Reaganism reincarnate

[sirs]

NOW I realize why such a perverse and over-the-top effort is being made by the left and MSM, as well as the Republican Establishment, to demean, minimize, ridicule, if not out-and-out lie about the Tea Party movement, such as all the racist garbage.  Why I didn't get this earlier, I don't know.  But I get it now.  I thought it was simply that it was a grassroots rebirth of Conservatism, but its far more than that

------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Bullish Tea Party Revolt

This past week I gave a speech to a group of investors. The organizer of the event e-mailed me the night before, asking that I please try to be optimistic. Well, that's my usual habitat. But optimism has been hard for me this year. Our muddle-through economy and lackluster stock market, challenged by so many taxing, spending, and regulating problems coming out of Washington, are the reasons why.

In fact, until recently, I've been advising people to take profits in the stock market, rather than buy-and-hold. You should keep your money before the Obama IRS takes it from you.

But following the tea-party primary victories in Delaware, New York, and New Hampshire this week, I?m once again getting energized.

Free-market capitalism is on the comeback trail. That?s one of the key tea-party messages. And make no mistake about it: The free-market power of the tea-party political revolt is totally bullish for stocks and the economy.

In short, this is a revolution.

The political elites in both parties don't get it. Nor do the mainstream media. But the tea-party movement is stopping Obamanomics dead in its tracks. And it will overturn the Keynesian big-government planning effort now in full force in our nation's capital. The tea parties are Reaganism reincarnate, and then some.

It's all there in the Contract from America:
Limited government,
individual liberty,
economic freedom.
Defund Obamacare.
No tax-and-nationalize energy scheme.
Stop the tax hikes and move to a flat-tax system.
No special favors and subsidies.
No crony capitalism.

Oh, and let me underscore the tea-party revolt against runaway government spending and debt-creation. No TARP. No stimulus. No Obamacare. No Bailout Nation for GM, Fannie, Freddie, and AIG. Instead of federal spending running up to 25, 26, or 27 percent of GDP, look for our new tea-party representatives to move it back to 20 percent of the economy, or even less.

There's a great story in Friday's Wall Street Journal called ?Tea Party?s Rise Gives Business Pause.? The thrust is that big businesses and their K Street lobbyists are worried that special tax breaks and subsidies for Wall Street, timber, fast food, road building, energy, farming, autos (such as cash for clunkers for the car lobby), and housing (including homebuyer tax credits for the realtor and homebuilder lobbies) will be blown away by the new tea-party representatives. Well, they should be worried.

Quoted in the article, Raul Labrador, the tea-party-backed House candidate from Idaho, says he opposes all government programs that help one segment of business over another. "I'm against all of them," he tells the Journal. "I don't think the government should be picking winners and losers. We should have taxes low for everybody, and not just for a particular industry or segment."

In other words, this is not going to be your father's Congress. Nor is it going to be your father's Republican party. The party of George W. Bush and George H. W. Bush is about to be totally transformed. Constitutional spending limits. Low flat-tax rates. Slam-downs on budget baselines. Pitchforks maybe, but not pork.

A few months ago I wrote about the emergence of a new free-market nucleus, motivated by tea-party ideals, in the Republican caucus of the Senate. That nucleus is set to grow. And that's exactly why I'm getting more optimistic.

The new blood includes Carly Fiorina from California, Ken Buck from Colorado, Pat Toomey from Pennsylvania, Rand Paul from Kentucky, John Boozman from Arkansas, Mike Lee from Utah, Marco Rubio from Florida, Joe Miller from Alaska, Kelly Ayotte from New Hampshire, John Raese from West Virginia, and Linda McMahon from Connecticut. And who knows, maybe even Christine O'Donnell from Delaware.

They will join free-market Senate stalwarts like Jim DeMint, Tom Coburn, John Thune, Jon Kyl, Richard Shelby, and Jeff Sessions. Again, I repeat, this will not be your father's Republican Senate. This is a new transformational breed. This is a free-market revolution powered by the tea party. Along with a likely Republican takeover in the House, we could be looking at a free-market Congress, something I never dreamed possible.

The new tea-party breed in Washington will unleash entrepreneurship and capitalism by holding back the government tide. In other words, folks, tea-party economics are very bullish.


