THE TEA PARTY PLATFORM
 In the spirit of the Sons of Liberty we make these demands of our government

the tea party platform

State of the Union

Promises, promises, promises.  Platitudes, platitudes, platitudes.  Cliche after cliche after cliche.  Who could possibly oppose an expanded middle class?  Who could possibly oppose bringing our troops home from Afghanistan?  Who could possibly oppose ending the carnage that occurred in Aurora, Newtown or now, Los Angeles and San Bernardino County?   Who would possibly not want bipartisanship in the House and in the Senate?  The problem is that bipartisanship to Barack Obama is a demand that republicans abandon their principles and vote with him.  The only other problem is that the proposals this man offers will not do a thing to help the economy or the American citizen.  Instead, his policies hurt the people they are designed to protect.  Worse, I believe he knows it.

How could he or anyone make a statement that the state of the nation is strong?  23 million unemployed and a debt approaching $17 trillion is not an indication of strength.  It is as though Obama believes by stating something as true it becomes true.  Lies do not equal truths except in Obama's world.   

I believe it is Obama's intent to drive this country's economy into the ground and then offer himself to the nation as the man who will guarantee enough for all we remaining poor people to subside.  Enough to feed us.  Enough to keep us in our homes.  Enough to allow us to exist together in a common misery.  Obama would not be the first.  He is following the strategy of Hitler, of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro and others.  He is destroying the economy and he is doing this purposely.  He intends to disarm the public.  He intends to pave the way for the successful in this country to have as little as those who have not worked, have not been educated and have not applied their God given talents to build a better life.  How better could he build the dependent class he needs to succeed in his own ambitions?  Obama is not alone in this.  No the political "ruling" class would replace the political representative and Obama, his supporters and his adoring entourage of close advisers will then dominate the entire country and to the victors go the spoils. 

I don't really know what is  worse, the malevolent design I am convinced is the Obama strategy or the fact that the Congress stood and applauded this speech.  He presented anecdotal evidence of problems that I do not deny.  Who could possibly not grieve with the mother and father of the poor little girl who was gunned down in a Chicago park one mile from Obama's home.  A better response from the crowd would have been to tell Obama to clean up his own neighborhood but no, the applauding lemmings instead see the guns those gang members used to shoot that girl as the problem.  It is of little matter that Chicago already has strict gun laws and those in possession of the firearms were in obvious violation of those laws.  Let's create more laws, make them national and take all means of self defense from law abiding citizens so that only the outlaw gangs will have guns and we will be left with no form of real self defense.  There are those whom I fear more than burglars, gang bangers and single minded murderers.  I fear a government led by Barack Obama and you should too. 

I have never before supported the opposition party offering a rebuttal to the President's State of the Union message.  I have always felt that this is contrary to the spirit of unity we should present.  We do only have one president at a time.  I am however reevaluating this position as Marco Rubio provided a breath of sanity to the evening and let's face it, I believe Barack Obama is a traitor and there is no way I would or could ever unite behind him. 

Those who voted for him will get what they deserve.  Those of us who did not vote for him in no way deserve what we are going to get.  

Chris Wallace and Gun Control

I was extremely disappointed in Chris Wallace's interview of Wayne LaPierre Sunday morning.  I would have preferred something more objective and professional.   At one point Wallace told LaPierre before giving the gentleman the opportunity for explanation that his belief was ridiculous.   He also kept pushing the 1.7 million who were refused guns because of a background check.  LaPierre's response was exactly correct, we don't know that a large portion of those 1.7 million did not eventually find a way to get a gun.   Adam Lanza was a case in point.  He was refused and still he was able to get his hands on a weapon by killing his mother and taking hers.   Then Wallace criticized LaPierre's position on armed guards in school by asking what about malls, stores and movie theaters?  Are we to arm all?  This is precisely the problem in an open society.  We cannot and the police cannot protect all citizens, young or old, no matter where they might go.  The only near perfect solution is to become a closed society and my liberty is far too important to me to allow that.    

