…came after the Constitution. And the Constitution fought back. It was also the year that the “voters saw the left’s unvarnished agenda and said no:”
Never has a Congress done so much and been so despised for it.
…The real story of 2010 is that the voters were finally able to see and judge this liberal agenda in its unvarnished form. For once, there was no Republican President to muddle the message or divide the accountability. The public was able to compare the promise of 8% unemployment if the government spent $812 billion on “stimulus” with the 9.8% jobless result. They stood athwart liberal history in the making and said, “Stop.”
And justly so. No, the government, and especially the federal government, can’t make you eat your broccoli.
Here’s a nice bomb-throwing way to destroy any conversation on this subject:
Ask if the Government can require you to marry and have children. After all, children have an enormous economic impact. Ask any parent.
Or, for a different set of people to offend, ask if they can forbid you to have them.
Actually in respect to the Constitution the Tea Party appears to want to do a major conservative rewrite of it. Note that other then for space exploration and disease control there are no provisions to fund science. (That will show those climate scientists!). Nor are there any provisions to provide uniform safety standards for space vehicles (good bye FAA AST), so I guess space commerce will disappear under the new national agency for space exploration provided for in the proposed amendments. I guess its good bye New Space as far as the Tea Party goes 🙂
http://charlestonteaparty.org/?p=12237
Constitutional Amendments to Save America, Part 1
December 17, 2010
[[[This is the first in a three-part series about new constitutional amendments needed to rescue America. Twelve amendments are necessary to repair decades of constitutional and fiscal abuse.]]]
[[[4.1 In addition to powers already enumerated by the Constitution, the People and the States hereby delegate additional powers to the Federal government. These new powers are enumerated and restricted as follows:
– establish uniform food safety standards
– establish uniform drug safety standards
– establish uniform safety standards for handling hazardous materials
– establish uniform air, marine and land vehicle safety standards
– establish uniform worker and workplace safety standards
– plan, build and maintain an interstate highway system
– establish and operate a national agency for space exploration***
– establish and operate a national library
– establish and operate a national historical museum
– establish and operate a national archive for government documents
– establish and operate a system of national parks
– establish uniform licensing standards for broadcast bandwidths
– negotiate and enforce international trade agreements
– collect, analyze, publish national statistics on business & commerce
– collect, analyze, publish national statistics on health & living conditions
– establish and operate a national center for disease control
– establish and operate an emergency response center for large-scale disasters
– establish a non-government export-import bank to facilitate foreign trade
– establish a non-government central bank to regulate the national economy
– make laws needed to properly execute the foregoing powers]]]
So, Thomas, you are taking something from one local group and insanely extrapolating it to what all Tea Partiers believe, and what the Republicans are going to promote? Really?
And we’re supposed to take you seriously?
That is what I like about the Tea Party, how slippery they are. When an inconvenient position emerges its “just a local group” advocating it. But then in the same breath they talk about it being a “mass movement” to return to “Constitutional government”. But as this link, and dozens of similar ones I could post show, there is no clear agreement within the Tea Party of what that phase even means. Some want to rewrite the entire Constitution. Others just want to turn the clock back to the 19th Century. Some to just January 2009.
Its the same with the federal budget. Tea Party supporters claim to want to cut the federal budget, but try to get a supporter of the Tea Party to commit to a specific cuts they go silent or change the subject.
This is why after a few months of seeing them in action in Congress the Tea Party bubble will burst, especially if the economic recovery builds. In some states, like Alaska and Nevada, the voters have already wised up. (Kudos to those who wrote in Senator”s Lisa Murkowski’s name.)
Considering the terrible damage the so-called “progressives” have inflicted on the U.S. Constitution, I’m supposed to fear some hypothetical damage the T.E.A. Parties might do? Seriously?
I say thank God for the Tea Party Caucus. They at least have the potential to impede the runaway Democrats. Reversing the damage already done though will be a very long term project.
