Excellent letter, Andrew. Expect the usual suspects to start complaining about
how President Obama's a socialist anytime now.
"Beliefs determine what we can see."Exactly. And facts
don't matter.Two examples.Got a mass email from
someone in our scout troop a couple years ago. It explained how Obama wanted to
take "in God we Trust" off of the money. This person called for
organized protests. He sent this to 50+ people.When I responded
(only to him) with several sources showing that this was completely false, I
never heard back. He didn't thank me or express happiness that this
terrible thing would not be happening. Same thing with the ACA. A
friend told me that he was Furious with the ACA because Congress has exempted
itself. (Seen daily on Fox News.) What a great rant he had. It was his proof as
to how bad the ACA was.I then showed him, with unbiased or right
leaning FACTS how this was false. Congress and staff are the only people in
America who are REQUIRED by_law to join the exchanges.(I also gave him the
facts about their subsidy and_why)Was he happy? NOPE.He
would rather rant about something that was false, than be satisfied with the
truth.Ask yourself. "Is that ME"?
What I see as sad is that we are stealing so much from our nation's future.
So much... they are going to have to pay so badly for our debt. When the Republicans are in charge.... they don't balance the budget.
They say they will... but always find reasons to spend, spend and spend. When the Democrats are in charge... they don't seem to even talk
about trying to balance the budget. I feel for the children. We
are literally stealing from them with these unbalanced budgets. Simple math. Spend less or equal to what you take it. If Congress can't
figure that out, why exactly do we expect them to figure anything else out?
Excellent commentary about the Tea Party, Mike Lee, and their ilk.
Yes, blame those who believe in freedom, for Obama's usurpation of our
liberty. The White House directed the parks and monuments of this nation to
shut down. Was that a loss of liberty? Can the Americans who fought WWII to
retain our freedoms even visit the monument that was erected, with private
funds, to honor them and the sacrifice that they made? Why did Obama shut down
WIC when funds had been allocated to that program and funds were still available
even if no funds had been allocated? Why would anyone hold women, infants and
children hostage? Certainly no American President has ever stooped that low.
Yet, the letter writer blames the "tea party".Who was it
that wrote the Declaration of Independence? Was it those who shouted the praises
of King George? Was it those who told the people that the King could do
whatever he wanted because, after all, he was the King, whether he was
"crazy" or not?Today, "King Men" shout praises for
Obama. They mock our freedoms. They mock those of use who cherish freedom.
They want a King. They are incapable of handling freedom.
Deficits...Poisoning...and Don Quixote..."...Deficits don't
matter...".So said romney's idol, republican vp dick
cheney...Poisoning?rafael cruz = Don Quixotemike lee = Sancho Panza.Where do we go from here?The
title of a recent book suggests that...republicans have lost their
minds...Democrats are useless...And the Middle Class got
Andrew,So anything with which you disagree is “uninformed and
irrational radicalism”? Ah, the typical “tolerance” of the
left. And of course, our typical leftist commenters show the same
“tolerance”Capable and well intentioned potus? NOW who
is being uninformed and irrational?There you go,Who said
cheney was romney’s idol? Making stuff up again?
Re: "uninformed and irrational".... this letter takes the cake.You can tell when somebody gets all their information from MSNBC or the news,
and hasn't bothered to actually talk to a Tea Party person or even go to a
rally to see for themselves.Tea Party isn't about getting
Obama. It was around before Obama. And they have taken on more Republicans
and gotten more Republican incumbants unelected than they have Democrats.This fear that they are just after Obama, and the constant uninformed
insistance that it's all about race... is "uninformed and
irrational".They are mainly after out of control Government
spending. They can't help it if Obama is the poster-child for what they
are against.I suspect when Obama is gone in a couple of years they
will continue, and they will continue to be about reducing our government's
spending, out of control taxation to accommodate that spending, reduce the size
of the FEDERAL Government (to the boundaries set in the Constitution). They
will continue to be about individual liberty (even liberty to make mistakes).
And the movement will continue to have zero to do with racism.
Re:2bitsThe current Tea Party movement began in early 2009. I remember
very clearly watching Fox promote them on various programs. I've also listened to T Partiers discuss the issues and explain
themselves--and not through the "liberal" MSNBC or other
liberal,programs.It is very possible the Republicans would have the
majority in the Senate were it not for the T-Partiers. For example, the Tea
Party promoted "i'm not a witch" Christine O'Donnell in DE
over a well-liked and well-respected Republican Mike Castle which resulted in
the Democrats winning the seat.Andrew is spot-on.
