Liberal Rhetoric 101: Overgeneralization

"Jihadists are right wing, as is the Tea Party!"

"The Ku Klux Klan is right wing, so is the Tea Party!"


 "Jesus taught to help the poor, ergo massive government welfare is Biblical!"

I'm guessing you've heard these claims, yes? It's all part of the liberal practice of taking a subject, looking at it from a great distance and boiling them down to a single common denominator while ignoring the dozens of other significant differences between the two. 

Lets consider the above three examples, shall we?

"Jihadists are right wing, as is the Tea Party!" and "The Ku Klux Klan is right wing, so is the Tea Party!" belong in the same explanation, so we'll treat them together.

The argument is based on the overgeneralized fact that "Radical Islam, the Ku Klux Klan and the Tea Party are on the political right.  While this is true, there is a matter of scale that is ignored by this comparison (please excuse the crudity of this model, it IS NOT to scale):

Note that while the Tea Party, the Ku Klux Klan and Radical Islam (as well as Monarchy, added in for comparison) are on the right wing of the spectrum. But no one who actually UNDERSTANDS the Tea Party (rather than the Drive-By Media's meme of the Tea Party) could consider it the same as the KKK or Radical Islam.

The Tea Party stands for equality and freedom FOR ALL, irregardless of race, in stark contrast to the KKK. It stands for a Constitutional Representative Republic, not a monarch, in stark contrast to monarchy. Finally, the Tea Party stands for the First Amendment's protection of Freedom of Religion, in stark contrast to Radical Islam.

The same would be true if a conservative were to attempt to claim that American Liberalism was the equivalent of Nazism (yes, the NAZI party was the NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY aka Left Wing, not right) or Communism. While these two factions do fall on the Left of the political spectrum, they are starkly farther to the Left than American Liberalism. (Comparing American Liberalism to European Socialism is a close comparison, however.)

Now for my third example:

"Jesus taught to help the poor, ergo massive government welfare is Biblical!"

While Christianity teaches us to help and provide for the poor, and liberals (at least claim) to try to help the poor using government welfare, there is a major difference in the way Jesus taught us to help the poor and how liberals try to help the poor. as I've pointed out over and over, there is no place in the Bible where Jesus said "Give your money to the government, and let the government help the poor." There's nowhere ANYWHERE in the Bible where God commands the government to care for the poor.

Even though liberals love to give the false impression that conservatives don't care about the poor, it's just not true. It's just that our plan to help the poor doesn't involve government. We believe in the Biblical model of individuals helping the poor either directly or through private charities.

All three of these examples show the liberal mentality of looking at things from only one angle, without looking at the nuances and specifics of the situations which make these supposed equivalencies not actual equivalencies.  To respond to these arguments is simple. Just take the time to break down the sheer ridiculousness of these comparisons by discussing the very nuances and specifics that make the equivalencies not equivalent.

*yes I AM quoting Back to the Future intentionally

Left Still Waiting for that Elusive "Tea Party" Attacker

The Left was quick to surmise that the Boston Marathon bombing came from some sort of "right wing activist."

According to PMS-NBC's Iraqi Defense Minister act-alike Chris Matthews, "Domestic terrorists...tend to be on the far right." CNN Analyst Peter Bergen asked "Right-Wing Extremists to blame for explosions?" Salon.com writer David Sirota said "Let's hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a White American."

Not surprisingly to anyone without a deep desire to blame political opponents, it turned out the bombers were Islamic Jihadists.

It's hardly the first time the Left has immediately blamed conservatives in general and the Tea Party in specific. When James Holmes was identified as the shooter, the Left immediately jumped to suggest that he was a Tea Party member.  When Jared Loughner went on a shooting spree, killing six people and severely injuring several people including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the Left immediately suggested Loughner was a Tea Partier. He wasn't. Officially he was a registered Independent, but his writings suggested not a right wing extremist but a left wing extremist!

While some could argue that Islamic Jihadists are officially on the "right wing" they are not modern American conservatives in any way. They are more extremely right-wing than a monarchist. So while some liberals will claim Islamic Jihadists are "technically right-wing" it is yet another liberal false-equivalency. Same can be said of right-wing extremists like the Ku Klux Klan. It is a classic liberal false equivalency, just as it would be false to lump in most American liberals with Communism. (Comparing them to European style Socialism is fair based on a true equivalency of policies. Communism is inaccurate.)

The Tea Party stands for classic American ideals like keeping government as small as reasonably possible, keeping taxes as reasonably low as reasonably possible, and keeping people personally responsible for their own lives. The Tea Party is not extreme in the first place...it is classic American conservatism. The attempt to lump us in with Islamic Jihadists is an incredible lie.

Ultimately, every time there is an attack the Left will openly hope and suggest it is a Tea Partier, and so far it just keeps ending up being Jihadists. Maybe, and I know this is asking for a lot, maybe the Drive-By Media could knock off the politically based speculation and...oh I don't know...report the news?

I guess that'd be too much to hope for these days.

Best of Biblical Conservatism: Letter Bag: The Difference Between Classical Liberalism and Modern Liberalism

Today, on Best of Biblical Conservatism, we have one of our most popular posts of all time!

I received an annonymous comment recently (for the sake of this post, we'll call that person Anny) on an a post on a post from a few weeks ago that I wanted to address it here.  The post was Dissecting the Liberal Talking Points: The Tea Party isn't Going Anywhere.  Here was the comment:

Liberalism: political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others; but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. As the revolutionary American pamphleteer Thomas Paine expressed it in Common Sense (1776), government is at best “a necessary evil.” Laws, judges, and police are needed to secure the individual’s life and liberty, but their coercive power may also be turned against him." (and it continues...)

The Tea Party is therefore liberal.

It's an interesting point, Anny.  It's wrong, but it's an interesting point. What this individual doesn't recognize is the difference between Classical liberalism and Modern liberalism.  The definition given above is the definition of Classical liberalism.  For those of you who aren't familiar with the term, Classical liberalism is focused on liberty.  It supports small government, individual rights, and the Constitution.  When our nation was founded, it was a relatively liberal idea, which is to say it was to the left of the monarchy.  (Conservatism is to the left of monarch too, by the way.)

You see, in 1776 and 1787, Anny, the ideas that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution espoused were radical.  They aren't radical anymore.  Our founders created these values new, now we conservatives try to maintain them.

Modern liberalism is not about small government, it's about big government.  It's not about individual freedom, it's about group conformity and government telling you what's good for you. Modern liberalism does not recognize that government can pose a threat to liberty...it sees government as the solution to problems. 

Modern liberalism is the polar opposite as Classical liberalism.  Classical liberalism is now known as conservatism.

What Anny said is a perfect example of an etymological fallacy.  For those of you who don't have degrees in Communications, an etymological fallacy "is a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning." (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means believing that what a word originally meant is what it means today.)

Liberal doesn't mean what it meant in our founders day.  The same is true of many other words.  In 1776 if a man had a "gay kid" that meant they had a "happy baby goat."  Does it mean that now, Anny?  Of course not.  Few people think of a kid as a baby goat anymore, even though that is the origin of the word, and few people still think gay means happy.

In short, the Tea Party is Classically liberal, which is synonymous with Modern conservatism.  Sorry, Anny, but in our modern context the Tea Party is conservative.

Comments are always welcomed on posts, provided they are in line with the Rules for Comments.  Please note any comment may become subject matter for a future post, as my personal interest and news cycles require. 

Obamacare Ruling Has Just Woken a Sleeping Giant

It's name is the Tea Party. Friends, do you know what caused the Tea Party? It was Obamacare. The Tea Party was kind of in a lull until yesterday's ruling by the Supreme Court. Now, friends, you've just made us angry. And we get organized when we're angry.

Mitt Romney's biggest problem...an excitement gap...just went bye bye. Because now conservatives are necessarily bent on getting rid of Obamacare at the ballot box. We always were, friends...it's just we were hoping the Supreme Court would stand up for liberty. They didn't. Well, Chief Justice Roberts didn't. (Still mad at you, buddy.) As conservatives, we believe in personal responsibility, and not the forced kind. If you want to purchase health insurance, fine. If you choose not to, that's fine too, but don't ask us to pay for it with our tax dollars. (We may be willing to pay for it in our churches and charities, just not through taxes.)