Uh, doesn’t section 8 of the Constitution leave a pretty wide-open hole for science spending?
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html
Hey Thomas,
How about the following: abolish the Depts of Education, Agriculture, Interior, Commerce, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, Homeland Security, and severely reduce the Depts of Treasury and Health and Human Services?
My complaint about your comment is that you consistently whine and moan and point fingers at everybody else and you put snarky quotes around every other word in your posts. But you NEVER suggest your own ideas to solve any problems.
Man up, dude. Get out of your parents’ basement, choose a side, and get busy articulating your position.
I haven’t taken Mr. Matula seriously since he chided me for not believing we should base our immigration policy on that old Emma Lazarus poem.
I don’t take seriously anybody who voted for Harry Reid.
And having actually visited Mr. Matula’s link, I see it’s a blog, and the article in question is not some sort of official manifesto, but a blog post by someone who doesn’t even use a real name. In any case, most Tea Partiers I know don’t want to add a bunch of stuff to what the government should do, so I’m thinking that either Mr. Matula knows this person and knows he (or she) is atypical of most Tea Partiers, or else like most liberals is an obsessive and went on a search until he found something that fit his preconceptions.
I think spatula saw “Tea Party” in the first graph of the first link and thought “eh”. But then he came upon:
Every American who has the educational attainment of fourth grade civics understands that the U.S. Constitution is the very document to which every single elected federal official must swear a fealty oath.
That struck a nerve, huh dude. Who the hell needs a civics class in forth grade? You certainly didn’t, and you turned out just fine!
And force-feeding civics to all those wonderful illegal immigrants? Starting in the FORTH GRADE?? Horrors!!
“try to get a supporter of the Tea Party to commit to a specific cuts they go silent or change the subject. ”
I hereby commit to Representative Paul Ryan’s (R-Wisconsin) plan to cut the deficit by reforming Social Security and Medicare and rolling back provisions of Health Care Reform. There, I done it. I didn’t go silent and I didn’t change the subject.
Actually in respect to the Constitution the Tea Party appears to want to do a major conservative rewrite of it. Note that other then for space exploration and disease control there are no provisions to fund science. (That will show those climate scientists!). Nor are there any provisions to provide uniform safety standards for space vehicles (good bye FAA AST), so I guess space commerce will disappear under the new national agency for space exploration provided for in the proposed amendments. I guess its good bye New Space as far as the Tea Party goes
As noted, this is a single person’s opinion and it might be subject to change, if you were to give them your opinion. Also, if a restriction against government-funded science were imposed, it would open the door to privately funded science. I don’t see that this is particularly destructive to US interests.
That is what I like about the Tea Party, how slippery they are.
Why do you keep complaining, if you “like” it? I suggest there’s a real simple reason for your confusion in this matter. Improper use of stereotyping. All the “slipperiness” can easily be explained by the fact that the movement consists of people who agree on some combination of the claims such as government spends too much or is too powerful, but not how to fix the perceived problems or much else for that matter.
It took me a while to “parse the snark”, but I think the knock on the Tea Parties is along the lines of John Cleese, leader of a radical group, poses the rhetorical question, “For all the Romans have done to us, what have we gotten in return”, where the response is “The aquaduct, the baths, wine, yes, lots of wine” and so on.
For example, Snarky L Reporter goes to a Tea Party rally and asks an organizer, “You are for limited, Constitutional government, but you wouldn’t do away with the CDC, now, would you.” “Oh no, we aren’t against the CDC!” Snarky L Reporter than goes down the list, “So, you aren’t against the Aquaduct, the baths, the wine, yes, lots of wine” and pretty soon you get the Popular Front for Palestine supporting the entire Roman agenda.
By the way, how is the election of Lisa Murkowski a victory for much of anything? The idea that a politician of a political party should run in a primary but disregard the outcome when it is not to their liking? The idea that a “professional” politician does a better job of holding up under the media spotlight than a “citizen” politician. The idea that the goal is not to adhere to a vision of limited government but instead advocate that people in Alaska should get their share of the Federal pie? You know, the aquaduct, the baths, and the wine. Yes, lots of wine.