I object to background checks as this is one more way in which the government is able to know who has the guns.   I want the government to worry about whether or not citizens are armed.  I believe that an armed citizenry is the last defense against tyranny and tyranny is exactly what this government under the control of Barack Obama is offering.  

Hillary

 
I've been watching reports and opinions around Hillary's testimony this morning and I must say, they run the gamut.  On one end there is O'Reilly who made an evaluation consistent with my expectations, that Hillary ate them for lunch.  He identified many questions that if they were not, they certainly should have been asked, beginning with a request to provide a narrative of what happened that led to the death of four Americans?  

I listened to Hannity praise the courage of Rand Paul because Paul told Hillary she should have been relieved of her duties.  I then listened to Greta.  She interviewed Marco Rubio who made perfect sense in his comments to her but was he there on that committee and able to ask questions?  

Anytime you interview a Clinton you must be prepared for the Clinton to parse the words.  Hillary "saw no report" that indicated it was anything but a movie that caused the attack on 9/11 in Benghazi?  This could be true, but what was she told?   I would hope someone came back with a follow-up to ask whether it was brought to her attention by any other means?   

I am particularly saddened that she was allowed to escape reaction to some statements.  It is great that Paul told her she should have been fired but why was this not posed as a question?  Can you tell us why, after the death of four Americans who had asked for help that you should not have been relieved of your responsibilities?   If you were president and your Secretary of State was equally callous in dealing with the security of their staff, would you not have found a new Secretary of State?   Please tell us why the ambassador was in Benghazi and what made that location such a prime target?  

Why was Hillary allowed to respond that it doesn't matter how the attack began?  Had I been the Senator asking that question I would most certainly have become bellicose and explained that it wasn't for her to qualify my question.  It is important to me or I would not have asked.  

Was Hillary asked why she was not the person to go on those Sunday talk shows instead of Susan Rice?   Was she asked whether the priorities of the State Department were for the good of the country or the the good of the Obama presidential campaign?  What specifically was the reason for your delay in coming before this committee that preceded your illness?   

Based on what I have learned this evening, I am disappointed.   I must also say with a great deal of sadness that Congress got exactly what I expected. 

Paying Their Fair Share

 
There is the story of ten childhood friends that for thirty years dined every Saturday night at the same restaurant.  The total tab was always $100 and early on as their careers matured they decided to split that tab based upon their ability to pay?   They paid as follows:

Tiger - 25%
Phil - 20%
Dick - 10%
Ron - 10%
Clarence - 10%
Carl - 10%
Dennis - 10%
Mark - 5%
Steve - 0%
David - 0%

So, most paid 10% but one paid 5%, two paid nothing and the two more successful friends absorbed the balance of the cost, Phil paid 20% and Tiger paid a full 25% of the meals.  

The proprietor came to them one day and told them how much he appreciated their consistent business and how much he especially appreciated the other business they had sent him through the years.  But he was still going to have to increase his prices and the party would now cost them $120.   The price increase was in large part due to the changes they had asked the proprietor to make through the years. He had replaced the dining tables and chairs, added a gas fireplace to warm the colder evenings and paved that old rocky parking lot.  Further, he had plans to expand by building an addition and keeping the restaurant open 24 hours.   

The group had a problem.  They had to decide how to pay the additional $20.  They had always done this democratically and this time would be no different.  Six voted to allow the more wealthy friend to pay the difference.  Tiger would have to now pay $45 or 37.5% of the bill instead of the original 25%.  The group reasoned that Tiger could most easily afford it.  Tiger objected prior to the vote but he was belittled for doing so.  It was unfair they said for the poorer members of the group to have to share this burden.  It was important that Tiger pay his fair share.   

Tiger was annoyed.  The 24 hour access was of no advantage to him.  The fireplace was in response to something David and Steve wanted.  The new tables and chairs were a concession to several in the group but also not important to him.  He asked himself how much he enjoyed the group and although his childhood friends were important to him, he felt put upon and he decided to leave the group.  