The Tea Party just woke up, friends. Mitt Romney just got huge boost. Because the Tea Party is once again awake and by the way, we're still mad as hell. We are not going to take this ruling lying down. If the Supreme Court is going to refuse to uphold the Constitution, then we're going to do it at the ballot box.

My fellow Tea Party patriots, get ready, because Election 2010: The Sequel is in post-production. Debuts on November 6, 2012. Game on.

Rumors of the Tea Party's Death Are Greatly Exaggerated

It's been claimed by the Drive-By Media and even some conservative media sources are saying the Tea Party is dead, citing the nomination of Mitt Romney by the Republican Party. But to paraphrase Mark Twain, the rumors of the Tea Party's demise have been greatly exaggerated.

First and foremost, and I have said this many times, the simple fact that Mitt Romney was the "establishment candidate" in this primary season shows the power of the Tea Party. In 2008, Romney was the "conservative alternative" to John McCain.  Now he's the establishment candidate.  Compared to the last few establishment candidates (John McCain, George W. Bush, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush), Mitt is quite conservative. The Tea Party made that happen, my friends.

While we're at it, let's look at last week's Wisconsin Recall. Scott Walker, despite the massive onslaught from Big Unions, kept his job and in fact gained support over his 2010 election. Who do you think got Walker elected? The Tea Party, friends. And who do you think helped him keep his job? The Tea Party.

Or how about some of the Democrats nationally that are having to govern according to conservative principles. Take New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. While his social policies are as liberal as can be, his fiscal policies have been right out of the Tea Party. He has refused to raise taxes, recognizing FINALLY that businesses are leaving New York State in droves for a better business climate. And since it's a whole lot easier to leave a state and go to another state to do business then it is to move your business out of the nation, such moves happen a lot.

Yet another sign of the Tea Party's power showed up in my mailbox last week. The conservative Republican County Executive of my own county in New York, Maggie Brooks, is running to be my district's representative in the House of Representatives. Friends, I've gone to multiple candidate vettings at my 9/12 Project meetings (by the way, this is a branch of the Tea Party...oh and still going strong) and I've heard the the Republican Party representatives tell us "we've got a really deep bench in New York at the local level that can run for national office."  When I heard Maggie Brooks was running for Congress my thought was "it's about darn time your 'deep bench' yielded a solid conservative!"

Friends, the Tea Party is most definitely not dead. We have simply begun to take over the Republican Party. Which is precisely what we set out to do...turn the GOP back into the conservative party it claimed to be. At the end of the day, he who disregards the Tea Party does so at his peril.

Best of Biblical Conservatism: The Difference Between Classical Liberalism and Modern Liberalism

This week, since I'm on my annual Christmas vacation, I've been posting "The Best of Biblical Conservatism" with selections from 2011's ten most popular posts. Today's was originally posted on September 15, 2011.

I received an annonymous comment recently (for the sake of this post, we'll call that person Anny) on an a post on a post from a few weeks ago that I wanted to address it here.  The post was Dissecting the Liberal Talking Points: The Tea Party isn't Going Anywhere.  Here was the comment:

Liberalism: political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others; but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. As the revolutionary American pamphleteer Thomas Paine expressed it in Common Sense (1776), government is at best “a necessary evil.” Laws, judges, and police are needed to secure the individual’s life and liberty, but their coercive power may also be turned against him." (and it continues...)

The Tea Party is therefore liberal.

It's an interesting point, Anny.  It's wrong, but it's an interesting point. What this individual doesn't recognize is the difference between Classical liberalism and Modern liberalism.  The definition given above is the definition of Classical liberalism.  For those of you who aren't familiar with the term, Classical liberalism is focused on liberty.  It supports small government, individual rights, and the Constitution.  When our nation was founded, it was a relatively liberal idea, which is to say it was to the left of the monarchy.  (Conservatism is to the left of monarch too, by the way.)

You see, in 1776 and 1787, Anny, the ideas that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution espoused were radical.  They aren't radical anymore.  Our founders created these values new, now we conservatives try to maintain them.

Modern liberalism is not about small government, it's about big government.  It's not about individual freedom, it's about group conformity and government telling you what's good for you. Modern liberalism does not recognize that government can pose a threat to liberty...it sees government as the solution to problems. 

Modern liberalism is the polar opposite as Classical liberalism.  Classical liberalism is now known as conservatism.

What Anny said is a perfect example of an etymological fallacy.  For those of you who don't have degrees in Communications, an etymological fallacy "is a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning." (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means believing that what a word originally meant is what it means today.)

Liberal doesn't mean what it meant in our founders day.  The same is true of many other words.  In 1776 if a man had a "gay kid" that meant they had a "happy baby goat."  Does it mean that now, Anny?  Of course not.  Few people think of a kid as a baby goat anymore, even though that is the origin of the word, and few people still think gay means happy.

In short, the Tea Party is Classically liberal, which is synonymous with Modern conservatism.  Sorry, Anny, but in our modern context the Tea Party is conservative.

Comments are always welcomed on posts, provided they are in line with the Rules for Comments.  Please note any comment may become subject matter for a future post, as my personal interest and news cycles require. 

Tea Party Meeting in Rochester, NY Results in ZERO Arrests

On Saturday, November 5th at 4:00 pm, We Surround Rochester, a local Tea Party group that is part of the 9-12 Project, met for their monthly meeting at Bathtub Billy's Restaurant, located at 630 Ridge Rd W Rochester, NY 14615 USA.  The topics discussed included the history of Veterans Day and also participation in Glenn Beck's Mercury One charitable organization. The group concluded their meeting, payed for their meals, left tips and cleaned up after themselves.

More importantly:  No one was arrested. A simple google search of news articles "Arrests at 912 Meeting in Rochester NY" returned zero stories. A second google search of news articles "Rape accusations at 912 Meeting in Rochester NY" also returned zero results.

As a part of my dilligence for this post, I made a phone call to Bathtub Billy's and spoke to an employee who was present on Saturday at the meeting. When I asked him if there had been any arrests at the meeting, he laughed at me and said "No, there has never been an arrest," and noted that the group "always peacably demonstrates."  In speaking with a fellow member of the group I was told that he "would willingly leave a $20 bill on the table at a We Surround Rochester meeting and trust that it would be there at the end of the night."

Why does this matter?  Well, the Drive-By Media is telling us how the Occupy Protests are the liberal Tea Party, aren't they?  So let's look at the same google search as it pertains to Occupy Rochester:  A google search of "Occupy Rochester Arrests" shows stories where 32 people and 16 people were arrested on different days at Occupy Rochester protests in the first three articles listed.

As far as rape accusations, there have been zero at Occupy Rochester, for the record, however, Occupy Wall Street has seen quite a few rape accusations surface.  And I'm pretty sure a wise individual wouldn't leave a $20 bill lying out at one of those protests.

Yet the Left wants you to believe that the Occupy Protests are the Liberal Tea Party.  Here's one example of how it isn't:  Zero arrests in over 100 meetings from We Surround Rochester.  Compare that to dozens over a few days at Occupy Rochester.

No, the Occupy Protests aren't the equivalent of the Tea Party...the Tea Party doesn't get arrested, protests peacefully, doesn't wreck the streets, and doesn't have rapes.  Can't say that for Occupy Protests, can you?

Occupy Wall Street IS NOT the Liberals’ Tea Party

For about a month now, the Occupy Wall Street protests have been going on, protesting things that, as I have said before, are none of their business like business profits and the size of corporate bonuses, not to mention the fact that businesses haven’t hired even though they have the money. (Which misses the entire point of why a business hires a new employee. I have the financial ability to hire a babysitter for Friday night. I don’t have a child, and thus I don’t NEED a babysitter. I’m not going to hire a babysitter so some teenager can have money.) Now the Left and the Drive-By Media want to compare this movement to the Tea Party.