Uh, doesn’t section 8 of the Constitution leave a pretty wide-open hole for science spending?
No, that just gives the federal government the power to grant and enforce patents, trademarks and other IP, not to fund science.
Me, too. It’s what makes them different from the drones who get their marching orders from the mothership.
Speaking of which, your copy of this month’s New Republic is waiting by the porch.
“Nor are there any provisions to provide uniform safety standards for space vehicles (good bye FAA AST), so I guess space commerce will disappear under the new national agency for space exploration provided for in the proposed amendments. I guess its good bye New Space as far as the Tea Party goes”
That’s an astounding leap you make there. So, a government with carefully enumerated powers will end up prohibiting private space flight? Sounds like an underpants gnome method of reasoning to me!
1. enumerated powers + 2. ??? = 3. no more private space
Or are you so foolish as to assume “private space flight” depends upon government subsidy?
Hint: private space flight that requires tax dollars for it’s survival isn’t really private space flight to begin with!
Example 1: SpaceX
Example 3: Xcor
They don’t require government hand outs to survive. Though any company would be stupid to ignore free gravy from Uncle Sucker.
I notice in comments they focus on the real issue… the indoctrination of children. This had got to be dealt with. As for slippery tea partiers… Yeah team. Thomas, you’re as slippery as they come. Fighting fire with fire is long past due.
As for the tactic of name which cut? You know the ONLY purpose of that is to get something on the record to attack.
The constitution only matters when people have the morals to defend its principles. Again, yeah tea party.
Tom H.
It just states the government will protect your rights of discovery, not that it will give the money to make those discoveries.
jiminator,
Those would be a good start, but I expect any such proposals wouldn’t get very far 🙂
Paul M,
[[[I hereby commit to Representative Paul Ryan’s (R-Wisconsin) plan to cut the deficit by reforming Social Security and Medicare and rolling back provisions of Health Care Reform. ]]]
And exactly what is his plan to reform them?
Ken,
Dodging the what you will cut question only works when you are running for office and you are getting the rubes to vote for you. Once in office you actually to start making decisions and doing things. It will be interesting to see if the Tea Party members elected make the transition.
Brad,
[[[Hint: private space flight that requires tax dollars for it’s survival isn’t really private space flight to begin with!
Example 1: SpaceX
Example 3: Xcor
They don’t require government hand outs to survive. ]]]
I’ll take Virgin Galactic as a example of private space flight, but so far SpaceX and Xcor are government contractors by definition, until they start flying private payloads to space.
Paul M,
[[[a “professional” politician does a better job of holding up under the media spotlight than a “citizen” politician]]]
If you mean she doesn’t need a personal goon squad to rough up and handcuff reporters than that is a complement to hear. Candidates should not be afraid of the media. But in any case I would prefer a professional politician to a bureaucrat who’s biggest claim to fame was finding a new way to tax private enterprise, which is what Joe Miller did while working for the Fairbanks North Star Borough.
No, Alaskans woke up to what Joe Miller was in time and by running as a write-in Lisa Murkowski saved that senate seat for the Republican Party. Otherwise there would be two Democratic Senators from Alaska today.
Everyone raise a hand who wishes that the bracket key on Mr. Matula’s keyboard wears out.
So is Matula saying that because some Tea Partiers are apparently inconsistent in their antistatism, consistent statism is better? That would be pretty boneheaded, even for the State-fellators who post here.
Submitted for your consideration: a grass-roots movment which IS consistently pro-freedom. Would Matural like them any better? Wouldn’t he hate and fear them more?
Good one, Titus. You nail the “Mat” down completely.
“And exactly what is his plan to reform them?”