 

[sirs]

Those who dismiss or disparage Tea Party candidates as ideologues really miss the point of what is driving this movement.

An ideologue is someone motivated primarily by a set of ideas and clings to them despite facts and experience.

The Tea Party movement was not launched by and is not driven by theory but by a healthy sense of realism fueled by practical experience.

Consider, for instance, Gallup?s annual survey of most and least trusted professions.

In the latest one published last December, rock bottom on the list was Members of Congress. Fifty five percent gave them low/very low ratings on honesty and ethics. Members of Congress beat car salesmen by four percentage points as the professionals the American public finds most ethically challenged.

It?s not theory or dogma that earned Members of Congress this distinction. It?s experience.

So put two and two together.

Federal government spending per American household has increased over 200% since the mid- 1970s and over this same period of time median household income barely increased by 25%. In 1977, 40% gave Members of Congress low/very low ratings in honesty and ethics compared to 55% today.

Can you think of any other place where we turn more and more power over our lives to the same people we, for good reason, trust less and less?

Reams of data have been published showing more and more government spending on education with no change in test scores.
More and more government spending on poverty with no change in poverty.

Over a year and a half ago, our government appropriated almost a trillion dollars to spend for so-called stimulus ? our money financed by government borrowing that we taxpayers will have to belly up to pay ? because, they claimed, this was the path out of the recession.

We were told that if we allow government to appropriate and spend this money, unemployment wouldn?t go over 8%. Today unemployment, after well over a year, is 10% and 84% in a Gallup poll done last week say we?re still in a recession.

What do we hear from Democrats running our government? That the problem is they haven?t spent enough of our money.

In a Gallup poll last July, responding to the question ?Do you think the Social Security system will be able to pay you a benefit when you retire?? 60% answered ?No.?

The fiscal problems of Social Security have been publicized for years by the Social Security Administration?s own trustees. But rather than confront the hard truth that the poster child for all government programs is in shambles, politicians prefer to ignore the problems, let them deteriorate, and leave the mess for someone else to clean up.

Can you imagine 60% saying that they don?t expect the funds they put in their 401k or IRA over their lifetime to be there when they retire?

Yet, the message we hear from Democrats is that it?s the private sector that can?t be trusted.

Tea Party activism is about having the courage to honestly look at the facts and act accordingly and responsibly.

Why does the movement favor Republicans?

63% percent of Republicans and 59% of Independents give Members of Congress low/very low ethics and honesty ratings. But just 43% of Democrats do.

Common sense dictates, given the practical experience with government that voters have to draw on, that we?d expect heightened interest in turning government over to those least likely to expand it, and preferably, to those most likely to limit it.

A CNN poll last week showed Republicans had a 38%-point advantage on a generic ballot among voters who dislike both parties.

No, it?s not about ideology. It?s about appreciating, from experience, how politicians, when left unchecked, have abused, abuse, and will abuse us citizen/taxpayers, while impoverishing our great nation, and about re-opening the operating manual and getting things back on track.


Realism, Not Ideology, Driving Tea Partiers

[sirs]

And with the Tea Party firmly & accurately painting congress with a huge electoral target.....

Obama Aides Weigh Bid to Tie the G.O.P. to the Tea Party
By JACKIE CALMES and MICHAEL D. SHEAR

WASHINGTON ? President Obama?s political advisers, looking for ways to help Democrats and alter the course of the midterm elections in the final weeks, are considering a range of ideas, including national advertisements, to cast the Republican Party as all but taken over by Tea Party extremists, people involved in the discussion said.

(sirs inquires; pray tell.....what extremists??)

White House and Congressional Democratic strategists are trying to energize dispirited Democratic voters over the coming six weeks, in hopes of limiting the party?s losses and keeping control of the House and Senate. The strategists see openings to exploit after a string of Tea Party successes split Republicans in a number of states, culminating last week with developments that scrambled Senate races in Delaware and Alaska.

?We need to get out the message that it?s now really dangerous to re-empower the Republican Party,? said one Democratic strategist who has spoken with White House advisers but requested anonymity to discuss private strategy talks.

Democrats are divided. The party?s House and Senate campaign committees are resistant, not wanting to do anything that smacks of nationalizing the midterm elections when high unemployment and the drop in Mr. Obama?s popularity have made the climate so hostile to Democrats. Endangered Congressional candidates want any available money to go to their localized campaigns.