The next time the group met for dinner there were only nine friends and the total bill came to $108.  When it came time to pay the bill they realized how much they missed Tiger.  They criticized him for being selfish and leaving the group when he did but that wasn't going to help them pay the extra cost.  Together, at their normal rate they only had $75. They needed another $33.  They took a vote and a majority agreed that Phil should pay the additional expense or at least eight of them thought that.  Phil didn't think so.  Oh he accepted the decision and put that $33 on his credit card but he quickly responded by also leaving the group.  He did not like the other eight telling him he hadn't been paying his entire share.   Now given their determination to continue their dinners at the same time and place, they were now in a real spot.  The next time the bill would come to $96 and between them all they were only used to paying $60.  What were they going to do now?

Does this sound familiar?  Do you recognize the similarity with what has happened in California?   Tiger Woods moved to Florida because of the high California taxes that pushed the burden of financing California consumption onto the very rich.  Many of the very rich, represented by Tiger in this story left California and moved to more hospitable environments.  This left a smaller number of taxpayers to finance the social welfare programs the legislature was determined to continue.  The result would have to be a new means of financing the government which remained skewed toward taxing the very wealthiest of Californians.  The result, thousand more are fleeing California as represented by Phil Mickelson.  What will happen after all who can afford to leave have moved and only the working poor are able to finance the spending of the California Legislature?

What should frighten us more is what will happen when we find ourselves all in the same boat as California  at the federal level?  Barack Obama is taking this country in the same direction as California, France and Greece.   We are already more than $16 trillion in debt with the promise of the last election being an additional $6-8 trillion more?   When we are forced to pick up this tab, who will there be left?  


Status of a Nation

I don’t know who wrote this, but it mirrors my sentiments.

 

 

 

 

Well, it's official; I don't know anything…

I thought for sure that given such a clear choice, Americans would vote for love of country over revenge.
I was wrong.

I thought, that just as every presidential election in my lifetime, the bad economy would be hung around the incumbent's neck, sinking him.
I was wrong.

I thought that even those few Americans who were fortunate enough to still be fully employed (not counting those leeching off the public system) would be cognizant of how much pain their neighbors were in and elect someone who would at least try to make improvements.
I was wrong.

I thought that now that FINALLY some of the disturbing truths about our first black president had come to light, voters would reject a man so dangerously at odds with the American experience.
I was wrong.

I thought the 2010 elections and the Tea Party meant something. I thought the enthusiasm on display at Romney/Ryan events, contrasted with the lack of same at Obama/Biden events meant something. I thought Americans would never sell their liberty for the sake of trinkets like cell phones or even big shiny lies like 'free health care'.
I was wrong.

Never in a million years would I have supposed that America would support a president who left his (our) people to die at the hands of our enemies overseas without lifting a hand to help, then lie about what he watched in real time for over two weeks, then lie about the lie for another month.
I was wrong.

I thought Americans could tell a hawk from a handsaw.
I was wrong.

We were offered the clearest choice we've had since 1980, where we had malaise and a misery index on one hand and a shining city on a hill on the other. Back then, we chose the city on the hill. This time the choice was between a man who says 7.9% unemployment and $4.00 gas is the new normal and a guy whose entire career has been about fixing broken entities. We chose to stay broken and broke.

Maybe I'm wrong about the ramifications of this choice. Maybe windmills will actually turn out to be a viable energy source. Maybe America diminished will be loved overseas. Maybe a nuclear Iran won't be a threat. Maybe Israel is over reacting. Maybe western civilization was always over rated. Maybe life under sharia is not bad at all. Maybe when the rest of the world realizes that we have no intention of ever paying back that $16,000,000,000,000.00 (and counting) that we've borrowed from them, they won't devalue the dollar, causing hyper inflation here at home. Maybe China will just keep on giving us money and not demand our hearts, souls, national monuments and marriageable daughters as payment.

I've watched my candidate lose elections before but I've never felt the way I did when this one was called for Obama. It wasn't bitterness or sadness or even disappointment. It took me a while to figure out what it was. Then it hit me; it was horror, pure, unadulterated horror. Not because of Obama, but because of what it says about us, the American people, that we chose this.