It's ironic that Mike Richards would bring up the King Men from the Book of
Mormon on this one. Weren't the King Men a (rich) minority who
didn't like Democracy? Wasn't Pahoran democratically elected by the
majority voice of the people? Yet, wasn't it the King Men who wanted to
negate his election and overrule the majority? Weren't the King
Men those who sought to exasperate a situation for their own political gain?Weren't the King Men those who rather than follow the rules and
regulations of the land, destroy them? Mike Lee, Jason Chaffetz, and
the Tea Party are modern day examples of King Men. The mere fact that they are
running away from their constituents and refusing to do any interviews with KSL
only proves this point. They don't care about us. They only care about
themselves. About representing their tiny (rich) minority.
"So anything with which you disagree is uninformed and irrational
radicalism?"My Gpa was a very wise man. He taught, "If it
looks like a rat and smells like a rat, it probably is." Sorry,
but sometimes uninformed and irrational radicalism really just is uniformed and
irrational radicalism. You may not like this. You may even ignore the evidence
that proves this. But you cannot change the fact and the truth that it is. I'm sure that Pharisees and the Sadducees were in the same denial.
"Us? Evil? But we're children of Abraham! How dare you demand to see
our good works! We do great works all the time!"
Re: Hamath "When the Republicans are in charge.... they don't balance
the budget".Fact is... last time the budget was balanced
Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate. Granted Clinton occupied
the White House, but Republicans controlled Congress (which controls the
budget).Google "who controlled congress when clinton balanced
the budget".You will be exposed to the fact that no Democrat
controlled Congress has balanced the budget in over 40 years.Here's some history on it...1993 — the year of the
giant Clinton tax hike — was not the turning point in the deficit wars.
In fact, in 1995, two years after that tax hike, the budget baseline submitted
by the president’s own Office predicted $200 billion deficits for as far
as the eye could see. America disgusted with rampant welfare abuse and out of
control government spending elected Gingrich and company giving "Contract
with America" empowered Republicans (the Tea Party of their day) control of
Congress... and they did balance the budget as promised.Congress is
responsible for the budget (not the President). People giving Clinton credit
for that budget he fought bitterly against are intellectually dishonest.
Hamath said, "When the Republicans are in charge.... they don't balance
the budget. They say they will... but always find reasons to spend, spend and
spend. When the Democrats are in charge... they don't seem to even talk
about trying to balance the budget. "Part correct and part
incorrect. In the presidential campaign of 1980 Ronoald Reagan claimed that the
$75B deficit from President Carter's last year in office was
"obscene." Then Reagan was elected and tripled our national debt
leaving us with $350B plus deficits. Not once did Reagan present anything close
to a balanced budget and on two of his eight years in Congress, the Democratic
controlled House passed a budget with a lower deficit than Reagans proposed
budget for that year.President Clinton, with assistance from a
Republican Congress, passed a surplus budget that the CBO said, if continued,
would erase the then $5+ trillion debt within ten years. But George Bush gave
tax cuts, most to the wealthy and look where we are today.
Look at those who tell us that because Obama was elected that he has the right
to dictate to us anything that he wants, regardless of the restrictions put on
him by the Constitution! Look at those who think that bribing Congress
(Louisiana Purchase, Nebraska, etc.) is lawful and ethical. Look at those who
think that changing the rules at the last second, when ObamaCare was going down
in flames, is what the people who elected Obama wanted. Look at those who tell
us that the government has the right to ignore 59% of the people who told
Congress and Obama that they did not want ObamaCare passed.Those who
tell us that Obama and Reid have the right to hold America hostage until America
concedes that those two can dictate to us whatever they want, are clearly wrong.
They are the "King Men". They have traded the freedoms, guaranteed by
the Constitution to the People, for a handkerchief so that government can wipe
their noses.Then, they have the gall to tell us that King Obama has
the right to stomp on the Constitution because they voted for him.