Late Sunday night, White House advisers denied that a national ad campaign was being planned. ?There?s been no discussion of such a thing at the White House? or the Democratic National Committee, said David Axelrod, Mr. Obama?s senior adviser.

Proponents say a national ad campaign, most likely on cable television, would complement those individual campaigns and give Democrats a chance to redefine the stakes. The Democratic strategist said voters did not now see much threat to them from a Republican takeover of Congress, even though some Tea Party-backed candidates and other Republicans have taken positions that many voters consider extreme, like shutting down the government to get their way, privatizing Social Security and Medicare and ending unemployment insurance.

So far, Mr. Obama has largely limited his campaigning to fundraisers and small events. That will change soon as he plays a bigger role to rally the flagging faithful, officials said.

To mobilize younger voters who supported him in 2008, Mr. Obama will hold four big campaign-style rallies, the first Sept. 28 at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, with satellite transmission to campuses in other states. The later rallies will be in Ohio, Philadelphia and Las Vegas. He also will send e-mail and record robocalls to spur voters, and conduct a national ?town hall? Webcast in October.

?These events are about activating the Obama grass roots to help organizationally in terms of volunteers? for get-out-the-vote efforts, said Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director. ?We?re not going to get all the 2008 Obama voters out. We may not get most of them. But in close races, it can be decisive.?

Mr. Obama will also step up his efforts to draw contrasts between the parties, in particular by pounding away on his call for extending the expiring Bush-era tax cuts, except for ?millionaires and billionaires.? Republicans want the tax cuts extended for people of all income levels, not just incomes below $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for families, as the president has proposed.

Republicans strategists remain confident of the party?s prospects for big gains in November, even as they acknowledge that they are unlikely to win the Senate race in Delaware after the victory in the Republican primary there of Christine O?Donnell, a Tea Party-backed candidate with a long record of controversial statements, over Representative Michael N. Castle, a moderate and popular former two-term governor.

Also last week, Alaska?s Senate race was upended when Senator Lisa Murkowski, who lost the Republican nomination to a Tea Party adherent, Joe Miller, mounted a write-in candidacy against him, saying, ?Alaska is not fair game for outside extremists.?

?While we may have a handful of nominees out of the mainstream, the American people have come to the conclusion this administration and this Congress are out of the mainstream,? said John Weaver, a Republican consultant.

In 1994, Democrats were in power and similarly took hope when Republican primaries yielded candidates deemed too far right for the general election. Yet the wave against Democrats that year was strong enough to carry those newcomers into office and put Republicans in control of Congress for the first time in 40 years.

Except for Ms. O?Donnell in Delaware, Republican nominees that Democrats like to showcase as extremists ? including in Senate races in Nevada, Colorado, Kentucky and even blue-state Connecticut ? are even with their Democratic rivals in polls or ahead.

And even as the White House maps the final campaign push, advisers are distracted by the expected exit of the chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, to run for mayor of Chicago. Mr. Emanuel, who as a member of Congress helped engineer the Democratic takeover of the House in 2006, is among his party?s foremost strategists when it comes to Congressional elections.

Peter M. Rouse, one of Mr. Obama?s closest advisers, has assumed additional responsibilities. But Mr. Rouse, who is intensely private, does not want the high-profile job of chief of staff; instead he is helping Mr. Obama vet names. Leading candidates are said to be Thomas E. Donilon, the deputy national security adviser, and Robert Bauer, the White House counsel.

On top of the personnel distractions at the White House, the strategy discussions with Congressional Democrats come after 21 months of legislative and political battles that have strained relations between the two camps.

Democrats on Capitol Hill say that Obama aides, including Mr. Axelrod, and Jim Messina, the deputy chief of staff, do not consult with them enough and are more concerned with positioning Mr. Obama for his 2012 reelection race than with re-electing Democrats now.

At the Democratic National Committee, aides already have started work on a database to link the most controversial statements of the Tea Party-backed candidates to possible Republican presidential aspirants.