It shouldn't have even been close. Faced with the choice between taking charge of our destiny and tackling our financial problems, we opted to get high and have sex. We re-elected a guy who doesn't understand that a growing economy that creates more tax payers will bring in more revenue than higher taxes. A Commander in Chief who doesn't know our military still uses bayonets and cannot pronounce Navy Corpsman.  A man who wants to control the economy without even knowing the difference between bankruptcy and liquidation. It was one thing to elect an unknown quantity, buying his line of 'Hope and Change'. It's something else to deliberately choose his failed policies over someone who has actually achieved success in life. I never dreamed America would do that.

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, hello
idiocracy!

Goodbye, recovery.
Goodbye, energy independence.
Goodbye, religious liberty.
Goodbye, liberty and justice for all.
Goodbye, 2nd amendment rights

Goodbye, American dream.

It profits a man nothing to lose his soul for the whole world but we threw ours away for cell phones and birth control pills. In the twentieth century (the American Century), we stepped up to the plate three times and saved the rest of the world from fascism, Nazism and communism. We were the cavalry, always riding to the rescue. now, we've gotten rid of our horses, spent all our money on windmills, alienated our allies, bowed to our enemies, cut ourselves off from our own natural resources, thrown away our children's birthright and spent their inheritance. And we did it all on purpose.

When the wolf is at the door (and he's coming, yelling 'Allah Akbar') we're going to find out that there is no one out there to come to our rescue.

 

On the bright side, maybe it'll all turn out great. After all, I don't know anything.

Bravery.......in Hollywood?

 Isn't it amazing how Hollywood considers itself "brave" for playing "pretend" games?  I used to play "pretend" as a young child but I never considered myself "brave" for doing so. 
 
So what is it to be brave?  

  • Is it to stand up and express yourself in the midst of a friendly audience or
  • is it brave to attack those who disagree with you in front of a Hollywood audience that almost to a person possesses the same political point of view?  
  • Is it courageous to insulate yourself from the general public while you continue to make derogatory remarks within your peer audience but not take those comments any farther than this unless it is to go on the David Letterman show?  
How is this brave?  I would consider bravery as placing yourself at risk as is done daily by our military, our police and fireman.  I consider bravery in Hollywood to be limited to the small percentage of actors and others who go public with comments that place their careers at risk by disclosing opinions unpopular with your colleagues on the issues of the day.  

Those in Hollywood like Julianne Moore are cowards. What risk did she incur by making a movie that people will see only in her physical absence or by accepting the obligatory pat on the back from her peers at an awards ceremony that only like minded peers will attend.  

Morality

The lessons we often find that will benefit us the most we should have learned in Kindergarten. 

We have a President and a Senate Majority Leader that appear to have not learned how to play with others.  We have a Constitution that is supposed to protect individuals from a tyranny of the majority.  Yet we have these two men telling the nation that it wants to vote to penalize 2% of our population to the benefit of 98% of the country.  Where is the morality of this?  Where is the Constitutionality of this?  Is this what we mean by Equal Protection?  

When we gave our government the right to tax we gave them the right to punish.  Today we have scoundrels in charge of both the Executive Branch and the Senate who first bought votes by telling citizens that government will provide them some federal benefits that someone else will pay for.   At best the Senate Majority Leader and the President are malfeasant.  At worse what these two men are doing is treasonous deserving of immediate impeachment and imprisonment.  The Senate is Constitutionally obligated to pass a budget yet Harry Reid has not allowed a budget passed by the House of Representatives to be taken to the Senate floor.  Both the President and the Congress are obligated to protect and defend the Constitution  and both ignore that document as I might treat the NY Times, with tremendous disrespect.  
  • Why hasn't a budget been enacted for more than three years?  
  • Why does the President continue to make appointments without Senate confirmations?
  • Why does the President issue Executive Orders that overrule Congressional legislation?
  • Why does the President refuse to enforce laws with which he disagrees?
  • Why does the President support the positions of foreign governments in disputes with state governments?
  • Why does the President assume powers not belonging to him to regulate companies and in some cases to actually assume national control of those companies circumventing existing bankruptcy laws?
  • Why does the President select winners and losers in this economy and use our treasury to "bail out" failing businesses that belong to his political cronies?
  • Why does the President involve himself in local disputes and without facts support personal friends over local police?
  • Why does the President support federal laws that violate our Bill of Rights?
  • Why does our Senate Majority Leader as well as other senators support the same legislation?
  • Why does the President take money intended to employ citizens with shovel-ready projects and instead use it to support Organized Labor?
  • Why does the President use the US Treasury to launder money to finance his own political campaigns?
  • Why does the President refuse to allow the public information that by law should be available regarding Benghazi?  
  • Why does the President encumber future generations with the extravagance of today?  
  • Why does the President play class warfare and constantly pit one group of Americans against another?
  • Why does the President constantly lie to the American people as to all matters of responsibility?   