Weren't the King Men a (rich) minority who didn't like Democracy? QUOTEIf I have the right scripture it states that the
supporters of Amalackiah, who conspired to be a king, .."were the greater
part of them the lower judges of the land....And they had been led by the
flatteries of Amalckiah, that if they would support him.... he would make them
rulers of the people".Alma 46:4-5In a later
rebellion against the laws of liberty it was "almost all the lawyers"
and the "kindreds of ...judges" and even "high priests" that
conspired to destroy freedom.3 Nephi 6: 27-30
@2 bitsFact is...last time the Republicans controlled the White
House, and both houses of Congress they ran up then record deficits. Did
nothing to slow down the growth of government (in fact they greatly increased
it)When either party is in complete control they tend to run away
with spending, it only becomes an issue when it is on things you don't
"Fact is... last time the budget was balanced Republicans controlled both
the House and the Senate. Granted Clinton occupied the White House, but
Republicans controlled Congress (which controls the budget)."Yes
2-Bits. But ...The GOP also controlled the congress for 6 years
under George W Bush?During that time the deficit jumped significantly.The passed Medicare Part D which was the largest entitlement expansion
in decades.Hard to portray the GOP as deficit busters. It would
appear that they only scream about spending with a Dem in the white house.
Truthseeker,The same people who fight big spending by Obama were fighting
big spending under Bush (TARP, etc). That's why Bennett got ousted.Maybe they didn't call themselves the Tea Party back then, but they
were still there.IMO They didn't fight government spending
under Bush as they should have. But they did fight it (a losing battle). They
became especially active when Obama took office because of his campaign promises
to raise taxes (and fighting tax increases on ALL Americans is part of their
platform). And no... Racism has never been part of their platform.I think their message was mostly ignored during the Bush years because he kept
cutting taxes and promising to keep taxes low (which is their main thing). But
He also kept spending (mostly on the wars). So anti-tax protests under a
President who was CUTTING taxes... didn't get much traction.MaxPower,I don't know if Clinton era Republicans slowed government
growth, but Welfare-Reform DID produce a documented decrease in entitlement
spending (though it wasn't enough to last long or save them from long term
bankruptcy).IMO best combination in Washington is Democrat President
and Republican Congress.
JoeBlow,I didn't say any time Republicans control Congress we have a
balanced budget. That's obviously not true (like you pointed out). But I
also never said it.I actually said it's best when there is a
Democrat President and a Republican Congress (or visa versa a Republican
President and Democrat Congress). Proof...Last time a
Democrat President had a balanced budget Congress was controlled by Republicans
(empowered by the landslide mid-term election and the contract with America to
do something about government spending).Last time a Republican
President had a balanced budget (Eisenhower) Democrats controlled Congress.The point being... it's GOOD for there to be opposition, checks and
balance in government (as our founding fathers wanted). And it's BAD when
we have a President, Congress and Supreme Court controlled by the same party (as
we had the first years of the Obama administration). During those years
Congress didn't even SUBMIT a budget... must less BALANCE the budget!That's what happens when you have one-party-supermajority, and an
arrogant supermajority at that. As you point out... same thing happened during
the Bush administration when Republicans controlled everything.Balance is key.
2_bit,It appeared to me that you advocated a GOP congress because
"Congress is responsible for the budget (not the President)."I only pointed out that the GOP congress with a GOP president had free
reign.And they didn't handle it well, deficit wise.I too believe that balance is best. I am actually pulling for the moderates
in the GOP to somehow gain back control and bring a bit more "rational"
thinking to the party.I could possibly vote for a Christie because
he would not be a puppet to the wing of the party.Romney would have been
as evidenced by how much he tried to cater to them.I would strongly
consider Rice. I would have probably voted for Colin Powell. Or Huntsman But, in reality, the wing of the party, who controls the primary
process, would not want anyone who will not vote lock step with them. They want
someone to rubberstamp only a far right agenda.They want a Cruz
type.And the independents will not go for Cruz.Give me
reasonable balance. That is what we need. R or D would be fine. Most cant admit it but Obama is fairly moderate.
The GOP has a major credibility problem. Where was the concern over runaway
spending when Reagan tripled the deficit? Or when Bush I ran wild? Or when
"The Chosen One" destroyed Clinton's surplus and decided to greatly
expand government while cutting taxes? How many low information
voters rant against Obama's ever shrinking deficit yet were missing in
action for 8 years under Bush?Where were the cries over charging our
children and children's children with Chinese debt when Cheney declared
that, "Deficits don't matter?" Would anyone here listen
to a bishop or missionary who was known for partying, breaking the law of
chastity, and rarely came to church? Absolutely not. Why? He wouldn't have
any credibility. The same thing applies to the GOP. If
you are to be taken seriously and your calls for fiscal responsibility to be
taken as sincere, then you need to ACT like conservatives ESPECIALLY when your
party is in power. Not just when it's convenient to bash "the other
party." It will take years to rebuild the GOP's reputation.
