I Am The Tea Party, And The Media Wants You To Fear Me

By now, we have all heard of the tragedy in Aurora, Colorado. Like the rest of America, I awoke on Friday morning to find news so startling and upsetting that it had pushed everything to the side. All the trivial things could wait a day. Like an unspoken truce, it was understood that there would be no, “It’s your fault!” or the counter, “If only you would’ve…” The truce held for what felt like five minutes as Brian Ross of ABC joined “Good Morning America” and spoke with bush-league speculation as to who the shooter could be. Before the gun smoke had cleared, the media was trying to twist the narrative into a politically convenient story. Pathetic.

Granted, I have come to expect precious little from ABC or any other of the leftist news sites. But even this surprised me as this level of a promotion of a political agenda seemed beneath even ABC. When asked to explain something he found that “might be significant”, Ross stated,

“There’s a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado, page on the Colorado Tea Party site as well, talking about him joining the tea party last year. Now, we don’t know if this is the same Jim Holmes. But it’s Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado.”

“We don’t know if this is the same Jim Holmes”? What I heard from that statement was,

“Well, we don’t have any reason to believe it’s the same Jim Holmes or not, but his political affiliation matches with what we assume a deranged gunman to be. So, we’ll smear a man’s name on a wild guess.”

Is this the state of modern journalism? Wild guesses? On what did Ross base his assumption? Apparently Googling “James Holmes Aurora, Colorado” is now the bar for journalistic fact-checking over at ABC.

I’m not the first to discuss this issue. And ABC issued a correction on it’s website shortly afterwards. However, claiming this was a simple mistake does not, in any way, let ABC, Ross or any of his superiors off the hook for this complete lack of journalistic integrity.

If this scene seems familiar to you, that’s because it happened last year as well. A deranged nut-job, Jared Loughner, shot Representative Gabrielle Giffords and 19 others in Tucson, Arizona. He killed six people. Then, too, because it was both politically expedient and politically convenient, the media went into a frenzy. The left cited Sarah Palin’s hard-line conservatism as heated rhetoric that prompted this would-be assassin to open fire on people. Harsh words from the left hailed down with a fury upon the Tea Party Movement, calling our brand of legitimate political activism “uncivil”. Before anything could be confirmed about Loughner’s motives, it was all but declared by the liberal media that to blame for this tragedy was both the atmosphere of political tensions created by the Tea Party’s rhetoric and, of course, loose gun laws.

But, what nobody in the leftist media tried to ascertain before they reported, was that Loughner was a lone whacko, not affiliated with any right or left movement. In fact, he appears to be apolitical, a run-of-the-mill nutcase that has yet to stand trial because he is too crazy.

What made this egregious breach of journalistic ethics so maddening is that though their theory of the motive for the crime was pure speculation, the myth took off. The media had done what they set out to do; they were not interested in reporting an event, they were interested in turning public opinion against the Tea Party. They had to do something, after all, the myth that they were “racist” just wasn’t panning out.

Where were the mass retractions? The apologies? The media chomped at the bit to smear the Tea Party Movement; and in a morbid fashion, in the aftermath of a national tragedy, capitalized on a myth of it’s own creation to attempt to delegitimize the grassroots movement calling for smaller government and fiscal responsibility.

And now, here we are again, over a year later and another shooter has gone on a spree. However, in Ross’ hurry to smear the Tea Party, he smeared an innocent man. Jim Holmes, the 52 year-old former law enforcement officer cited by Ross as the shooter, has committed no crime other than to have the same name as the shooter 28 years his junior. Ross was, apparently, referencing this page. Jim Holmes, after being cited as the shooter, stated,

“What kind of idiot makes that kind of statement? Really, seriously, how do we take a journalist seriously when it’s pretty clear they really haven’t done any sort of check on their facts?”

There are so many facets of a person’s personality that shape what we do. Unlike the zealots in the mainstream media, I cannot begin to speculate as to the shooter’s motives. There were 14 different people with the name Jim Holmes in Aurora, Colorado. How many of them were in the Rotary Club? The Freemasons? The NAACP? How many were ex-cons? Were veterans? We really don’t know.

And that’s the point. There are a million possible reasons why someone might have snapped and gone on a shooting spree. Political affiliation is just one of a million things that defines someone, one of a million things that drives someone’s actions. So, why throw out wild guesses and tacit, thinly-veiled accusations except to delegitimize that which the liberal media despises? It is not coincidence that Ross did not say, “We found a Jim Holmes of the Aurora Country Club…”

Most importantly, the media’s campaign against the Tea Party is flawed from the ground up. Despite claims that the Tea Party is racist, in an age of iPhones and digital cameras, nobody has produced evidence to show racism at rallies. In fact, Andrew Breitbart died waiting for someone to collect the $100,000 he offered for evidence of Tea Partiers spitting and hurling racial epithets at representatives on Capitol Hill during the enacting of Obamacare.