These are both legal and moral questions and sadly we learned in November that the reasons both Obama and Reid do these things is that they can.  Not only do we have a corrupt government but we have a corrupt press that has an agenda consistent with the President's. Sadly we also have an  electorate today that is blissfully uninformed and uncaring as to what these men do.  Either they are receiving some benefit themselves from the Treasury or they are supportive of the agenda these two leaders promote.  Here again the question is the morality of a majority of citizens imposing their will on a minority of citizens when the majority reaps the benefits and the minority pays the price?  

The irony is that we ultimately will all pay the price.  The rich may be the target of the Obama Administration but the real cost of the Obama programs will be in the form of higher prices and unemployment that will touch everyone.  Taking money from the rich takes capital from the economy. Yes the rich can afford to pay this bill.  It is me and my fellow citizens who cannot afford what will follow.  

Newtown, CT Inspires Talk of Gun Control

Fifty years ago we began chasing God and prayers from our schools and what followed has been a steady diet of tolerance for all things our Christian faith has taught us to be immoral.  For almost forty years we have through judicial fiat allowed the wanton slaughter of babies in the womb.  It was justified as a "choice" and this "choice" has through the killing of more than 40 million babies culminated in a trivialization of life itself.  We have over the last several years defined one deviant class after another as deserving of special legal protections or civil rights beginning with homosexuals and then progressing to bisexuals, transsexuals and as I now understand, pedophiles.  We live now in a society where all decent things like God, motherhood and honor are regarded as old fashioned and out of touch.  We decry real violence but allow companies to market violent video games to our children.  These same children are learning to communicate and socialize with others through text messages rather than face to face conversation and real personal relationships where they must work out their differences as we did in our youths.  We allow gangs to roam freely selling drugs in our communities yet only talk about the evil they distribute.  We allow our government to distribute funds from our treasury to purchase the votes of constituents in an effort to make those constituents dependent on our government, this as a means for politicians to gain votes and retain power.  We celebrate poor role models whether they be sports stars, movie stars, rock stars, or vulgar comedians while we turn our backs on the Boy Scouts and all positive examples available to us.  We allow mobs to burn our flag and call that free speech regardless of the disrespect to our heritage.  We allow judges to make decisions our Constitution leaves to the people.  We accept things on our television that our grandparents would never have allowed.  All of this is in the name of freedom while with each new  step we deny people the freedom to worship their God on public property; we deny people the freedom to associate with whom we want; we deny people the ability to bury their sons and daughters who were sacrificed in war without the presence of protestors; we deny people the right to enjoy the Christmas holidays without legal protests from atheists; we deny our society the ability to legally commit persons known to be mentally ill.  We decry the evils of drugs and pornography and its impact on our youth but allow it to be legally available and pass laws to legalize these things saying it is too difficult to control and too difficult to define. 

 

In the face of all of this is it any wonder that we build a tolerance for evil?  If so then why should we be surprised when evil shows its face whether in an Amish community in Pennsylvania, the Columbine High School in Colorado or the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut?  And when evil shows its presence what does it matter whether it carries a gun, a ton of fertilizer or box cutters on an airplane?  Are we to outlaw planes, trains and automobiles, knives and fertilizer?  Guns are not the problem. The problem is what our culture has learned to tolerate despite its evil characteristics.