Sadly, they don't seem at all concerned over it.
Re:2bits"1993 — the year of the giant Clinton tax hike —
was not the turning point in the deficit wars."Note:Clinton's first budget was Oct.1993-Sept 1994. The Deficit Reduction
Act was signed by Pres. Clinton Aug. 1993, without a single Republican vote. From the CBO 1994:"he economic and budget outlook has not
Tchanged substantially since last September, but the deficit picture is
significantly brighter than it appeared one year ago when the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) projected that the deficit would soar above $350 billion by
fiscal year 1998. CBO now projects that the federal budget deficit will fall
from $223 billion in the current year to below $170 billion in 1996, then creep
up to around $200 billion in 1999. The dramatic improvement since last January
is largely the result of the enactment in August of a major package of tax
increases and spending cuts—the Omnibus Budget ReconciliationAct of
1993 (OBRA-93)."There was nary a word from Republicans during
Bush yrs regarding spending. Only when TARP was in process (signed by Bush Oct.
2008) was there an outcry from some Republicans.
Perhaps a recall election is order.
The Constitution is hanging by a thread.And Mike Lee is playing with
You know, I actually like Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, FoxNews, and AM
radio...They are the best thing to EVER happen to us
If I was a Democrat I would be thanking Lee, Cruz and Hatch for making the
republican's look extreme and ignorant. Republican’s just shot them
the next election. Here comes President Hillary Clinton.
The tea party wanted all or nothing. Got nothing. Time to disband and start
another radical extreme organization trying to bring down the economy. Senator
Lee should resign.
The 9 most terrifying words in the English language are, "I'm Mike Lee and I'm your senator."I've
never been so embarrassed to be a Utahn. I've never even been so
embarrassed to be a Mormon. So many of us are working diligently to erase
stereotypes and to promote love and understanding. Mike Lee's poisoning
only hurts America's perception of our state and predominant religion. Which is why I cannot wait until these next elections. Hopefully, we can
get a recall amendment passed before then so we can call Mr. Lee back home. If
not, then I hope we can get rid of the ridiculous caucus system which was
hijacked by extremists which gave Mr. Lee life. In the future, I
hope that Jon Huntsman runs for senator. He is someone who we can all support
and be proud of. Someone not afraid to take a stand and stick up for what's
right rather than obstruct and look for photo ops. Mr. Lee, goodbye!
Go back to being a lobbyist for Energy Solutions for all I care. Mr. Huntsman,
welcome to the nation's proud capitol. We stand proud being represented by
I find it very entertaining to see how the dedicated right wingers try to twist
the current situation into something it is not. The tea partiers are sane. Obama
is a socialist. It's Harry Reid who shut down the gummint. Mike Lee is
simply standing on principle. Oh please. Come out of the echo chamber.
You'd see how silly you sound.
I find it most interesting that Obama's supporters neglect to remind us
that Obama and Reid took food and medicine away from women, infants and
children. No other President or Majority Leader in history has done that. I
find it most interesting that Obama's supporters cheer Obama when he closed
the open-air monuments to those who preserved our freedom. That dispicable act
could not have been a budget matter because it cost more to set up the
barricades than it cost to leave things as they were.Let's get
one fact absolutely straight: Obama has thrown all of us under the bus. He just
doesn't care about anyone except himself. He did not close the golf
courses on the military bases but he ordered that Catholic Chaplins could not
perform mass nor give councel to those soldiers of their faith.He
just doesn't care. He is stomping on the 1st Amendment. He is stomping on
our vets. He is stomping on women, infants and children - and some posters
cheer him on. The House passed funding for all of those things. Obama and Reid
are holding us hostage. They are lower than low.
Mike,You left off the part about how Obama hates America and wants
it to fail.And on top of that, he doesn't even wear a flag pin
when he golfs.The nerve.