When that didn’t work, the narrative shifted to the aforementioned Loughner narrative, where Tea Party rhetoric was to blame for the violence. But that didn’t pan out either. But, yet, here we are again…

So, let’s clear the air. The Tea Party is not a vigilante group, a gun-rights group or an anti-government group. In fact, this group, more than any other that I have seen, is incredibly interested in working with government. We are a grassroots group with the goal of producing smaller, administratively-minded government with fiscal responsibility and accountability being our central goal. We are a dedicated and vocal group that aims to express our vision of government in the most American of ways; we look to peacefully protest and to maintain a functional dialogue with our representatives in government. Yet, for some reason, the fascists in the media are hell-bent on painting the Tea Party Movement as anything but what it truly is. While I am not naïve enough to believe that there is objective truth in journalism anymore, is it so much to ask that narratives not be fabricated with the goal of discrediting a group with whom they disagree?

The Tea Party is here because people are tired of a government that no longer feels accountable to the people. We must refute this mis-characterizations and character attacks from the media whenever they pop up. We must be involved and demand the changes America needs. To become involved or to educate yourself, please visit www.TheTeaParty.net

This entry was posted in Guns, Liberal Nonsense, Mainstream Media, Movement, News and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

57 Responses to I Am The Tea Party, And The Media Wants You To Fear Me

  1. Patricia says:

    I am not surprised at all by what ABC did. The main stream media has become so evil that nothing they say or do surprises me. But then they are being told what to say, when to say it and who to blame but forces that are invisible.
    This guy that they wrongfully accused ought to sue them on principle, but then what do they care. They have the money and the clout to fight anything that comes their way.
    I do not recognize this nation any more. Nor do I understand how so many can be so blinded by lies.
    This Hollywood culture has effected the minds and hearts of a few too many generations at this point. Where were we and what were we thinking.
    We were not paying attention to history, for there is nothing new under the sun.
    My fear now is how we get back what was once a great nation.

  2. Dau Tieg 59 says:

    As Jared Loughner was found to be a lefty there was no further mention of politics. He shot Gifford because she wasn’t as left as he thought she should be.
    This guy will most likely be found to be a lefty also as most of the assassins have been.

  3. Brenda Johnstone says:

    I am always been an Independent. The past year between the current administration’s policies and the media, I am changing all my views. Thank you for the well written article.
    I knew the minute I saw the news that the Colorado killings would be turned into a left wing crusade, no matter what facts come out. I do have to commend Romney and Obama on their behavior Friday, shame the left wing media can’t act like respectful adults.

  4. Harley Harris says:

    The TP isn’t interesting solving any problems they are interested in foiling the President’s agenda to put people back to work, I believe that most of the Tea Party members can’t stand the fact that we have a black president, Most of the Tea Party
    members are Republicans that are on the fringe right, There are some that have good intentions but are crowded out by the fringe, They filibuster any thing that would create jobs and help the country.

    • SirGareth says:

      RE: “The TP isn’t interesting solving any problems they are interested in foiling the President’s agenda to put people back to work”

      The Tea Party equally opposes the Castro Regime’s full employment policies.

      Since when did the economic activity our our nation revolve around the untutored fantasies of an unrepentant communist?

    • THOMAS STEWART says:

      Hay Hey Harris You Must Not Believe The Soros Media They Hate The Tea Party Patriots And When They Dislike You, Like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Because These Two “Gals” Tell The Truth And Pres Barry Soetoro (A Pathological Liar) Can Not Handle The Truth!!!(Pull-Up YouTube Obama 7 Lies 2 Min)!!! However Whoever Wins This Election Will Need “The Tea Party Patriots” And Thats The Truth!! Buckwheat. God Bless America And Mitt Romney POTUS Soon.

      • Mark Hollis says:

        Mitt Romney isn’t lying? Are you for real?

        Let’s see…

        John Hawkins, at Right Wing News, observed that, “Since Mitt Romney had a mediocre record of job creation as the governor of Massachusetts, he has touted his record of creating jobs at Bain Capital.” But Hawkins ran the numbers and estimated that Romney’s net jobs-production at Bain had probably been closer to a loss of seven thousand jobs.