 

No, I will not endorse any efforts to control guns and I would encourage others to resist the temptation to control guns as this flies in the face of our rights as Americans and this will do nothing to eliminate the evils faced in our society.  The confiscation of guns preceded Hitler's rise to power.  Stalin, Mao and every despot criminal regime the world has ever seen began by confiscating weapons and eliminating their enemies.  It is the 2nd Amendment that protects all the rest.  Sacrifice that and be prepared to sacrifice your freedom, your liberty and everything else.  If you don't believe this could happen here, look at who is in the White House and see what he has already accomplished in only four years.

The Fiscal Cliff

I am constantly mystified and disappointed in the lack of interest many display in their country's affairs.  Those who take no interest in politics will someday learn that politics or more specifically, politicians will take an interest in them.  

For example, does everyone understand there is no real fiscal cliff?

It is a metaphor.  The cliff represents certain disaster because of our politicians' management of our finances.  Please, if you understand nothing else, understand this.  The cliff is not real but disaster is most certain.  I contend that we already are over the cliff and in a freefall.  

At best, both the Congress and the president are irresponsible.  The largest problem is that we have lived too long with cries of "Wolf" over continuing deficits without doing a thing about it.  It was during the early 1960's that my own Social Studies teacher told our class to not worry about deficits.  They were of no matter.  Yes, deficits long ago became the norm.  These deficits are caused by spending, not because our citizens are not being taxed enough.  I say this factually because federal revenues continue to grow year after year at levels well above those necessary to fund the Constitutional obligations of the federal government.  The problem is all the entitlement programs that have been created in the many years beginning with the New Deal.  What began as safety nets that are understandably "feel good" programs have been extended by both legislation and agency regulation into monstrous programs incapable of being managed from Washington D.C.  I won't even deal with their constitutionality at the federal level in this tome.     

It has been demonstrated three times by three different presidents that it is when you cut taxes that you encourage growth and this growth consistently increases revenues to the US Treasury.  Cutting taxes leaves cash in the economy where it can be invested and allow the economy to grow.  Yet taxes will increase on January 1 either for all citizens or for only the wealthy.  

When you increase taxes you get less activity.  This isn't only because people flee from those activities that would generate the taxes but more importantly the government is taking from profit and less cash is then available for investment and for borrowing.  When businesses are able they will pass those taxes on to their consumers but this is not always possible. They may be affected by foreign competition that is immune to the tax. When the tax can be passed on, it will be and it is then when the poor and the middle class see the impact of the tax on "the rich."  Sadly these are hidden taxes and the government escapes blame for the increased prices of goods and services people demand.  When businesses can't pass on the tax penalties, they can't sustain their current structures; people lose their jobs; no jobs are created; and it is here where the poor and middle classes are impacted most.  There is no one to hire them.  

Then there is the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve.  They have already announced another round of quantitative easing.  Simply put, by an accounting entry on the books at the Federal Reserve, more money is created and released into the economy.  By doing so there is more money in circulation chasing the same amount of goods.  An increase in the money supply without a corresponding increase in productivity is the recipe for inflation.  The dollars in our pockets and in our savings and investment accounts are now worth less.  They buy less and what was once a sufficient income to manage a household is suddenly inadequate but where will the family get more money?  In an economy with more than 10% real unemployment there will be no raises and there are few places to go for second jobs.  So what will families do?  They will cut back and buy less.  They will cut car washes, dinners out, movies, books, vacations, and maybe cable TV from their budgets and this will do what?  It will reduce the demand for labor in those companies affected by those cutbacks.  Now, instead of trying to live on 80 or 90% of what they had in better economic times, some will need to live on savings and what government will provide. 

This is the cliff that is described by the metaphor, fiscal cliff.  We have a government talking about taking food from the economy when the economy needs to be fed.  We have government doing the opposite of what families faced with the same situation understand they must do to survive.  Instead of cutting their budget, they increase it.  We have a government in the face of a staggering debt printing more money.  The result can only be more unemployment, more dependency on government when collectively we are less able to afford it and we will surely see super-inflation that could be as bad as experienced during the Carter administration. 