For Social Security, basically to phase in a higher retirement age and a less generous index for increases in benefits over time, with people closer to retirement being less exposed to these changes, with people a long way from retirement more so. For Medicare, my understanding that there was a proposal for some fixed payout in place of open-ended payment of medical expenses. For Health Care Reform, I think the idea is to start over as what was put in place is not affordable.
Paul Ryan’s plan is very long on specifics, and there is enough “shared sacrifice” to go around. Disagree with the plan, disagree and claim there is nothing wrong with entitlements that an economic recovery and somewhat higher taxes won’t fix, but there very much is a Paul Ryan plan — that is pretty much how that guy spends his time.
As to my comment about professional vs citizen politicians, there is a lot said about the weaknesses of Joe Miller, Sharon Angle, Carly Fiorina, Christine O’Donnel, and others. On the other hand, if the Tea Party movement is going to bring in citizen politicians to run for these offices, you are going to start out with amateurs going up against seasoned professionals. Kind of like George Washington’s Army going up against George the Third’s Army. Contrary to what the school history books had suggested, George Washington’s Army was really rather pathetic as far as armies went, but you are going to run into this sort of thing when you place the inexperienced in a serious contest with the professional and the experienced.
Bilwick:
My suggestion is that we retire — that term –.
You know the old saying, when the facts are on your side, pound on the facts, when the law is on your side, pound on the law, but when neither or on your side, pound on the table. I think we have the facts on our side and we shouldn’t stoop to pounding on the table.
Kind of like George Washington’s Army going up against George the Third’s Army.
While that was true in 1776, it wasn’t true in 1781. The Continental Army not only fought serious battles later on in the Revolutionary War, but won serious battles. Besides, logistics was always a more serious issue than experience. Among other things, it was the deciding factor in the UK losing the war.
Also, I agree that it is time to retire “that term”. The sexual practices of authoritarian advocates are beneath our notice.
Yes, but from the perspective of the Tea Party Movement, it is 1775 (1773+2), not 1781. We haven’t had, what was it, the Battle of Cowpens where our guys have learned how to feint a a retreat and stand their ground during the counter attack.
There is a lot of recrimination about the Miller-Fiorina-Angle-O’Donnell losses from people sympathetic to the Tea Party and heaps of contempt from the people critical to the Tea Party. It is still 1775.
Just me, but +1 to Paul Milenkovic’s support of Paul Ryan’s plan. Plan sounds a great deal similar to what President Bush tried to push last decade. Many people my age and younger don’t expect Social Security to be available to us, because we can do the math and realize it will be insolvent long before we retire. There are some who don’t understand this. The best thing to do now is to assist those who bought into the government promise and then to set a date for Social Security’s end, so that others won’t rely on the government. This won’t be easy and will require phasing in through the use of pushing back retirement age and decreasing of benefits.
Paul,
[[[As to my comment about professional vs citizen politicians, there is a lot said about the weaknesses of Joe Miller, Sharon Angle, Carly Fiorina, Christine O’Donnel, and others. On the other hand, if the Tea Party movement is going to bring in citizen politicians to run for these offices, you are going to start out with amateurs going up against seasoned professionals.]]]
You do know that Sharon Angle was a state legislator for many years (its where her “41 to Angle” nickname comes from…) and has been involved in running for office one way or another since the 1980’s. Christine O’Donnel has also been running for office for years, having lost to VP Bidel in 2008 when she was not working as a political organizer. Joe Miller has been working for the government in political appointments since he left Law School. So exactly what is your definition of a Citizen Politician?
Other the Carly Fiorina who was busy destroy HP’s reputation all the rest have been involved in politics in their state for many years. So they are not amateurs, just political opportunists that the local electorate knows well, which is why they rejected them despite the best efforts of the Fox News/Tea Party propaganda machine. Please Paul, do your homework. 🙂
Titus,
[[[Me, too. It’s what makes them different from the drones who get their marching orders from the mothership.]]]
I suggest strongly that you read the “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” by William L. Shirer (1960) to learn a bit about another political movement that was slippery until it got into power. Fortunately the majority of the American electorate has an aversion to slippery and candidates that dodge the media, which was a major reason Sharon (did I say that?) Angle was defeated in Nevada.
