The tea party isn't dead
This condemnation should be a badge of pride for the tea party: it is signal proof of success, not failure. Especially considering the often-underreported fact that although we speak for the most universal of American values, we are underdogs who have always fought just as strongly with the Republicans as with the Democrats. Just ask Lisa Murkowski or Dick Lugar. The tea party has resisted attempts to co-opt and marginalize the movement, and as a result it is seen as a threat not just by liberals and Democrats, but by moderate, establishment Republicans as well. Because the Republican power structure has been just as corrupted by D.C.’s culture of influence-peddling as the Democrats’, the tea party’s return to basic American values has been resisted by the entire political class.This is not to say that the movement can’t do more; the tea party should absolutely demand that the Republican presidential candidate be a strong, committed conservative. But this idea that the tea party has no viability because it was unable to match the national campaign infrastructure of the well-funded political establishment is laughable. The fundamental principles of the tea party movement remain as inspiring as they were in 2010 and the grassroots activists who will decide critical House and Senate races are better funded, better organized, and more effective with a successful election already under their belt.
Not only is the tea party’s clout most effective in congressional and local elections, but these races are often overlooked by the national media and Republican leaders during a presidential election. All the more reason for us to focus on them! After all, returning this nation to the principles that made it great will not be as easy as defeating Barack Obama or electing more establishment Republicans. And no matter who wins the presidency in November, electing authentic conservatives to Congress is the only way to comprehensively get this country back on track. This is where the tea party’s impact will be felt, and where the seeds of America’s rebirth will continue to be sown.
By Dustin Stockton
No Defending the Food Stamp President, by Kevin Jackson
You have to give Newt Gingrich credit for further exposing the paper thin skin of Barack Obama, when he called Obama the "Food Stamp President." The truth hurts like a paper cut.
Gingrich's comment brought racist Sheila Jackson Lee from her cage squawking that Gingrich's comment is "code" for some hidden racism on the Right, versus the overt racism of the Left. The Gingrich comment did exactly what it was meant to do: Force Obama to confront his real boogeyman: His own record.
It's fascinating to see Obama actually having to run on a record, with full frontal exposure. And the fact that the person to expose Obama is a cantankerous, rich, white Republican insider is just Republican red icing on the proverbial cake.
In an interview with Diane Sawyer, Obama explained why he should not be called the Food Stamp President in three points.
Point #1 - "First of all, I don't put people on food stamps," Obama said. "People become eligible for food stamps.
Spoken like a disbarred lawyer, aka shyster. Understand this: It is PEOPLE'S fault for becoming eligible for food stamps. How dare you attempt to blame Obama for 14.2M more people becoming eligible for food stamps?
And whose fault is it for making these formerly productive taxpaying citizens eligible? If you said, "Bush!" then you are likely not a brain-dead Plutopian who would drink Obama dirty bath water.
Point #2 - Second of all, the initial expansion of food-stamp eligibility happened under my Republican predecessor, not under me.
Obama didn't invent the expansion of the food stamp program. Not to mention, if the program didn't exist, there would be no need for people to "become eligible for food stamps."
And did you catch this? Obama is saying that Bush allowed people to become eligible first, and Bush CAN be blamed for the expansion of food stamps under his administration. Priceless spin!
Point #3 - No. 3, when you have a disastrous economic crash that results in 8 million people losing their jobs, more people are going to need more support from government."
It's not Obama's fault, but Big Government is ready to step in and help those poor folks who can't find jobs and are thus forced to "become eligible" for food stamps.
As reported in Hot Air,
"The number of jobs has declined almost 2 million during Obama's term even without accounting for the 3 million-plus working-age adults who joined the population while Obama has been President, while the number of people not in the labor force has risen by six million. To give some perspective to that number, it took this measure six years to add six million people (Feb 2003 to Jan 2009), while it took Obama less than three years to achieve it. It's also worth noting that this growth in disconnected potential workers and the associated drop in the civilian-participation rate is almost entirely responsible for the published jobless rate being as low as it is, and the exodus of 315,000 workers from the workforce last month is certainly responsible for the drop..."
To quote the Food Stamp President in his last State of the Union speech: Those are the facts.
I won't give Obama all the blame for making America a nation of victims, because he has had plenty of help creating this new Plutopian society. The Progressive Liberal Utopians have been angling for the new America for some time, and all they needed was a useful idiot to make it so. Obama was all too willing to sign up. And why not? He had done a miraculous job eradicating crime and urban blight in the black neighborhoods of Chicago, right?
