America’s Tea Party According to Flip-Idiots
A politically naive and ignorant blogger of a neo-collectivist blog group called Get Real Philippines made an idiotic, highly ill- informed rant about America’s Tea Party. Well, most of the group’s members pillory this anti-big government grassroots movement, which they call Tea Baggers, for being anti-Obama and anti-status quo. This absurd blog group banners this farcical mantra: “Culture is the collective character of a people who have given themselves a collective identity.”
It seems that these flips were well trained to attack a strawman.
Now here’s what this GRP blogger who I call “boba” for being “boba” said:
“Let me see if I get this right: Tea party members or most republicans in the US hate Obama because they claim that his overspending caused the financial mess. However part of that “overspending” was bailing out companies in the brink of collapse (eg. auto industry). Now some of the “millionaires” are going up in arms against the idea of taxing them more. I wonder if they would feel the same way when they find their company in need of help from the government one day. Would they be too proud to ask for bailouts using taxpayer’s money? I doubt it. Is it just me or does anyone else see the irony?”
I believe this kind of dull-witted, ill-advised comment needs to be challenged and corrected before infecting the minds of their unsuspecting, gullible readers.
Here’s my comment on the blogger’s hilarious rant:
I say, IDIOT. Boba! If this creature did her homework well, she would have discovered the following facts:
1. The Party is being ostracized and alienated by the Republican Party’s big wigs.
2. That most Republican big wigs are afraid of the Tea Party movement.
3. The Tea Party people never approved of or supported the bailout that contributed to America’s “overspending”. In short, they opposed the bailout.
4. The Tea Party is opposed to some of Republican Party’s agenda.
5. The goal of the Tea Party is to replace and/or infiltrate the Republican Party so to push for their goals: limited government, less regulations, less spending, and capitalism.
Here are the previous posts on the Tea Party express:
Under the socialist regime of Obama, the American government assumed the role of an omnipotent provider of what every American needs. This statist political action may sound good to some brainless socialists and idiotic supporters of communism yet it has a cornucopia of dangerous side effects. When a government provides almost everything that the people need, it has to steal the money and the goods from the people who work and produce. The inevitable result of Obama’s welfare state idiocy are higher taxes, less individual and economic freedom, more debts and budget deficit, more Obama cronies, and bigger, dictatorial government…
It is indeed enlightening to see Ayn Rand’s influence on the Tea Party protests. However, in order for this ongoing revolt against dictatorship and tyranny to be successful it must be guided by rational intellectual leadership. The main objective of this intellectual struggle is to return to the Founding Father’s concept of the proper role of government. According to Ayn Rand, the only proper role of government is to protect individual rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.
The Tea Party protesters need intellectual leadership in order to understand that the source of all crises is not Capitalism, but massive government intervention. Until and unless grasp the real concept of laissez-faire capitalism and the true nature of government, they would not be able to defeat the evil forces of tyranny or collectivism.
In its stupidest editorial published on Nov. 8, the Inquirer states that “to those of us on the outside looking in”, those who voted against Obama’s socialist agenda are racist. The country’s largest newspaper didn’t mince words in exposing its intellectual bankruptcy, as it states:
“To be sure, there were other, complicating factors. The formation of the Tea Party was both an asset and a liability to the Republicans: It helped drum up support and get out the vote, but at the same time it helped select primary winners who had little or no chance of widening their narrow bases enough to win district or state elections. The increasing resistance to Obama, strictly on the basis of his color, is another factor; to those of us on the outside looking in, the battle cry to “take back America” is unmistakable code for a racist attack on Obama’s “difference.”
This merely confirms my assertion that Conrado de Quiros, who’s part of the Inquirer, and the Obama-worshiping intellectuals at the PDI and other media outlets in the country are dead wrong in their evaluation of the agenda of the first-ever black president of the most powerful country on earth. Such an “outsider” observation clearly exposes the Inquirer’s ignorance of the founding principles of America. By suggesting that the American voters were motivated by racism, the Inquirer is simply trying to argue that Obama’s defeat was purely emotional and anti-intellectual.