Bilwick,
[[[So is Matula saying that because some Tea Partiers are apparently inconsistent in their antistatism, consistent statism is better?]]]
They are consistent in their rejection of the President and Democrats, but beyond that the Tea Party is all over the charts which is why they will basically fail when they actually have to do something other then protest. Here is a good story along those lines. Call it Tea Party Activist meets the Real World.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/31/AR2010123102550.html?hpid=topnews
Tea-party activists question if rebel political movement has changed for worse
By Amy Gardner
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 1, 2011; 12:02 PM
Karl,
[[[While that was true in 1776, it wasn’t true in 1781. The Continental Army not only fought serious battles later on in the Revolutionary War, but won serious battles. ]]]
Especially after the French started supplying the Continental Army with weapons and used their Navy to disrupt the English lines of supply.
Leland,
[[[Just me, but +1 to Paul Milenkovic’s support of Paul Ryan’s plan. Plan sounds a great deal similar to what President Bush tried to push last decade.]]]
It is, as well as the proposals of the Deficit Commission on Social Security and Medicare. Both need to be dealt with to fix the long term budget problem.
Paul,
[[[There is a lot of recrimination about the Miller-Fiorina-Angle-O’Donnell losses from people sympathetic to the Tea Party and heaps of contempt from the people critical to the Tea Party.]]]
Evidence? Links? that this has changed from the election.
Ah, now you’re talking about one of my fav books, one I felt compelled to re-read a couple years ago during the “historic” election of Obama and your precious Democrats.
Might be a perverse logic to the TEA Party suggested list of amendments, given that they are all stuff the feds are doing today, yet none is explicitly mentioned in Article I Section 8. Float an amendment on each topic. When they don’t pass, you then have public support that they are unconstitutional and can defund them and shut them down. Consider it a bank shot.
As to Lisa M, those of us here in AK do consider we have two democrat senators. Miller lost because the Native Corporations and unions dumped $1.6 million of free, uncountable money into a campaign against him. I don’t think Lisa is going to enjoy herself all that much fun over the next 6 years. And her Big Money patrons are going to experience the wonders of the Free Market in the not so distant future. Cheers –
I thought Bush was Hitler?
So Thomas, it’s the Nazi tea party now?
Does Godwin now come into play?
It certainly does, and I’m glad he went there — it removes all doubt about Dr. Spatula’s madness: he can be safely ignored.
Ken,
The common theme is how fringe political groups take advantage of economic hard times to get into power with vague promises of restoring national glory while dodging answering questions on specifics, and the consequence when voters buy into such movements.
Of course there are two things in America’s favor. We have a republic form of government, not a parliamentary form so its nearly impossible for fringe parties to get power unless they cloak them themselves in one of the major parties (which is why the candidates for the Tea Party have to pretend to be Republicans to get elected). The second is that American voters tend to be less trusting then European voters and want to hear what a candidate’s plans are before voting for them.
In Nevada on of the key factors that caused Sharon Angle to lose was how she hid from the local media. It became a standard joke in the state. And of course we all know how Joe “goon squad” miller dealt with a reporter who dared to ask a question.
So…you don’t understand anything about the “slippery” Tea partiers except that they’re not Republicans because Republicans are crystal-clear in what they’re about, or something.
Titus,
Its the Tea Party that is referring to long time members of the Republican Party as “Republican in Name Only” (RINO), so clearly they seem to feel that Republicans are crystal clear about something, else they wouldn’t have to attack them as being fake and claiming they don’t believe in it.
Its the same tactic the John Birch Society used when they tried to hijack the Republican Party in the 1960’s before William Buckley Jr., Ronald Reagan and other key Republicans defined conserativism in a way that excluded their radicalism and saved the Republican Party.
That would be their attempts to mimic Democrats. Beyond that, nobody knows, even you.