Friends, Occupy Wall Street is not the liberal equivalent of the Tea Party for so very many reasons, some of which I will enumerate in a moment. Before I do, I’d like to explain why the left so desperately wants their own version of the Tea Party: They are jealous of the Tea Party. The Tea Party sprang up from the grassroots level without any prompting from the national party or massive donors. It came up because many Americans are frustrated with the way Obama in specific and government in general is going about their business. Out of that came a peaceful, respectful movement that has changed the political landscape. It is not unlike the way the Civil Rights movement sprung up…and once again, like the Civil Rights movement, it was a Republican movement. But I digress.

So know let’s talk about WHY Occupy Wall Street is not a Left wing equivalent of the Tea Party:

- The Tea Party happened on its own. Occupy Wall Street was created by Big Unions, liberal activist groups like MoveOn.org and other George Soros funded groups, and is being egged on by the mainstream Democrat Party. The Tea Party, in contrast, is often disliked by the mainstream Republican Party.

- There has still never been an arrest at a Tea Party rally. We in the Tea Party clean up after ourselves, we stick within the Time, Place and Manner restrictions placed on us by the protest permits we’re given, and do not cause problems for law enforcement or other people who are near our protest. Meanwhile, Occupy Wall Street has already seen dozens of arrests, have violated the Time, Place and Manner restrictions of their permits, have attempted to stop traffic by marching not on the sidewalks but in the streets, and have generally been menaces to those around them.

- The Tea Party knows what we stand for and what we are trying to achieve: Small, unobtrusive government and the maximum amount of freedom for all Americans that can be provided, a minimal tax burden, and equality of opportunity for all (not of result, but of opportunity). Interviews with Occupy Wall Street protesters show that they don’t have much of a platform, except for “life isn’t fair”, “someone else has what I want and I want it,” some sputtering about wealth inequality, and some bumper sticker slogans about the wealthy paying “their fair share” even though no one can define what that “fair share” is, except for it’s more than what’s being paid now.

- The Tea Party formed around its issues, Occupy Wall Street formed and NOW is trying to establish its issues. The Occupy Wall Street leadership has had to post a vote on its Facebook page to decide WHAT their demands are. They formed a protest, they’re in progress of protesting, and only now are they trying to figure out what they want. To use a term from the movie PCU, it’s a movement of Causeheads. There is a group of people who wants to protest SOMETHING, and now they are filling in their own private frustrations with an occasional semi-legitimate grievance. Meanwhile the Tea Party has always stood for specific Constitutional values.

No, my friends, Occupy Wall Street is not a leftwing equivalent of the Tea Party. It’s a cheap knockoff that rose up out of the liberal desire to protest anything that they don’t like, regardless of the legitimacy of those frustrations or their right to demand reparations for harms not perpetrated. The Democrat Party and the Left deeply desire their own version of the Tea Party. Unfortunately for liberals, Occupy Wall Street is not it.

Letter Bag: The Difference Between Classical Liberalism and Modern Liberalism

I received an annonymous comment recently (for the sake of this post, we'll call that person Anny) on an a post on a post from a few weeks ago that I wanted to address it here.  The post was Dissecting the Liberal Talking Points: The Tea Party isn't Going Anywhere.  Here was the comment:

Liberalism: political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others; but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. As the revolutionary American pamphleteer Thomas Paine expressed it in Common Sense (1776), government is at best “a necessary evil.” Laws, judges, and police are needed to secure the individual’s life and liberty, but their coercive power may also be turned against him." (and it continues...)

The Tea Party is therefore liberal.

It's an interesting point, Anny.  It's wrong, but it's an interesting point. What this individual doesn't recognize is the difference between Classical liberalism and Modern liberalism.  The definition given above is the definition of Classical liberalism.  For those of you who aren't familiar with the term, Classical liberalism is focused on liberty.  It supports small government, individual rights, and the Constitution.  When our nation was founded, it was a relatively liberal idea, which is to say it was to the left of the monarchy.  (Conservatism is to the left of monarch too, by the way.)

You see, in 1776 and 1787, Anny, the ideas that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution espoused were radical.  They aren't radical anymore.  Our founders created these values new, now we conservatives try to maintain them.

Modern liberalism is not about small government, it's about big government.  It's not about individual freedom, it's about group conformity and government telling you what's good for you. Modern liberalism does not recognize that government can pose a threat to liberty...it sees government as the solution to problems. 

Modern liberalism is the polar opposite as Classical liberalism.  Classical liberalism is now known as conservatism.

What Anny said is a perfect example of an etymological fallacy.  For those of you who don't have degrees in Communications, an etymological fallacy "is a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning." (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means believing that what a word originally meant is what it means today.)

Liberal doesn't mean what it meant in our founders day.  The same is true of many other words.  In 1776 if a man had a "gay kid" that meant they had a "happy baby goat."  Does it mean that now, Anny?  Of course not.  Few people think of a kid as a baby goat anymore, even though that is the origin of the word, and few people still think gay means happy.

In short, the Tea Party is Classically liberal, which is synonymous with Modern conservatism.  Sorry, Anny, but in our modern context the Tea Party is conservative.

Comments are always welcomed on posts, provided they are in line with the Rules for Comments.  Please note any comment may become subject matter for a future post, as my personal interest and news cycles require. 

Guest Post: 100 Reasons To Call Me A Tea Partier!

It is rare that I feature a guest poster and even rarer that said guest post wasn't specifically requested on a particular topic.  However, once in a while, a fellow blogger writes something that is so dead on that I want to feature it on Biblical Conservatism.  Today is on of those rare days.  So please welcome today's guest poster, Melody Kite!

A montage of pictures from the 9/12/2009 March on the Capitol

1. I am a Tea Partier, because I believe our Founding Documents were inspired by God, and that those rights are God given.

2. I am a Tea Partier because I uphold and defend The United States Constitution.

3. I am a Tea Partier because we are Taxed Enough Already.

4. I am a Tea Partier because I believe our elected officials should be held accountable for their policies, votes

5. I am a Tea Partier because I like to sing the National Anthem, and I stand when it is played

6. I am a Tea Partier because I like to say the Pledge of Allegiance, and I stand and place my hand on my heart when I pledge my allegiance.

7. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in the limited government outlined by the US Constitution.

8. I am a Tea Partier because I accept my First Amendment Responsibility and Obligation.

9. I am a Tea Partier because I believe an engaged and informed voter protects against Government Abuses.

10. I am a Tea Partier because my fellow Patriots help me to stay informed.

11. I am a Tea Partier because I demand our Government live within it's means.

12. I am a Tea Partier because I believe this Republic is Over Regulated.

13. I am a Tea Partier because I believe this Republic needs Entitlement Reform.

14. I am a Tea Partier because I insist that Obama Care be repealed or overturned by the United States Supreme Court.

15. I am a Tea Partier because I insist that the Dodd Frank Bill be repealed or overturned by the United States Supreme Court.

16. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that ALL US coded laws should be enforced at every Government level, Local, County, State and Federal.

18. I am a Tea Partier because I support our Troops.

19. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in Free Speech.

20. I am a Tea Partier because the Main Stream Media is biased.

21. I am a Tea Partier because I think an armed citizen is a good thing.

21. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in Freedom of Religion.

22. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that our elected officials should read the bills they pass.

23. I am a Tea Partier because I do not believe in Deficit Spending.

24. I am a Tea Partier because I believe we should drill here drill now immediately.

25. I am a Tea Partier because I think that the TSA should be eliminated.

26. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in a robust National Defense.

27. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that Keynesian Economics is a failed Economic Model.

28. I am a Tea Partier because I believe like Ronald Reagan in the shining city on the hill.

29. I am a Tea Partier because I refuse to have our legacy be a crushing indebtedness for future generations to inherit as a result of fiscally irresponsible leadership by Democrats.

30. I am a Tea Partier because I have a solemn obligation to those who have given their all that I do with a ballot what our nation has asked those in our Armed Forces to do with a bullet.

31. I am a Tea Partier because I believe we should end the IRS and have a Flat Tax.

32. I am a Tear Partier because I support the Connie Mack One Cent Solution.

33. I am a Tea Partier because I believe the Senate should produce a Budget.

34. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in a Balanced Budget Amendment.