Obama's logic is no different than was Carter's.  It was Carter's response that Americans must prepare for a future less secure than their parents enjoyed.  In the face of high unemployment, high interest rates and high inflation, what did Carter do?  He created the Department of Energy to enact regulations to make us less dependent upon foreign oil.  Have they done that?  No.  It took Ronald Reagan to change Carter's downward spiral.  In 2012 we had a man on the ballot that understands all of this and  who might have made a difference.  Instead we reelected Barack Obama.  

As I see it we are already beyond the edge of the cliff and in a certain freefall.  In this environment the House must say, "No more!"  No more Continuing Resolutions that substitute for the Senate's refusal to act on their constitutional obligation to enact a budget.  No more increases to the debt limit without an enacted budget that also includes a plan to amortize and reduce the debt.  No more new programs.  We simply cannot afford to do anything we didn't do in 2000.  No compromises.  We have compromised to the point that brought us to this cliff.  This means no funding for Obamacare.  Above all we must not take food from the economy.  No increase in effective tax rates meaning no increase in the rates themselves and no reduction in the legal deductions available to all people and all businesses.  No new taxes.  

This is leverage the House possesses.  They can put a stop to all of this on their very own because it is they that constitutionally control the purse.  Who is blamed, be damned. 

Hello, Anyone in There?

Hello, knock, knock, is anyone in there. Is there anyone in government with an ounce of sense left?

Taxes:  Leave rates alone but limit deductions. Hello, this is a tax increase because the effective tax rate will increase in this scenario. 

Fair Share:  10% paying 90% of all taxes and 47% pay nothing. Hello, who isn't paying their fair share?

Mandate:  Obama won the election thus he should get what he wants. Hello, the president wasn't the only position on the ballot.  435 representatives were also on their respective ballots and their "mandates" are far more personal and more directly tied to their constituents than is Obama's. 

Purpose of Government:  Government must take from the rich to provide "help" to the less fortunate.  Hello, government was created (in this country) to provide for the general welfare in accordance with the limits of power enumerated in our Constitution.  

We have many things so turned around.  Our focus as a nation should be first survival and then self realization as individuals and as a nation. This can only be done through a strong, vibrant economy.  It is the economy we must feed, not the government.  Who feeds the economy?  We all do in one form or another.  We are all consumers.  Most all of us are both savers and investors but here is where voluntary progressive influences should abound.  The hated very rich have more money and unless they stuff it in their mattresses or sit on it like Disney's Scrooge McDuck the wealth of the very rich will be spent, saved or invested. If spent they create economic opportunity for those from whom they buy.  If they save it the money is then available through banks as loans for others who wish to invest or consume.  If they invest they create opportunities within those invested companies that enable the economy to expand.  In all cases, jobs are created and those who earn those jobs pay taxes, consume, save and invest allowing us to all feed the economy. 

Government neither owns nor do they or should they manage the economy.  The market will do that.  Government is a consumer and an extremely poor saver and investor in the economy.  Government was designed to play a role in that they maintain the means for trade.  They run the mints and the currency presses.  They run the post office.  They provide for the national defense.  They provide the roads and they enact laws of contracts, define and punish torts and they create regulations, both good and horribly bad that ensure worker safety, environmental protection, consumer protections and product safety.  In doing all these things, government is a consumer.  When government is allowed to grow too large it consumes too much and everything it consumes it takes from profit and those lost profits are then not available to further feed the economy.  

We should not be asking the fairest way to pay for the growth of government.  We should be looking for the very best way to grow the economy.  I am more than willing to pay higher taxes if they leave my employers alone to create and maintain jobs.  One of those jobs could be mine.  