The problem is that Obama believes his hype. And the reason is when you have sold snake oil your entire life, you begin to believe your resume. Obama has accomplished nothing meaningful for mankind, though the Left is quick to point to his ability to win campaigns. Big deal. You can't find anything significant that Obama has done that would allow any sane person to circle the wagon on his behalf. Obama's "accomplishments" are all symbolic, doing little if anything to actually benefit the public.
And what a warped sense of achievement!? If you were to take what Obama has spent during his tenure ($6,200,000,000,000) and divide it equally amongst the new food stamp recipients, each would receive $436,000…and change!
Obama literally could have bought all the failed banks over the past three years, and given each new food stamp recipient over $200K.
To top it off, we are running at $2T in interest annually to service the debt, of which Obama is responsible for $1T. Putting that into real numbers, if we took Obama's part of the interest on our debt and paid it to the 14M new food stamp recipients, they would each receive $70K plus annually.
Government is an endless money pit, fleecing the taxpayers. And they wonder why the Tea Party movement exists and is here to stay.
That's my rant!
Kevin Jackson is the National Spokesperson for TheTeaParty.net. The views expressed are his and not necessarily those of TheTeaParty.net. Jackson is an Amazon best-selling author, syndicated blogger and talk radio host. His work can be found at http://theblacksphere.net
A Good Idea from Obama? By Kevin Jackson
I have been waiting for Obama to demonstrate
something good since his selection. What would have happened with baseball, had
Jackie Robinson been an unqualified in the major leagues?
So far in his presidency Obama has proven me
right. Yet, recently checked the news,
and there it was; a headline that read:
Obama
to Ask Congress for Power to Merge Agencies:
I panicked, thinking, “Wow, if Obama actually begins
cutting the size of government and making government efficient, I might be
forced to actually have to praise one of his ideas.” Obama it was said was “Making
Washington work better.”
Obama wanted permission from Congress to consolidate
SIX government agencies doing duplicate work, putting the onus on Congress for
a leaner government. If Obama was intent on consolidating bureaucracies, I
would be conflicted. Because, I know that Obama is not a small government
Liberal, quite the contrary. A good idea coming from an idiot can be difficult
to reconcile. It’s like walking around
with a broken watch and you happen to check it on the two moments when the
watch happens to be right. Regardless,
the watch is still broken.
Obama is still broken. All the lipstick on the pig doesn’t hide the
fact that Obama is ridiculously incompetent. His use of style over substance as
his way to get ahead might fool the Left, but not thinking Americans. Yet my
conflict remained.
I want a smaller government. If Obama is doing this in a significant way,
then I would applaud the effort, for the sake of the country. Sure I suspected
election year shenanigans, however maybe Obama had run out of Kool-Aid. Or perhaps he was following in the footsteps
of the other first black president Bill Clinton, and moving to the center?
Recall in 2011 in one of his speeches,
Obama had said that he counted numerous duplicate areas of government, and that
government spending was outrageous; billions either duplicated or unaccounted
for. I couldn’t agree more. Government
spends money immediately, but when government cuts, they cut over ten years
beginning a minimum of 4 years from now. Would this be different?
Tortured though I was, I had watched Obama’s speech
early in 2011, and the part of the speech where he discussed duplicate
agencies’ activities resonated with me.
I know how big and fat government is, so big and fat that if you kicked
government in its big fat butt, it would take two weeks for the kick to
register in the area where the brain is supposed to reside.1
I read a bit further in the article, and there it
was. The catch:
As it turns out this new consolidation of SIX
agencies would save America a whopping $3B...over TEN years. Yes, the amount of
two-thirds of ONE day’s interest is what this bold new political move will save
the country…over TEN years. At that rate
we could pay off our debt in…NEVER!
We could save more money annually, if we stopped
studying the mating habits of South American albino pigmy leeches.
To add further insult, the $3B in savings—over TEN
years—will come as these government employees retire. You should be laughing out loud by now,
because we will still incur the burden of these public sector workers, with
their cushy pensions and so on. They do better in “retirement” than they did on
the “job.”
So yet again, this is Obama being Obama.
Politicking. The sound bite generation will hear that Obama is trying to save
money. $3B to knuckleheads who want a minimum wage law translates to big
savings. “Look at our cool president makin’ it happen…Go Barack!”
Don’t think Barack will go after any DC sacred cows,
like the Department of MisEducation or the Department of Energy Dependence on
Foreign Oil.
The Republicans will fight this in their standard
way, which is to disagree and look bad on principle. Who shouldn’t be for
bureaucratic consolidation, no matter how small? However what they should do is
kill a frickin’ COW!
That’s my rant!
© 2012 Kevin Jackson – The Black Sphere, LLC – All
Rights Reserved
An Interview with Michele Bachmann: The 2012 Presidential Race and Her “Core of Conviction”.