35. I am a Tea Partier because I believe Affirmative Action is bad for America.

36. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that an intact family is the building block of a healthy society.

37. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that elected officials who violate their oath of office should lose their retirement benefits.

38. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that elected officials who break their oath of office should be prosecuted.

39. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that every candidate should have full disclosure of birth records, college records, service records and tax records and that those records be a matter of public record.

40. I am a Tea Partier because I am against the Federal Government suing states that have modeled Immigration Bills after coded US laws on the books.

41. I am a Tea Partier because I celebrate Easter, Memorial Day, the 4th of July, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas.

42. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that signing onto UN policy driven by despots, thugs and Communists is bad foreign policy.

43. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that TARP was a bad unexplained crisis, and that all TARP funds should be paid back.

44. I am a Tea Partier because I did not support the 2nd Stimulus.

45. I am a Tea Partier because I did not support the GM & Chrysler Bailouts.

46. I am a Tea Partier and I do not believe Geithner, a Tax cheat should be Secretary of the Treasury.

47. I am a Tea Partier because I do not support the appointment of CZARS who write policy outside of Legislative Oversight.

48. I am a Tea Partier because I believe Eric Holder should resign.
49. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that Operation Gun Runner broke US laws.

50. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that Carole Ann Browner should resign.

51. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that Lisa Jackson should resign.

52. I am a Tea Partier because I believe Ken Salazar should resign.

53. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that Stephen Chu should resign.

54. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that Sonja Sotomayor should never have won appointment to the
United States Supreme Court.

55. I am a Tea Partier because I believe Elena Kagan should not have been appointed to the Supreme Court

56. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that the President of the United States should only bow when he is in prayer.

57. I am a Tea Partier because I believe it is dangerous fiscal policy for our enemies to hold our debt.

58. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that Nidal Hassan should have been condemned by a Military Court Marshall and sentenced to Death by a Firing Squad.

59. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that is 11 years past time to bring the perpetrators of the attack on the USS Cole to Justice and they be tried by a Military Tribunal.

60. I am a Tea Partier and I support the US war on Terrorism.

61. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that no enemy combatant should be given US Miranda Rights.

62. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that the Underwear bomber should be tried by a Military Tribunal.

63. I am a Tea Partier because I support Israel.

64. I am a Tea Partier because I support Enhanced Interrogation Techniques for Enemy Combatants.

65. I am a Tea Partier and I believe we should not be bombing Libya.

66. I am a Tea Partier because I think that Eric Holder should have prosecuted the New Black Panther
Party for Voter Intimidation in Philadelphia in the 2008 Presidential Election.

67. I am a Tea Partier because I believe Janet Napalitano should seal the border.

68. I am a Tea Partier because I believe the US Federal Government should be subject to Sunshine Laws with the exception of our national security.

69. I am a Tea Partier because I support Darrel Issa's Committee Investigation of Operation GunRunner.

70. I am a Tea Party because I believe that God should be part of a funeral service at National Cemeteries if the family so wishes.

71. I am a Tea Partier because I am offended by Obama's Ramadan Addresses.

72. I am a Tea Partier because I do not support registered Socialist and Registered Communist holding public office.

73. I am a Tea Partier because I do not support the Federal Government awarding Grants to Universities & Colleges, whether they are Private or State Or County Institutions.

74. I am a Tea Partier because I am opposed to Federal, State, County or Municipal Unions.

75. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that Republicans should stand on Principle.

76. I am a Tea Partier because I believe we should not be trading jobs, and manufacturing to buy allies.

77. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in Free Markets.

78. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that what my local municipality can do the county should not, what my county can do the state should not, and what my state can do the Federal Government should not.

79. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in Right to Work Laws.

80. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that DADT is bad policy for the Military.

81. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that the DOMA laws should be enforced.

82. I am a Tea Partier because I do not believe that our taxes should be used for PBS.

83. I am a Tea Partier because I believe the Federal Government is too large.

84. I am a Tea Partier because I believe the United States Government should not be restoring mosques around the world.

85. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in the Right To Life and I am against abortion.

86. I am a Tea Partier because I believe every voter should show a picture ID and their voter registration card.

87. I am a Tea Partier because I believe all illegal aliens should be sent back to their country of origin.

88. I am a Tea Partier because I do not engage in politically correct discourse.

89. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in profiling.

90. I am a Tea Partier because I believe our nation is under threat from those who would do us harm, which includes Progressives, Islamic Terrorism and those who find our Constitution fatally flawed.

91. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that Iran is a threat to this nation.

92. I am a Tea Partier because I proudly wave old glory.

93. I am a Tea Partier because I believe I have a responsibility to actively participate in my First Amendment responsibility to address our elected officials to address my opposition to their policies.

94. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in protecting the founding ideals of this Republic.

95. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in traditional American values.

96. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in personal responsibility.

97. I am a Tea Partier because I believe our government has strayed from it's founding principles.

98. I am a Tea Partier because I believe this nation is the worlds last best hope.

99. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in American Excellence and Exceptionalism

100. I am a Tea Partier because my participation in the Tea Party drives the Mainstream Media, Pundits on the left, Democrats, Progressives and socialist crazy!


Melody Kite is a Conservative Blogger from the great state of Texas.  You can read her blog at http://perfectionunderaredumbrella.blogspot.com/ and follow her on Twitter.

Dissecting the Liberal Talking Points: The Tea Party Isn't Going Anywhere

The Drive-By Media has been pushing the idea that "the Tea Party's power has peaked" in recent weeks.  I'm here to tell you that's wishful thinking on the part of the Left.  The Tea Party's power hasn't begun to peak. 

Let's start by examining what birthed the Tea Party in the first place: 

- Barrack Obama's liberal policies in general.

- Obama and the Democrats ramming Obamacare down our throats.

- The Republican party's failure to be legitimately conservative and spending money like liberals.

Just for the record, Obama is still governing like a liberal, Obama and the Democrats are still refusing to even allow an Obamacare repeal to come to a vote, and the GOP is still playing the Washington political "compromise" game and thus costing us our AAA credit rating from Standard and Poors. Although some Republicans, namely the Tea Party, are doing exactly what they were sent to Washington to do.

People are still mad at the way the government is running.  79% of Americans say the country is heading in the wrong direction, including 63% of Democrats. (1)  The President's approval rating sits at 42% according to Rasmussen (2) and 39% according to Gallup (3) as of Thursday's samples.  Self described Independents approval of the President is down to 35% according to another Gallup poll earlier this week (4), making Obama's only above 50% rating with Democrats.

Nothing in this data suggests that the Tea Party is going to disappear. People are still, to use the term, "mad as Hell."  The healthy outlet of that anger is the Tea Party and is carried out in peaceful protests and the ballot box. 

The Drive-By Media is hoping against hope that the Tea Party will disappear.  I'm happy to disappoint you liberals, the Tea Party isn't going away.  We stand for conservatism and the Constitution, God and country.  We're going to keep fighting the good fight because America is worth fighting for.  No amount of hoping is going to turn the nation into a nation of liberals.  We aren't.  As long as you try to push your liberalism on us, there will still be a Tea Party.  Deal with it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Rasmussen: Right Track or Wrong Track

(2) Rasmussen: Obama Approval Index History

(3) Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval

(4) Gallup Presidential Job Approval Center

The Tea Party is not Synonymous with the Republican Party

Like it or not, the Tea Party is one of the most powerful entities in American politics.  It was the Tea Party that lead the Republican Party to victory in 2010.  I believe it is the Tea Party that will help defeat Obama and win back the Senate in 2012.  Yet many people think the Tea Party is synonymous with the Republican Party.  I'm here to tell you as a card carrying Tea Party member, we aren't the same thing as the GOP. 

Let me explain, first and foremost, who the Tea Party is (and is not).  We are Americans who are fed up with the way Washington is spending our money (that's right, our money). We believe in the Constitution of the United States and freedom.  We believe that the government that governs least governs best.  We want the minimal amount of government possible to protect our essential freedoms.