The database will point out, for example, that Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney are supporting the Republican candidate for Senate in Nevada, Sharron Angle, who once said that victims of rape should make ?what was really a lemon situation into lemonade,? and Ms. O?Donnell, who has said that having women in the service academies ?cripples the readiness of our defense.?

The tactic of linking potential Republican rivals to such statements was already in evidence last week. After Ms. O?Donnell?s victory, a party spokesman told reporters, ?The fact that Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin would put their name behind a candidate that believes women who serve our country ?cripple the readiness of our defense? make them unfit to be commander-in-chief.?


Desperate times call for desperate measures

[Christians4LessGvt]

O'Donnell vs. Coons: Analyzing Extremism

By Selwyn Duke

September 20, 2010

Unlike for most Americans, the Delaware senatorial primary was not my first introduction to Christine O'Donnell. I remembered her from as far back as approximately fifteen years ago, making appearances on shows such as "Politically Incorrect." So when I heard about her supposed "extremist views," I had to wonder if I was overlooking something. It's hard to forget such a pretty face, but did I fail to recollect some strange aspect of her ideology? 

So I did a Google search and quickly found criticism of her at the Huffington Compost. "What better source for getting the dirt, real and imagined, on a Tea Party candidate?" I thought. Yet I figured I knew what I'd find, and I was right. Had she ever proclaimed herself a Marxist? No, that was her opponent, Chris Coons. Had she ever belonged to a socialist party? No, that was Barack Obama in the 1990s. Did she once advocate forced abortions and sterilization? No, that was the president's "science czar," John Holdren. Had she headed up an organization that promoted "fisting" for 14-year-olds and books featuring sex acts between preschoolers? No -- while Obama's "Safe Schools Czar" Kevin Jennings did do that, O'Donnell's sin is far different:

She believes in sexual purity. To be precise, she is a Catholic who embraces the totality of the Church's teachings on sexuality. I could elaborate on that, as I'm a devout Catholic myself, but this misses the point. To wit: The most the left can do when trying to cast O'Donnell as a danger in government is cite something that she believes has nothing to do with government. She won't propose the "Self-gratification Control Act" of 2011 any more than she will mandate that you must attend Mass on Sundays, fast during Lent, or believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist. (Note that former senator Rick Santorum never did, and as a devout Catholic who often attends Mass even on weekdays, he presumably believes all O'Donnell does.) What the left is mischaracterizing as her ideology is actually her theology of the body.

Then, I must say that I tire of how the word "extremism" is bandied about so thoughtlessly. This isn't primarily because the label is often misapplied. It is because it is always misunderstood.

The late Barry Goldwater once said, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." But to be more precise, extremism that reflects Truth is a virtue. After all, if you live in a land where everyone believes 2+2=5 and you insist it is 4, you'll be considered an extremist. All being an "extremist" means is that your views deviate greatly from those of the mainstream. It doesn't mean you're wrong.

But we don't talk about wrong, or right, as much as we should in this relativistic culture. Instead, believing that "man is the measure of all things," we naturally take the norms of current civilization as the default and any deviation from them as defect (in fairness, all cultures tend to be guilty of this). But the reality is that while Truth sometimes lies at the center of a culture, at other, times it occupies the fringes. Sometimes, like with an abolitionist in 1800, an extremist is just someone who is right fifty years too soon. Or you could say that an extremist may be someone who upholds the wisdom of the ageless despite the folly of the age.

So saying someone is an extremist relates nothing about his rightness. The problem with Islamic extremists, for instance, isn't that they're extreme -- any truly religious person is thus viewed in a secular time. It's that they're extremely wrong. This brings us to O'Donnell's opponent, Chris Coons.

Since the left is digging up old O'Donnell quotations, it's only fair to delve into Coons' past. And when we do, we find this interesting bit of extremism: An article he wrote titled "Chris Coons: The Making of a Bearded Marxist." It details how a trip to Kenya that Coons took as a junior in college served as a "catalyst," completing his transformation from "conservative" to communist. Yet while one could elaborate further here as well, as with O'Donnell, this misses the point. To wit: Marxism has everything to do with government, as it is about transforming it through socialist revolution into something tried and untrue, something that slays the light and visits a dark age of a thousand sorrows upon its victims. It's something that killed 100,000,000 people during the 20th century and every economy it ever touched. That is a negative extremism if ever there were one, and it should scare the heck out of every one of us.

