed for recognition and validation of their intellect. The clergy have an innate greed (referred to by them as "a calling") for the power and control found in molding the ethical and moral values of their flock. Lawyers... well, they're lawyers! Most of them are driven by a greed for recognition, wealth, and being the victor upon the stage they call "court". In some sense, anybody that truly desires to improve their circumstances beyond the "norm", has a greed of some kind driving them. And, there's really nothing wrong with that. Without greed there would be no progress in the world - we would still be living in caves and crude huts! However, it is the means they use to achieve their goals, that distinguishes between appropriate behaviors and inappropriate behaviors. Figuratively speaking, if they leave a "pile of bodies" (backstabbing, cheating, lying, and intentionally destroying the hopes and careers of others for the furtherance of their own personal goals)  in their wake, their actions would be considered inappropriate by most right-minded people (politics is the best example of people demonstrating those behaviors).

Pay our politicians more? NO WAY! They aren't working for "We the People". They are working to further their own agendas, and to hell with their constituents - the people who pay their salaries. Put them on a "piece-rate" - where they only get paid for the days the individual was there, and only for passing legislation that benefits the entire nation. Limit them to two terms, no retirement until they reach the prevailing Social Security retirement age (at which time they get no more in government retirement than 50% of their last federal paycheck), cut their staffing in half, and eliminate all perks that working-class people do not get (i.e. - free meals, free haircuts, etc). We need to refresh our Congress, and the government in general.