We are not anarchists; we do recognize government is an unfortunate necessity.  We are not opposed to taxes, we just want taxes to be kept at the lowest possible level to maintain those freedoms.  We are not opposed to a social safety net and programs like unemployment, we just don't want that net to be a hammock.  We aren't racist, we are just opposed to a liberal President who just so happens to be black. (We didn't like Lydon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry either, and they were/are white men.)  We aren't opposed to some government regulation to protect the consumers from unfair business practices and to maintain legitimate capitalism (i.e. disallowing business trusts) but we are opposed to regulations that cripple businesses (i.e. CAFE standards on automobiles that require technology that doesn't exist yet).

We are also not mainline Republicans.  We are, by default, largely registered Republicans, but that's not the same thing as being in line with mainstream GOP values.  The Tea Party is a movement of conservatism. (1) The Republican Party is unfortunately not living up to it's conservative history (2).  The GOP too often compromises conservative good ideas with liberal bad ideas to ultimately come up with mediocre ideas.  The GOP is often far too concerned with being seen as "reasonable" and "compromising" to do the right thing.  Take the recent Debt Limit debacle.  The Tea Party plan called for $4 Trillion in cuts over 10 years, a sum that Standard and Poors said would prevent a credit rating reduction.  The GOP compromised, and the nation was hurt by it.  The elected members of the Tea Party fought that compromise. (3)

Make no mistake about it: There are differences between the Tea Party and the GOP.  For starters, the Tea Party has many Democrats and Independents in the fold.  The common thread is conservatism and Constitutional values.  We stand for more than Washington politics as usual.  The Republican Party was and is a willing participant in Washington's failures.  However, we are not the Republican party...yet.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) I am a Conservative, not a Republican

(2) The Real History of Democrats and Republicans

(3) Reactions to the Debt Limit Deal - Assigning Blame

Reactions to the Debt Limit Deal - Assigning Blame

For the past few days, we've delved into the problems with the debt limit deal that was signed last week. Today, we're going to talk about who is to blame for this bad deal, and there is plenty to go around.

Before we get to the deal, I'm going to tell you who ISN'T to blame: the Tea Party. Despite what the President and the Drive-By Media are trying to tell us, the Tea Party tried to do the right thing. S & P gave a specific recommendation to avoid a drop in our credit rating: cut at least $4 Trillion over the next ten years. The Cut, Cap and Balance plan did just that and more. When the House was given the chance to vote on Cut, Cap and Balance, they passed it. Then Harry Reid refused to let it see a vote in the Senate. Many Tea Party members even refused to vote for the deal that was ultimately passed. I’ve said since the election that we need to keep a separate scorecard for the Tea Party. In this debate, the Tea Party gets A’s.

Now to pass out blame: I’m going to break with my usual pattern here, and start with the old guard Republicans. This includes the RINOs, but it’s not just the Republicans in name only to blame here. There are some legitimate Republicans who caved on this deal. Speaker Boehner, I’ve defended you, but you are chief amongst the cavers.

Speaker Boehner and other Republicans acted in fear. Typical of modern GOP, there was a widespread fear that if the GOP didn’t pass a debt limit increase, the Drive-By Media would be super mean to Republicans and call them mean names and generally pick on them and ultimately blame them for the default. Just for the record, what would you call what’s going on now?

The Drive-By Media and Liberals in general were always going to blame the Republican Party. They’ve tried to blame the Tea Party for the S & P credit rating downgrade, which we’ve already shown is as ridiculous as finding an emotional engineer. (To any engineers reading, I have the utmost respect for engineers. My hero, my late grandfather, was an engineer. No offense intended.) The choice for the GOP to avoid blame didn’t exist. What did exist was a choice between being criticized for doing the right thing or being criticized for doing the wrong thing. The GOP chose to do the wrong thing.

I for one am absolutely sick and tired of the cowardice shown by the old guard GOP. We put you back in power so you could do things the right way, not play politics as usual. You’ve chosen to play politics as usual. As a Tea Party member, I can guarantee you that you will be facing primary challenges in 2012 in the best case scenario. (Speaker Boehner, that means you.) At worst, if wiser heads do not prevail, you may have just divided the GOP.

Now to the Democratic Party and President Obama: You had no plan, but continually shot down every plan suggested. You continued to demand tax increases in a bad economy with unemployment remaining above 9%, a move that would have been poison to the economy, because it’s page one in your playbook. Rather than do the right thing for the American people, you demonized the Cut, Cap and Balance plan that 66% of Americans supported and refused to even let it come to a vote. When I called the GOP cowards, I saved some for you too. You were too cowardly to do the right thing in favor of sticking to your politics.
America is not Liberal. We do not want your redistributionist policies. That’s why you have to lie about them to get elected and pretend to be moderates. In 2010 we shellacked you. In 2012, be ready for more of the same as the Tea Party continues to take over the American political scene.

In the end, this bad deal is bad for America. Even with the cuts included, we will be doubling our debt in the next ten years. It is a mathematical certainty that if we continue to spend in deficits to this degree we will ultimately be bankrupt. It is time to get our fiscal house in order, and that means real, significant cuts in spending. $2.1 Trillion in cuts is not enough. We needed to get to the point where we are cutting $16 Trillion over ten years. We cannot afford more of this spending. It’s time to get really serious about cutting spending. With the exception of the Tea Party, no one in elected office is serious. That means it’s time to get rid of them. 2012, here we come!

Reactions to the Debt Limit Deal - By the Percentages

To my regular readers: I apologize that it has taken nearly a week for me to offer my response to the debt ceiling deal that was passed by Congress last week. As my notes on my “Treatise on Biblical Conservatism” that was posted last week stated, I was on vacation and unable to pen a response. However, the silver lining to this delay is the ability to see the reactions to the deal that happened in the past week and thus the ability to respond to them. Quite frankly, there is too much to deal with in one day’s posting, so we’re going to analyze this deal over the next few days.


Last week, Democrats and Republicans agreed to increase the nation’s debt limit by $2.1 Trillion in exchange for cuts in the amount of $2.5 Trillion. Since that deal was struck, there have been many, many commentaries on the deal. Nearly a week after the deal was signed; it’s time for a Biblical Conservatism reaction.

It’s an insufficient deal, pure and simple. Many of my fellow Conservatives are calling this a bad deal, and I’m forced to agree. It’s bad for America, because it failed to begin to deal with the real spending issues our nation is currently facing in any real way. Yes, there were $1 Trillion in immediate caps in spending, which are insufficient, but at least a positive step, and a demand for $1.5 Trillion to be cut in the following 10 years. On the surface, it seems like a start, albeit a very slow start.

Yet there are problems with this deal. Today, we’ll deal with the first issue, the deal by the percentages:

Let’s be generous and assume those cuts happen. After all, there is a provision in the deal that has been passed into law that requires those cuts to happen…so if the committee that has been created by the law does not enact those cuts, they will be automatically triggered. (There’s a huge issue with the nature of those triggers which we will discuss later.) We’ll also be generous to Congress and assume that the GOP will, at the very least, disallow any new spending by Obama and the Democrats, and thus we will assume that the 2011 spending levels (remember, there was no budget, thanks to Obama and the Democrats) will be maintained for the next ten years. So we’ll assume a $3.82 Trillion in expenditures annually and $2.17 Trillion in incoming revenue, meaning an annual deficit of $1.65 Trillion.

So, if we simply assume maintenance of those amounts, we’re staring down the barrel of $16.5 Trillion in new deficits (and thus new debt) in the next ten years. With the $2.5 Trillion in cuts spread across the next ten years, that’s a mere $250 Billion in cuts per year. It’s not very much. It leaves us with $1.4 Trillion in deficit spending each year. With the cuts included in the debt deal, we are down to a mere $14 Trillion in new deficit spending and thus new debt in the next 10 years. That means, with these cuts, we’re down to just under DOUBLING our debt in the next 10 years. That is not only unacceptable, it is absolutely irresponsible!