And what is this supposedly balanced with on O'Donnell's side?

Oh, yeah, the sexual purity thing.

Of course, Coons' piece was written 25 years ago when he was 21 and will be excused by some as youthful indiscretion. But I'll make two points. First, the ability to profile properly is always necessary when choosing candidates, as the information you will have on them is always limited and managed. A politician certainly wouldn't admit to harboring Marxist passions; thus, in keeping with the maxim "The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior," the best yardstick we have for measuring Coons is actions and pronouncements taken/made before he had a vested interest in lying about his aims. (And wouldn't we instinctively apply this when judging someone with a neo-Nazi or KKK history? Would we give David Duke the benefit of the doubt many would give Coons?) Second, when profiling, know this: People who embrace communism but then truly renounce it generally become passionate rightists. Those who remain leftists usually haven't renounced anything but honesty about their intentions.     

The reason why we should fear Coons is the exact reason why leftists fear O'Donnell: In their universe, moral statements are synonymous with policy positions. If they don't like salt, fat, tobacco (paging Mayor Bloomberg) or free markets, they play Big Brother and give us a very unfree society. But traditionalist Americans are different: We don't think that every supposedly good idea should be legislated. We understand that government and its coercion aren't the only forces for controlling man's behavior; there is also something called society, with its traditions, social codes, and persuasion, and something else called individual striving. We can preach sexual purity while also practicing constitutional purity. As to this, note that while some snarky leftists have criticized O'Donnell for living in the 1800s, the men who gave us our Constitution lived in the 1700s. And the norm back then was to have traditional sexual mores. But guess what they didn't have: Marxism.

Speaking of which, that great adherent of Marx, V.I. Lenin, once said, "The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation." Given that we have a government poised to do just this -- with steep tax increases and rapid money-printing that will cause inflation -- should we really be concerned about a candidate's views on sexual propriety? Or should we be more concerned about a candidate who may be harboring Marxist passions?

So all the libertines amongst us should know that Christine O'Donnell will not take their sex toys away. But Chris Coons may want to take all their toys away. To vote for him is to play with fire.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/odonnell_vs_coons_analyzing_ex.html

[sirs]

"How do you tell a communist?  Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist?  It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."

...........Ronald Reagan

[sirs]

7 Things The Establishment Gets Wrong About The Tea Party

You can barely look at a political website these days without reading a post about the Tea Party movement. Of course, we've heard plenty from liberals. "They're fascist-racist KKK-Nazis!" The Rockefeller Republicans have tut-tutted their opinions from the cocktail circuit as well, "Egads! Some of these people look as if they shop at Wal-Mart!"

However, there are plenty of old school Republicans who don't hate the Tea Party movement per se; they simply don't understand it. So, let's talk about some of the perceptions the establishment Republicans have about the Tea Party movement and why they're mistaken.

The Tea Partiers have a radical agenda! This oft made charge is extremely odd. After all, what are the issues that keep coming up over and over and over when you talk to Tea Partiers? They...
- want to get spending under control,
- fear that the federal government is getting too big,
- want to stick to the Constitution.

Not only are none of those radical beliefs, the overwhelming majority of politicians in BOTH parties would agree in principle with all 3 items. The most controversial one would be about the government getting too big, but even Bill Clinton said, "The era of big government is over." So maybe the real problem isn't that the Tea Party is "radical." Maybe it's that America's political class has become so comfortable with lying and double talk that telling the truth has started to seem "radical" to them.

These Tea Partiers don't believe in compromise! Tea Partiers believe in compromise, just not what passes for "compromise" in D.C. these days. You see, "compromise" in Washington seems to consist of giving liberals almost everything they want as a starting point and then negotiating how far, if at all, to move from there.

Even when Republicans are in charge, what do we see? Spending goes up, the government still gets bigger, and the Constitution is still ignored.

Here's an idea: How about we decide that we're going to stick to the Constitution, dramatically cut spending, and severely curtail the size of government as a starting point? Then, we can negotiate from there about how big of a win we?re going to have instead of conceding ground to the Left on every issue.