TRM(TheRightMixx): Let’s talk about your book, I often say that people [in politics] leave behind their core values for their own political promotion and you name your book “Core Conviction” which seems to go against that common theme. Why do you think this is going to work for you?
MB (Michele Bachmann): Because I’m motivated by my core conviction, that’s the reason I’m in politics… My convictions are based upon the values I learned growing up. They are the animating [ind.] principles that the founders laid out for us for the country. That’s what made us the most successful nation in the history of the world, and now that we’ve ignored those core convictions those principles, we’re seeing the negative consequences to the nation.
TRM: In your book I was pretty impressed by your relationship between your husband and yourself and you devoted a whole chapter to him. You’ve been attacked tremendously by the gay lobby that has gone specifically after your husband with some accusations; however they haven’t gone after any of the other candidate’s spouses, not Mitt Romney’s wife, not Rick Perry’s wife. Why do you think your husband is fair game to these accusations and how do you answer?
MB: It’s hard for me to speculate other than we know that early on in the summer that there were reports from the gay community that our campaign was going to be the one they targeted in order to advance their agenda. That’s all I can say is that they wanted to use me and our campaign to advance their agenda and I’m not interested in giving them a platform to advance their agenda.
TRM: You also devote an entire chapter to [President] Carter and you talked about how your husband and you became disillusioned by him. In that chapter you mention the White House Conference on Families and told your husband that the President can’t define what the family is. What is your opinion of cultural reconstruction of society through legislation and have you seen some of these similarities through the Obama Presidency?
MB: No man should have their conscience dictated to by government. Each man and each woman needs to be able to have the freedom of their own conscience. That’s where Jefferson was coming from and that is a good sense of values that our nation has upheld.
TRM: Do you believe that Barack Obama agrees with you in having freedom of our own conscience and has he reflected this in his presidency?
MB: I think that he and I hold different values; I don’t think that our values are the same. I wouldn’t presume to identify the thoughts and intents of his heart but based upon what his comments are and the legislation he gets behind we certainly have very different values. He is the most pro-abortion president in the United States and I’m very pro-life and that is just one example of a value that is very different.
TRM: Going back to the Carter presidency you basically said the result of his presidency was enlarging government, weakening our standing in the world and decreasing responsibility in the home. When Reagan came in he came in swinging against those three problems. How do we get that Reaganesque result after 2012?
MB: Big government is the basis of the destruction of the family because big government requires ever and ever shares of the family income and that puts tremendous stress on the family. And when the government lays increasing share on the family income, government takes away our choices by taking away our income. When it comes to foreign policy, Jimmy Carter was as naïve as Barack Obama, but I think president Obama is more so. He allowed the United States to enter into discussions with Iran without any preconditions. What President Obama did is give the Iranians the luxury of time to develop a nuclear weapon. This has been profoundly dangerous and may have in fact changed the course of history. Whether Barack Obama is naïve or intentional the result is the same, and that is he has put the United States in a weaker far more vulnerable position today by an order of magnitude than we were the day he took office. It could be that President Obama has given Iran that opportunity to become not only the dominant party in the Middle East but also the dominant party that can bring about the eventual annihilation of millions of people in the world.
TRM: You dedicate an entire chapter to the Tea Party and at the time the Tea Party was being born, how did you feel?
MB: To see the American people rise up and reclaim the liberty that has been so hard fought and won for them was thrilling to see. I believe that we are going to see an even greater force turnout in 2012 as reaction to President Obama’s hand in handling of the economy and also as a reaction against Occupy Wall Street. And the absolute stark contrast they bear to the Tea Party. Occupy Wall Street stands for people saying they want other people to pay for their stuff, they want an all powerful {} to take care of them so that they bear no responsibility. Again the antithesis of what the nation stands for which is no one owes you a living, everyone has an equal chance and opportunity at liberty. I think this election of all elections will be the defining election of our time between Barack Obama who self identifies with Occupy Wall Street and someone like me who identifies and was an early creator of the Tea Party movement.
TRM: What is your game plan to ensure Obama doesn’t win, whether you get the nomination or you don’t get the nomination? And what advice would you give to the Tea party to assist with making sure Obama doesn’t win in 2012?
MB: First of all I would say that it really does count who the nominee is because it doesn’t help to have a frugal socialist as our nominee. We have to have someone who truly believes and has lived these values of the Tea Party movement. Not a chameleon, not someone who comes along as a Johnny-come-lately but someone who truly has lived it and is someone that we can trust to stand for our values as president. The Tea Party right now needs to come together and realize that the candidate matters. That’s why my book Core Conviction is so important. It talks about who I am, what I stand for, and what I will do as President of the US, we can’t settle.