Liberals are guaranteed to try to tell you that we can make up that difference by, what else, taxing the rich, but friends, that is a lie. We cannot make up $1.4 Trillion in budget deficits by taxing the wealthy. It’s been said many times that if we were to confiscate every dollar earned over $250,000 per year and it would not make a dent in that deficit. It’s not going to make a difference.

Cutting a lousy $250 Billion each year is NOTHING. It’s not going to save this country from bankruptcy. Obama and the Democrats are not willing to make the cuts that need made. There is not enough money to keep programs like Social Security and Medicare alive for my generation. I’m paying social security taxes every paycheck, and I can basically guarantee that I will never see a dime of that money back, because right now Obama and the Democrats want to keep buying votes on the backs of the American taxpayer.

The Republicans aren’t getting off scot-free either. Speaker Boehner cut a deal that isn’t doing enough. I will grant them a bit more grace because I honestly believe a better deal would have happened with a Republican Senate and President. That being said, the GOP has a severe losers mentality. We are constantly on defense. Even though 2/3 of Americans supported the Cut, Cap and Balance plan, the GOP accepted this bad deal.

Americans are on our side, yet the Republican Party keeps acting like we have to eat the crumbs off the table. To be more specific, the old guard Republicans are used to accepting the crumbs off the table. I’ve had enough of it, and I know you have too. The Tea Party, on the other hand, has stood up for what was right and did their best to protect the American people.

I will continue to say that a third party is not the answer. A third party means Obama wins a second term. Ronald Reagan famously stated that what we need is not a third party, what we need is a revitalized second party. The Tea Party has business to conduct, no question. The place to conduct it is not going to be in the general election, but in the primaries.

Speaker Boehner needs to face a primary challenge, not because he isn’t Conservative enough…I believe in his heart he truly is a Conservative…but because he is a political coward. He’s afraid of the media saying mean things about him. He’s afraid to not be a part of the political elite. There are Conservatives in the House of Representatives who won’t cave. Paul Ryan is one. Another, if she doesn’t get the GOP nomination for President, anyway, is Michelle Bachmann. There are others as well.

Make no mistake about it, the answer is not for the Tea Party to become a third party. The answer is for the Tea Party to BECOME the Republican Party. Two election cycles at best, and we’ll be the GOP. That means no more bad debt deals, no more bad budget deals, no more political games. That, my friends, is the answer.

Tomorrow, we’ll continue discussing the debt deal by discussing the automatically triggered cuts that will go into effect if the bipartisan committee does not come up with the necessary cuts for the next ten years.

Reflections from the 4th of July

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. – Declaration of Independence

It was two hundred and thirty-five years ago yesterday that those words were officially ratified, unanimously, by the Continental Congress and our nation was born. It took the Constitution of the United States nearly ninety years after the nation’s birth to live up to that creed. It took over one hundred and eighty years for the Civil Rights Act and Brown v. Board of Education to ensure true equality in law. It took over two hundred years for the hearts and minds of Americans to truly believe these words.

Yet, in the hearts and minds of the vast majority of Americans, we have arrived at the place where we do indeed see all as created equal and judge people by their actions, not their skin tone. There are some who will claim racism as an excuse for why Conservatives dislike President Obama (ignoring the fact that one of the Tea Party’s favorite candidates is Herman Cain) or sexism as an excuse when Conservatives dislike various female politicians on the left like Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton (ignoring the fact that two of the Tea Party’s favorite candidates/potential candidates are Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin), the truth is America only sees people through their race or gender thanks to the Left reminding us of those differences.
Truth be told, the only real failures in America are due to failing our creed and our founding. We failed in the first ninety years by continuing slavery, but we righted that wrong through the blood of hundreds of thousands of Americans in the Civil War. We failed our creed by the continuance of segregation into the 1950s and 60s, but we righted that failure with Brown v. Board and the Civil Rights Act.

Today we’re in the middle of a correction, one that I believe we are winning as well, by correcting our failures to let freedom reign by allowing confiscatory taxes, regulations that stifle growth, and laws that tell people what foods they can eat or continuing to lecture people about legal habits that they, as adults, have chosen to continue with full knowledge of the dangers.

On this, the two hundred thirty-fifth anniversary of the United States, I want to encourage you who believe in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution with these words that a hero of mine wrote in 1993 after the election of Bill Clinton to the Presidency. I believe it holds true today as well:

We can win, my friends. But we can also choose not to win. It is up to us. Liberalism is failing, as I chronicle each day, and can’t beat us. Only we can make ourselves lose ground. We Conservatives must remain united, confident, on the offensive, and avoid the temptation to circle the wagons.

Liberalism is one of the most gutless choices one can make. It is easy to be a liberal. You just say yes to everything. Some guy wants to throw a rock through a window and blow up the building, you just say he has a right to do it because of some oppression he feels. You run around saying you care all day and do a few symbolic things, like conduct a bake sale and raise $150 to reduce the $4 Trillion national debt (2). Or you take your daughter to work with you one day of her life and claim she now is prepared to do battle with unfairly advantaged little boys.

Being conservative takes guts, though, because the dominant media will make fun of you, liberals will try to shut you up, leftist activists will try to intimidate you. As a conservative, you remind people that they are responsible for their fate, which is construed to be heartless, cruel and mean-spirited. As a conservative, you demand accountability while many want to go through life blameless and they’ll react angrily when you confront them with the truth. In short, you are a target when you are a conservative. We are winning, my good friends, but this skirmish will never be over, which is why you must remain confident, undaunted, and dedicated to your principles and ethics. We all must. – Rush Limbaugh, “The Way Things Ought to Be” (3)

Rush wrote that eighteen years ago. Since then, we’ve seen it play out. We chose to lose in 2006 and 2008 because the Republican Party chose to, as Rush said, “Circle the wagons.” As I’ve put it before, we chose to be the New Coke of political parties to the Democrat Pepsi (might as well just drink a Pepsi). That’s why we lost. We failed to be Conservative. In 2010, the GOP won a huge victory because we went back to being Conservative. We lived up to our country’s founding for the first time in years.

I want to encourage you on this two hundred thirty-fifth anniversary of our nation (the day after, actually) that we are winning and that we can continue to win, provided we continue to stand up for the things that Conservatism stands for: freedom, personal responsibility, and the Constitution of the United States. If we do, Barrack Obama will be a one-term President. If we do, I believe we will grow our majority in the House of Representatives and win the Senate. Only if we fail to be Conservative will we lose.

Republicans must remember who they are: We are the party who freed the slaves. We are the party who passed the Civil Rights Act. (Democrats try their best to claim that the “the Republicans of today are the Democrats of history and the Democrats of today are the Republicans of history.” It is, of course, an attempt to ignore their own poor history and lay claim to the GOP’s far more desirable history.)

We in the Tea Party must require that Conservatism out of the Republican Party in 2012. We must flock to the primaries and vote for Conservatives. We must not believe that a “moderate” is our best chance to win. It’s not. We’ve lost in national elections when we run moderates (see Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole and John McCain). We’ve won with Conservatism in national elections (see: Reagan, Bush 41 in ’88, Bush 43 in ’00 and ’04). We lost with moderates in ’76, ’92, ’06 and ’08. We’ve won with Conservatism in ‘80, ‘84, ‘88, ‘94, ‘98, ‘00, ‘02, ’04 and ’10.

If we force the GOP to live up to Conservatism, to the Constitution, we will win. History has proven that. Americans are by far more Conservative, with Liberalism in the small minority. Those numbers have changed in our favor over the last several years. My friends, we are winning. We must only choose to win.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The Declaration of Independence

(2) Nearly twenty years later it’s our debt is $14 Trillion thanks to two Liberal Democrat Presidents and their spending and a Republican President who spent like a Liberal.

(3) “The Way Things Ought to Be” by Rush Limbaugh, Copyright 1992, 1993 by Rush Limbaugh. Published by Pocket Books, a division of Simon and Schuster Inc., 1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020

House Passes Ban on Abortion Funding: Thank You Tea Party

In the "Buried by Bin Laden" files today we've got the story of how the House of Representatives passed House Resolution H.R. 3, entitled the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. (1) (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, it eliminated all taxpayer funding for abortion.)   The vote tally was 251-175 in favor of it.  All 235 Republicans were joined by 16 Democrats to pass the bill.  It now heads to the Senate.  For the record, we would only need four members of the Democrat caucus to jump ship to pass this in the Senate.  That's not insurmountable by any stretch.