With its anti-intellectual “racist” rhetoric, the Inquirer is belittling the intelligence and confidence of the American voters, even calling them “stupid” for trying to take back America from the claws of statism or socialism. It suggests that the Americans didn’t vote for the founding principles of America- that they didn’t vote for limited government, lower taxation, and reduced spending. That they voted for Republicans simply because they hate Obama “strictly on the basis of his color” and because of his “difference.”
Recently the Dems employed scare tactics and asked for higher government spending, while the Tea Party-fueled Republican Party urged for lower spending, budget cut, lower taxes, less regulations, and limited government.
How can Obama finance his ObamaCare lunacy, which is his number one campaign mechanism for the 2012 presidential election, without breaching America’s debt ceiling?
But of course, Obama’s Harvard diploma and rocks star personality can never suspend the laws of economics and supply and demand.
This article titled Shooting the Tea Party Messengers clearly explains the nature and ideology behind the Tea Party Movement:
There are essentially two parties in Congress today. One is the liberal-socialist Democrat-Republican party. These consist of all Democrats plus most of the Senate Republicans, leaving aside the Tea Party Republican Senators elected in 2010. The second party consists of the Tea Party Republicans who dominate the House of Representatives. The good news is that the USA is getting somewhere, in that we’re in the process of forming a second party. But much of the Republican Party, especially in the Senate, is populated by people who really don’t have a problem with Big Government as we know it. These are the members of the party who still have to go.
If we had a real second party in both houses of Congress, it would be even harder for Obama to get away with his claim that the “reasonable” thing to do is both raise taxes and cut spending. You can be sure that Obama has no intention of cutting spending. Government always has, and always will, find ways to restore cuts and turn spending reductions into spending increases. There’s no incentive for government to do otherwise, so long as most members of Congress, in addition to the President, believe in socialism. The only way to cut spending is to put a limit on government. This is what the House Republicans are at least attempting to do through their “cut, cap and balance” proposal. They’re trying to tell Americans, “Government shouldn’t be doing all these things. The only way to stop government from doing these things is to tie its hands.” And this is precisely why not only Obama, but also most Republican Senators, cannot stand the proposal. They don’t want to restrain government. They want to leave it largely as it is (in the case of Republicans), or massively expand it, forever (in the case of Obama and most Democrats).
This article titled GOP vs. Tea Party: The Issues Dividing Both Sides explains the Tea Party Movement’s political goals:
Tax cuts: This is an issue where Tea Partiers and mainstream Republicans agree. Both sides have called on extending the Bush tax cuts, saying their expiration even for the wealthiest Americans would amount to a tax hike that could imperil a fragile recovery.
Size of Federal Government: Tea Party believes in smaller government. Activists, including candidates Sharron Angle in Nevada and Rand Paul in Kentucky, have proposed abolishing the Energy and Education departments and the Federal Reserve.
Republicans also believe in limited government, but they have attacked candidates calling for the abolition of federal agencies as out of the mainstream.
Social Security: Tea Partiers have called for privatizing Social Security. But when President Bush made the same proposal in 2005, it was a nonstarter among Republicans in Congress.
Immigration: Tea Partiers supported Arizona’s illegal immigration law that a judge mostly blocked this summer.
Republicans have also expressed support for the law but many conservatives are still mad at the party for trying to pass comprehensive immigration reform twice under President Bush that would have provided a pathway to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants.
Health Care: Tea Partiers want to defund, repeal and replace the law. While Republicans have echoed similar sentiments, Tea Partiers are concerned that Republicans won’t follow through on their promise if they regain power.
Energy: Tea Partiers call for the rejection of cap and trade, a policy that would cap the carbon emissions that energy companies release into the atmosphere and force companies to trade permits to emit.
Many Republicans also have opposed the policy, deriding it as cap and tax. But some Republicans who have supported it have paid a political price, most recently Rep. Mike Castle.