The Tea Party is driving away moderates! One of the biggest myths in politics is that moderate candidates are almost always more electable than conservative candidates. Sure, some moderates are more electable than conservatives and vice-versa, but when you look at poll numbers, it's amazing how often the supposedly unelectable conservative candidate does just as well as the moderate, if not better.

The reason why that's true is because the media environment has changed. People are now flooded with information, much of which they consider unreliable. But, if their neighbor says it, a blog they like runs the story, or their favorite talk show host puts it out there, then they buy into it.

Inevitably, it's conservative candidates, not lukewarm moderates, who get people excited and produce that sort of powerful grassroots reaction. Many establishment Republicans will instinctively dismiss what I've just said, but this is the year of fired up Tea Partiers, and where are Independents leaning? They're supporting the GOP 2-to-1.

Do you think that's because of the scintillating moderation of Olympia Snowe or because they're hungry for more John McCain? Please! It's because the Democrats are baiting the hook by doing such a lousy job and the excitement generated by the Tea Party movement is helping to reel the independents in, not frighten them off.

The Tea Party is knocking off important Republicans we need in D.C.! Time and time again after the Tea Partiers have knocked off establishment Republicans, the losers have proven they never cared about anything other than their jobs in the first place. Arlen Specter switched parties. Charlie Crist ran as an independent. Lisa Murkowski is running a write-in campaign. Dede Scozzafava endorsed a Democrat. Mike Castle refused to endorse Christine O'Donnell. Bob Inglis and Bob Bennett mouthed off about conservatives after they lost.

So tell me: why should anyone be sorry that a mediocre, disloyal group of career politicians, who don't care about anything other than their cushy jobs, aren't going to be in D.C.?

These Tea Partiers are just Republicans who will fall in line once the GOP gets power again! Right now, the Tea Party movement is primarily benefiting the Republican Party. Yet, what you find if you talk to Tea Partiers is that if you're a Republican in D.C. and your name isn't Jim DeMint or Michele Bachmann, the Tea Party movement probably doesn't like you very much and they definitely don't trust you.

Put another way, the Tea Partiers are JUST WAITING for the GOP to blow it. The moment it does, the Tea Partiers will land on it with both feet. Some people might think that's unfair, but it's a natural reaction to the Bush years, when the Republican Party talked incessantly about fiscal responsibility even as it expanded government and increased spending. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, and you join Arlen Specter and Mike Castle in the unemployment line.

These Tea Partiers don't understand how politics works! Granted, there are plenty of people at Tea Parties who aren't all that hooked into politics. Additionally, it's fair to say that some of the candidates the Tea Party has backed have turned out to be duds.

Of course, the same could be said of the establishment. Remember Dede Scozzafava? And how about that Charlie Crist? Moreover, just look at Bush's second term. Amnesty was pushed for illegal aliens -- more than once. Look at the bungled reaction to the bad press after Katrina. What kind of job was done on the Iraq war messaging? Did it really make sense to push Harriet Miers? How well did the Dubai Port fiasco turn out politically? How's TARP looking today?

The fact of the matter is that the Republican establishment's political judgment over the last few years has been simply atrocious. If the question is, ?Who has had a better grasp of politics -- the bloggers, talk radio hosts and Tea Partiers, or the GOP establishment and consultant class?? -- the answer is the former. Perhaps that shouldn't be the case, but the D.C. bubble has a funny way of turning razor sharp political minds into piles of mush the size of Barack Obama?s ego.

These Tea Partiers just want to say "no" to everything! Right now, our country is like a car that's heading toward a cliff at 100 mph and the people in charge want to simultaneously speed up and cut the brake lines. Are we supposed to say, "Why don?t we meet you in the middle? Cut the brake lines, slow it down to 55 mph, and we'll stop all our backseat complaining about that cliff. Deal?"

If we want to save the American dream, we have to say "no.?
If we want to stop this country from going bankrupt, we have to say "no."
If we want future generations of Americans to have a chance to live in the same great country we grew up in, we have to say "no."

That doesn't mean the Tea Party isn't willing to say "yes" on issues that help pull the country back from the brink. Put a balanced budget amendment, term limits, and a repeal of Obamacare on the agenda and watch how quickly Tea Partiers say "yes."

But, until we get the barrel of the gun out of this country's mouth, we have to keep saying "no" when we're asked for handfuls of bullets.


Establishment vs Grass Roots