Now let me speak directly to the Congress, particularly Republicans. You have tremendous leverage.  Use it.  Be statesmen.  Don't worry about the press or who they will blame for anything.  You know it is a stacked deck and you will be blamed regardless of circumstance.  The only alternative is to do what is right.  Nancy Reagan said it thirty years ago.  "Just say no."  No to any further Continuing Resolutions.  Force the Senate to negotiate on a budget and get it done.  No increase to the Debt Limit without a real effort to deal with the retirement of that debt within the budget.  Congress does not get paid without a budget and no makeup pay for anyone in the Congress except staff for work actually performed.  If the government must shut down the military must be identified as essential service.  The alternative is to bring them all home, discharge them and give them the opportunity to get private sector jobs.  If the government shuts down, no makeup pay unless the time was actually worked.  Let the government worker use his/her banked vacation and invade their pension funds as many of us in the private sector who have lost our jobs have had to do.  There must be entitlement reform to remove federal pensions and Social Security from the robber barons in the Congress who have stolen us blind.  No funding for agencies guilty of over regulating.  Completely eliminate nonproductive federal agencies.  This should include Education, Energy, EPA.  Legislate ten year lives to all federal regulations beginning with their inception and require that regulations be affirmed by the Congress where a threshold of citizen complaints exist or when complaints raise Constitutional questions.  No funding for Obamacare.  Deal with individual appropriations beginning with the Defense Budget and other agencies that deal with national security.  Open federal lands to oil and gas leasing.  Allow a restart of production in the Gulf of Mexico.  Divest all federal interest in private companies.  Revisit General Motors and restore that corporation to its rightful owners.  No automatic deductions for union dues and make the federal government a right to work organization.  No funding for Justice without enforcing our borders and prosecuting those guilty of election fraud and intimidation at the polls.  Put a stop to advertising taxpayer money to persons who are not citizens.  Stop this very funding.  Eliminate all funding for Cap N Trade programs and to the agencies that promote them.  Investigate Benghazi. Send these people to jail who fraudulently misappropriate federal funds.  Use your oversight responsibility to override presidential Executive Orders.  ALL of them.  Wait until hell freezes over if necessary to get a serious response.  

Make it known that the federal taxpayer cannot be asked to bail out ANY state government.  We are sovereign states and as such we are responsible for ourselves.  Enact tort reform and stop the incessant gamesmanship as played by trial attorneys who constantly seek to attach the wealth of corporations and individuals via frivolous lawsuits.  Loser must pay all attorney fees.  

No more continued funding for the UN either directly or indirectly.   Let them find another home.  Restore NASA research and development.  Eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, NPR and any other GSE organization that should support itself. 

I have only just scratched the surface.   It would be easy for anyone not living inside the Beltway to easily find programs and entire federal agencies to cut.  If you have a hard time, come home and we will let you know how to do it. 

Direct Access Platform

Recommended Web Sites

Tea Party Mugs, Buttons, T-Shirts and other merchandise.

About this Blog

A team of patriots will make periodic postings to this site to identify their position on issues of national importance. Readers are encouraged to respond with comments with the ultimate goal that we provide a grassroots means for the political parties to understand our demands as participants in the Tea Party movement.

Tag Cloud

Recent Posts

  1. State of the Union
    Wednesday, February 13, 2013
  2. Chris Wallace and Gun Control
    Monday, February 04, 2013
  3. Hillary
    Thursday, January 24, 2013
  4. Paying Their Fair Share
    Thursday, January 24, 2013
  5. Status of a Nation
    Monday, January 21, 2013
  6. Bravery.......in Hollywood?
    Tuesday, January 15, 2013
  7. Morality
    Saturday, December 29, 2012
  8. Newtown, CT Inspires Talk of Gun Control
    Sunday, December 16, 2012
  9. The Fiscal Cliff
    Friday, December 14, 2012
  10. Hello, Anyone in There?
    Sunday, December 02, 2012

Recent Comments

  1. poweredcom on Morality
    2/26/2014
  2. The Patriot on Platform Item 10: Homosexual Marriage
    1/22/2014
  3. Searcher on Platform Item 10: Homosexual Marriage
    1/17/2014
  4. Bill589 on State of the Union
    3/15/2013
  5. The Patriot on Morality
    1/15/2013
  6. EJ on Morality
    1/14/2013
  7. The Patriot on The Black Electorate
    11/29/2012
  8. James Shaw on Platform Item 31: Pension Plans
    11/28/2012
  9. James Shaw on Platform Item 35: Amendment to the Constitution - Taxes
    11/28/2012
  10. James Shaw on The Black Electorate
    11/28/2012

Subscribe


Recommended Reading