Getting Obama to sign perhaps will be.  That said, let him veto it!  Dare him to veto it!  Put him on record as wanting taxpayer dollars to fund the state sanctioned murder of unborn innocent humans.  Let him have that attached to his name as we move forward toward the 2012 Election.

I have said on previous occasions that we must not only criticize the Republican Party for failures but that we must also credit them for doing what we elected them to do.  The House Republicans have come through this time. Whether or not the bill is ever made law, it is still a stance on Christian values made by the GOP.  They have stood up against the unholy sin that is abortion.

For those of you from Palm Beach, here's some biblical backing for those statements:

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.  Jeremiah 1:5

Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.
And in Your book they all were written, 
The days fashioned for me, 
When as yet there were none of them. 
 Psalm 139:15-16 

Indeed, there are very many more, but the Bible is clear that God chose us to be conceived and born when were conceived and born.  Even if you were unplanned by your parents, you were planned by God!

Those of you who read Biblical Conservatism know that I’m frequently peeved that the things the government spends my tax dollars on, whether that be on Cowboy Poetry festivals, whether that be on subsidizing “green energy” that is not only decades away from being able to fulfill our needs but is also is highly impractical, whether that be paying for the United Nations to reside in our country so they can lambast us or “Stimulus packages” that amount to nothing more than a slush fund for Obama.  Yet there is nothing that sickens me more that the money I work hard to earn is spent to murder innocent unborn children. 

You see, unlike Liberals, I recognize that every cent of the taxes I pay is really my money.  While I base my budget on my net income, I also realize my employers consider my labor is worth about 22% MORE than I actually see in my paycheck.  And at this point of my career I’m in the lower end of the middle class.  Other people are losing as much as 50-60% of their hard earned income to the Federal and state government and Liberals explain it as acceptable because “they can afford it.”  But that’s a different issue for another day.  The point is, once again, it is my money and your money that the government spends.  Every single cent of it.  It belongs to you and to me.  It doesn’t belong to the government.  It’s our money.

So when I stop and consider that money that is taken from me without a choice is being used to fund the murder of human lives. God said in the Bible that He knew us before we were even conceived.  Each unborn human that is conceived is intended to be born.  Those who God recognizes in His omnipotence are not viable are miscarried.  Only God in his omnipotence should be deciding if an innocent should be born. 

For the record, I recognize one exception.  That exception is in a life threatening situation where only one of the mother and child will survive.  In that case the doctor should follow the Hippocratic Oath and save the more viable life.  Since the Bible teaches that a child should not be punished for the sins of the father and the unborn child has not sinned if it was conceived as a result of a rape.  Therefore I believe that unborn child’s life still should be protected.

Liberals don’t want abortions to be harder to get.  They want it to be easy to be selfish.  They want it to be simple to murder an unborn child in the womb so that the parents can continue to live as they choose.  The Right to Life of the unborn child supersedes that mother’s Right to Pursue Happiness.  Liberals want policies of selfishness above all else.  Yet the same people want to eliminate capital punishment.  Think about that for a moment.  They believe it is a matter of privacy to murder an innocent unborn child but that it is wrong to exact a Biblically supported capital punishment (carried out in a humane way as 8^th Amendment to the Constitution requires).  This is the mindset of Liberalism: it's ok to murder the unborn but to carry out justice on a convicted murder is not ok.

The Tea Party has stood up for what they said they would stand up for by voting in the House of Representatives to repeal all taxpayer funding of abortion.  They have stood up for morality and the protection of innocents.  I hope and pray that this becomes a law so that my tax dollars will no longer be spent on legal murder of innocents.  So today I stand up and salute the House Republicans.  On Tuesday, they did the right thing. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) House Passes Complete Ban on Taxpayer Funding of Abortions

 Scripture taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson,
   Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Racist Cries at Tea Party Are Ad Homonym and False

The latest accusation of "racism" directed toward the Tea Party has hit the fan, in the form of a private where Obama is depicted as a monkey.  For the record, here is the picture:

(1)

Liberals, with their typical assumptions, went straight to calling it racist. To Liberals, what else could it be but racism, right?  It's the typical ad homonym argument from Liberals which attacks first and asks questions second.  Of course, the media doesn't mention the fact that it was a joke directed at birthers, saying this is the reason why Obama won't show a birth certificate is because his parents weren't human. Yes, I know calling black people "monkeys" was a favorite of legitimate racists forty years ago.  I also know Democrats frequently use the exact same type of rhetoric directed at Republicans and nobody sees an issue.  They use it to call someone a fool. Consider this image:

(2)

Liberals, of course, see absolutely nothing wrong with this particular image.  They explain it as calling Bush a fool.  It's not possible, of course, that the image of Obama was calling him a fool in a family of fools, right? It has to be racist. They draw out the race card constantly as it pertains to Obama.  I will grant you, perhaps the monkey imagery was in poor taste given the racial past of our nation.  That being said, Obama's supporters have used the "you're racist" argument to silence opponents since he hit the national scene.  Don't believe me?  Then explain to my why THIS image was also called racist:

(3)

To anyone not looking to find racism in an image, this looks like a clever pun on the symbol of the Democratic Party Donkey (4) and calling Obama a fool.  Yet the exact same Liberals claimed this, too, was racist. Because racists in the past called black people donkeys right?  They didn't?  Huh.

Herein lies the real issue.  Cries of "racist" are used by Liberals to silence Obama's critics.  They would like you to believe that if Obama was white, there would be no such objections to his policies from the Tea Party and Conservatives.  They'll tell you the facts back it up in history.  Of course, that means we disliked the policies of these politicians because they're black too, right?

2004 Democratic Presidential Nominee Senator John F. Kerry (D)

42nd President of the United States Bill Clinton (D)

39th President of the United States Jimmy Carter (D)

36th President of the United States Lyndon Johnson (D)

Wait a second, all four of those men are white!  Yet Conservatives didn't like their policies either.  Yet all four of these men have one major thing in common with President Obama.  are you ready?  THEY'RE ALL LIBERALS!  Yep, that's the common thread between all four of them. Conservatives did not like any of them politically.  In their day, each one of them was attacked for their policies very similarly to the way Barrack Obama is being attacked now.  

Let's look at the other side of this coin.  According to Liberal rhetoric, you'd believe Conservatives only support the following politicians because they're white, right?

Conservative Columnist and Former CEO of Godfather's Pizza Herman Cain

55th Governor of Louisiana Bobby Jindal (R)

Senator Marco Rubio of Florida (R)

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (Appointed by President George H.W. Bush (R) in 1990)

Wait a minute...those people aren't white.  There are two men of African decent, one man of Indian decent and one man of Cuban decent.  Shouldn't the supposedly racist Conservatives and Tea Party members hate these men too?  Yet these individuals are actually Tea Party favorites!

Here's the point:  The Tea Party isn't racist.  Conservatives aren't racist.  It's just an ad homonym argument Liberals who don't want to enter into a real discussion with us.  As I've demonstrated time and time again, Conservatism has a major advantage over Liberalism: results.  Conservatism works.  Even the examples Liberals try to give for Conservatism failing, the real issue is Liberalism hampering Conservatism. 

For example, Liberals will tell you Reaganomics didn't work because of the huge deficits created in the 80s.  Of course, what they don't tell you is that Reagan doubled tax revenues, while Liberal Democrats in Congress continued to spend $1.80 of what was brought in.  In other words, Liberals were spending 180% of tax receipts. When tax receipts were increased to a point where, if spending remained the same, should have resulted in a 20% surplus, the Liberals in Congress instead doubled their spending also, leaving with an equal percentage of deficit and a higher total dollar amount of deficit. 