Its funny how the sheer idiocy of the entire political argument is totally lost
on so many people.The actual problem with American government these
days is the parties themselves. They are the ones driving the insanity.As long as we are fighting against the "other" party, or blindly
accepting the party leaders' positions as acceptable, regardless of which
party it is, America will NEVER succeed. The parties have
absolutely no interest in making America better, or in making the gov't
financially responsible. They actually are better off when America is arguing
and fighting, and spending far beyond our means. That's when they get the
most donations, the most airtime, the most power. As does the ridiculous circus
ring-masters we so stupidly refer to as media.You really want
America to be better? Get rid of the parties, get rid of the old men playing
the political game for their advantage and profit, start paring down the
obscenely large federal bureaucracy, and start making OUR government work for
US, instead of themselves.Sadly, that's a Tea Party idea, so
many of you will reject it without thought, as your masters demand.
JoeBlow,Do you understand who or what teaches envy, coveting, and
class warfare? What other President in American history ever promoted those
kinds of ideas? What other President in American history ever held America
hostage if they didn't pay his 18% ObamaCare TAX? Look at history. Wilson
told us that income taxes would never be over 7% on the rich guy. That was a
laugh. FDR told us that we would be taken care of in our old age if we just
gave the government 2% of our income. Yeah, sure. Now Obama sees the 18% that
constitutes what most families pay for health-care (one way or another) and he
can't keep his greedy hands off that money. He has debts to pay. He owes
unions. He owes Soros. He owes Solyndra. He will hold us hostage until he
gets what he wants. That is his character. He drew a red line in the sand in
Syria. The world told him that he was foolish. Now he's drawn another red
line right through America. He actually expects us to think that some "rich
guy" will pay our bills. Do you?
Mike Richards,Obama won and Romney lost. Get over it!
It's not the Democrats vs the Republicans. It's the Democrats and the
Republicans vs freedom. They're both wrong. They see government as a sport.
And the rest of us aren't even the spectators, we're the grass on the
playing field beneath their feet.Mike Lee is breaking the rules of
the game, but it's a corrupt game. Playing by corrupt rules corrupts
one's soul. Lee is doing the right thing for all of us. The current course
of our government is unsustainable. We can try to fix it now or wait till it
collapses under the weight of debt.Now is the time to take a stand.
@Mike Richards;Get off your high horse. You don't "believe
in freedom"; at least if it applies to people you don't approve of.
You've made that clear repeatedly.
I think Mike Lee is doing great work. But I don't care anymore. Because
I may not agree with everything Mike Lee does but I admire his sense of
integrity. He is doing exactly what he campaigned on (no surprises here)
whereas the overwhelming majority of our elected officials say one thing to get
elected and then do something entirely different once elected. It gives me some
Actually, the Tea Party is fresh, clean water trying to purify a putrid, filthy
stream. There's nothing better than getting back to the basics of the
Constitution and getting rid of all the bile on today's version of the
Who caused this ask Jason? Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), presiding over
the chamber, told Van Hollen that the rule he was asking to use had been
"altered" and he did not have the privilege of bringing that vote to the
floor. In the ensuing back and forth, Chaffetz said the recently passed House
Resolution 368 trumped the standing rules. Where any member of the House
previously could have brought the clean resolution to the floor under House Rule
22, House Resolution 368 -- passed on the eve of the shutdown -- gave that right
exclusively to the House majority leader, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia."The Rules Committee, under the rules of the House, changed the standing
rules of the House to take away the right of any member to move to vote to open
the government, and gave that right exclusively to the Republican Leader,"
said Van Hollen. "Is that right?""The House adopted that
resolution," replied Chaffetz.
Absolutely agree with the author.
Mikes Lee/Richards: Year's best argument against the First Amendment.
Obviously Mr. McDonald and his ilk (Furry’s word) believe what they want
to believe because Tea Party objections to an Obama presidency are far less
"self serving, uninformed, irrational or narrow-minded" than the lefts
own hatred of George Bush. As bad as he was, Bush was clearly far more competent
than Obama. But thanks for once again proving the passive/aggressive, whininess
and hypocrisy of left wing faux "victims". Obama ratings
are far below that of Clinton during the last shutdown, or Reagan during any one
of Tip O'Neil’s 6 shutdowns and below Bush at this point in his
presidency. That fact would seem to indicate that Barrack has delegitimized his
own presidency (and the battered media syndrome press, who keeps justifying
Obamas abuse because they "love" him, continues to delegitimize their
job as well - including the DN who simply regurgitates AP bias on national
When you stop playing by the rules, you deserve to lose the respect that the tea
party has lost.