History proves Conservatism and disproves Liberalism.  Liberals can't stand toe to toe with Conservatives on policy. They are TERRIFIED politically of the Tea Party because the Tea Party offers Americans a real choice, which the old guard Republican Party doesn't offer.  So they try to tear us down.  They call us racist so they can claim that we're illegitimate.  We aren't illegitimate. We're the voice of common sense in a nonsensical world.

I challenge every Liberal who reads this to stop the mudslinging.  The Tea Party is not racist.  We are rejecting a socialist President, not a black President.  Drop the ad homonym arguments and fight fair.  Or are you afraid of a fair fight?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Google Images

(2) Google Images

(3) Google Images

(4) Democrat Party Donkey - Google Images

Dear Nancy Pelosi: We Don't WANT to Agree with You!

Last week, Nancy Pelosi urged Republicans to “take back their party.”  She believes that if Republicans would just forfeit and act like Democrats, elections won’t “mean that much.”  Anybody surprised?  Nancy Pelosi does not want to lose the sweet deal she and the Democratic Party have had with the GOP the last fifteen years or so.  Ever since the Republicans took over the House of Representatives for the first time in generations in 1994, the Democrats have had Republicans who are terribly quick to play the “compromise” game which translates into giving the Democrats half of what they want when Republicans are in power.  Of course, Democrats proceed to get 100% of what they want when they are in power, meaning Democrats always get the long end of the stick.

Pelosi sees the writing on the wall.  She realizes the political threat that we in the Tea Party represent.  Her perfect world where Liberals are guaranteed at least 50% of their desires in all political dealings is about to go bye-bye because we will continue to hold the leadership of the Republican Party to the fire when they are too quick to compromise.   Pelosi, along with Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and so many other Liberal Democrats are trying to appeal to the RINOs in the Republican Party to “take the party back” so we can go back to everyone being varying degrees of Liberal.

My message to the Republican Party is (please grab the nearest Republican Party leadership member of whatever rank you can find and shout this at them):  DON’T DO IT!  Pelosi is not out for your better good and she is not out for the best for the country.  Nancy Pelosi is concerned with Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party.  She knows real competition from the GOP is the end of the sweet deal she’s had for years.  Yet if we want the country to go back to what made America great in the first place, we MUST fight.

Despite what Liberal academics keep telling you, “getting along” isn’t necessarily a good thing, and neither is “getting things done.”  As far as “getting along” is concerned, there is nothing wrong with civil discourse.  That being said, civility is not an issue that Conservatives need improvement.   What was the last time you heard a news report about a rank and file Conservative threatening somebody’s life?  (Newsflash, the Ku Klux Klan does not have Conservatives.  They have fascists.)  What was the last time that Republicans said that Democrats want old people to die and if they live they want them to eat dog food?  The answer is never.  Even though Liberalism is legitimately a racist mentality, how often do you hear Conservatives call Liberals racist?  (PS I’m going to delve into that further in an upcoming post when the news cycle gives me a day that doesn’t require a timely response.)   The answer is you don’t hear that at all from Conservatives.  From legitimate nut-job extremists like the KKK (who are the REAL right-wing extremists by the way) you hear that, and from Liberals (who are legitimate left-wing extremists).

There used to be something called the Arena of Ideas.  Notice the sports metaphor.  In the Arena of Ideas, people let their ideas compete with other ideas.  People debated.  They discussed ideas based not on intentions but on results.  People were vying not only to persuade each other but to persuade all who were hearing the debate.  Ideas competed like sports teams with the scoreboard being elections.

We’ve lost that in our society, and that is sad.  One of the things Liberal Academia has brainwashed people into believing is the idea that we should all happily coexist with our differing ideas and never try to persuade each other of our own ideas.  While this is a good idea at a family reunion or even at the office, in the area of political discourse that is baloney.    Political ideas ought to be competing for votes.  Conservatives are generally fine with this concept, while Liberals don’t want to have to stand up for their opinions in the Arena of Ideas because their ideas don’t provide results.

Rush Limbaugh has recently commented that Conservatives have a distinct advantage in this political discourse:  the truth.  What Conservatives want to put into practice WORKS.  We have a history of successfully raising more tax revenue through lower taxes.  We have a successful track record of booming economies where EVERYBODY is doing well.  Liberalism has nothing but stories of laws passed (regardless of their success) and good intentions.  When you look at the results of Liberal polices what do you see?  You see stories of crippling debt and deficits, failed programs which we’re told we need to keep pouring money into so they will work.  Look at the War on Poverty.  We have set piles upon piles of money on fire in order to fight poverty and yet the only real result of the War on Poverty is to make poverty a more comfortable situation (and one that people are willing to stay in) and more poverty.

As such I think it is quite obvious why Liberals do not want to go toe to toe in the Arena of Ideas.  That’s why Liberals have to say that Republicans want to take away senior citizen’s health care by ending Medicare and that Republicans want to eliminate Social Security.  Of course, they do not want that.  No Republican has recommended ending Social Security or ending Medicare.  Some have suggested means testing Social Security and Medicare, perhaps changing the retirement age for Social Security, all very reasonable (and fiscally sound) recommendations.  If Liberals actually spoke their intentions truthfully it would sound like this:

“We propose to spend taxpayer dollars on whatever will get us votes.  Do you want government to pay you to sculpt sculptures or paint paintings?  Even if it’s lousy?  Sure.  You’re going to vote for us right?  We will pay for absolutely everybody to receive food stamps, even if you have plenty of money to pay for food.  You’re going to vote for us right?  We will spend however much money we need to so that you will vote for us, and if we don’t have the money we will borrow it.

“By the way, you’re not smart enough to decide what food to eat.  We propose that you let us decide for you what you should eat.  Don’t worry, we’ll make sure you don’t have that make smart decisions for yourself or be free to make bad ones.  You should never smoke cigarettes because they’re bad for you, but we do need the tax dollars we get from it so keep smoking, but be aware that we’re going to talk about how bad it is for you.  Bear in mind we TOTALLY want you to keep smoking though…we need the tax dollars to buy votes. 

“Green Energy is not close to being developed.  We don’t have enough wind and solar technology to power a sizable farm much less to power the country.  Nonetheless, we want you to pretend that solar and wind power to replace fossil fuels.  Oh and please pretend ethanol is developed enough to be useful on a massive scale, regardless of the fact that there isn’t enough land in the world to grow enough corn to power the United States for a week and a half.  Oh and it’s going to cause the price of food to go up a ton.  But you feel guilty about something or other so you’ll believe us about this Green Energy, so it will definitely make you feel better (even though it won’t do a darn thing to save the planet. 

“In conclusion, vote Democrat, we’ll give you anything you ask for, funded by taxpayers.”

You couldn’t get elected Dog Catcher with that rhetoric.  Conservatives can talk about freedom to choose for yourself, about self reliance, about the successes of Economic Conservatism, the Laffer Curve and the increase in tax revenue when tax rates are kept low.  In short, we have positive things to talk about.  In a straight up debate about ideas, Conservatives will win. 

This is why Nancy Pelosi wants Republicans to agree to forfeit the true advantage we have in the truth.  She knows that the Tea Party is calling for the GOP to stand up and fight toe to toe and to talk about the truth that we have in our back pocket.  She wants us to pretend we’re even close on ideas so that the American people don’t see the legitimate differences between Republicans and Democrats.  When the choice is between Democrats and Diet Democrats in the GOP, many people will just go with Democrats.  It’s similar to when people said “New Coke tastes like Pepsi.  I might as well just drink Pepsi.”  Continuing the metaphor, however, when Americans are given the choice between Pepsi and Coca-Cola Classic, Coke wins.  Conservatives (and by extension Republicans) are Coca-Cola Classic.  When we stand for the Constitution, we’re baseball, apple pie, and road trips to the Grand Canyon.  

When we stand up and say we’re Conservatives and here’s what we stand for, we win.  Real Conservatism wins every single time it’s effectively communicated.  Liberalism never fails to fail when it’s put into practice and never fails to lose when Conservatism succeeds in explaining what Liberalism means. 

Nancy Pelosi, the Tea Party isn’t going anywhere.  You’re easy days are done.  You now have to deal with political discourse.  Deal with it, because we’re here to stay.