        When Romney says that only a person who is wealthy as a private businessman possesses the necessary executive skills in order to be a good President of the country, he states something else that’s clearly false, because none of the great Presidents was a tycoon: FDR, Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington, weren’t; and yet Romney implies that people like Astor, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, and Morgan, should have been Presidents instead of them. All of America’s great political leaders were politicians; none were tycoons.

        History speaks here; and history is comprised of facts, not opinions. It’s not partisan at all. Sometimes it doesn’t speak with one voice, but it speaks with one voice in this matter. However, though the historical data are unanimous on it, the public predominantly believe the other way. Their believing falsely on this is itself a fact, not an opinion.

        In his book, appropriately titled “No Apologies”, Romney argues the following:

        Never before in American history has its president gone before so many foreign audiences to apologize for so many American misdeeds, both real and imagined. It is his way of signaling to foreign countries and foreign leaders that their dislike for America is something he understands and that is, at least in part, understandable.

        Nothing about this sentence is true.

        President Obama never went around the world and apologized for America – and yet, even after multiple news organizations have pointed out this is a “pants on fire” lie, Romney keeps making it. Maybe Romney’s thinking that he needs to go around apologizing for Bush (II)’s foreign policy in order to curry favor with the rest of the world…

        Also, according to Romney, the 2009 “stimulus didn’t put more private-sector people to work.”

        While one can quibble over whether the stimulus went far enough, the idea that it didn’t create private-sector jobs has no relationship to reality. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus bill created more than three million jobs—a view shared by 80% of economists polled by the Chicago Booth School of Business (only 4% disagree, the rest don’t know).

        Romney regularly accuses Obama of raising taxes—in reality, they’ve gone down under his presidency, and largely because of that stimulus bill that Romney loves to criticize. He’s accused the president of doubling the deficit. In fact, it’s actually gone down on Obama’s watch.

        So don’t hold Romney, who is not a TEA Party member up as a truth-teller. He’ll do exactly what Bush did. He’ll get us involved in a war in Syria and he’ll pay for it on the American Credit Card, running up the deficit.

        • SirGareth says:

          Mr Hollis,

          The function of a constitutionally restricted (ie legitimate) government is to perform its itemized duties. “Creating jobs” is not among them.

          Fidel Castro has an absolutely perfect record on “job creation” So does Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Kim Sung Il, Pol Pot, and the rest of the miserable world of collectivist slavers. Antebellum cotton plantations had ZERO unemployment, therefore “perfect” by marxist standards.

          I am content with goverment that leaves us alone to create wealth, sell, buy and trade among ourselves without some master stamping on our private lives.

          RE: “According to the Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus bill created more than three million jobs—a view shared by 80% of economists”

          Swell what did the CBO project the cost of Medicare to be in 2012 when it created this disaster. As for “economists” isnt this a word applied to people who have never earned a dime but call themselves experts at it?

          All of these “experts” are govermental parasites in one way or another and none of them could sell anything to anyone who had the right to pass on their offer of “expert” advice.

          RE: “Romney regularly accuses Obama of raising taxes—in reality, they’ve gone down under his presidency, and largely because of that stimulus bill that Romney loves to criticize. He’s accused the president of doubling the deficit. In fact, it’s actually gone down on Obama’s watch.”

          Deficits or Debt? Deficits are annual things, debts accumulate. The goverment is borrowing “printed” money (ie counterfeit) that is backed by hot air to bestow “gifts” on its supporters (the unproductive class – ie goverment employees.)

          Every dime any goverment entity spends is a TAX, it matter not if they spend false money that was printed or money they borrowed. It is still a tax.

          Here are the debt figures:

          2007 $8,950,000,000,000
          2008 $9,986,080,000,000
          2009 $11,875,800,000,000
          2010 $13,528,810,000,000
          2011 $14,764,200,000,000
          2012 $16,350,880,000,000

          In 2012 the debt exceeds the GDP and will continue to do so.

          Bush spent money like a sailor in a whore house. Thus the 2007 base line is way higher than it should be. Bushes spending was chump change compared with the present communist in chief.

          The collectivist world economy will collapse and world war will ensue. I would rather have an American than a communist criminal lead the nation out of the morass government has created.

          As for Romney, I disagree with his politics but he is a man of integrity and most importantly is NOT Obama
          Therefore I will send 1000 bucks to his campaign. The idea of 4 more years of that arrogant ignorant know nothing piece of communist $hit is more than I wish to contemplate.

        • THOMAS STEWART says:

          Hay Hey Mark Sounds Like Your On That Obama Kool-Aid With That Bad Side Effect “Of Causing Lying And Believing It” However All The BS You Seem To Talk About, Let Me Ask You A Couple Easy Questions, Where Is Barry Soetoro AKA Barack Obamas Birth Certific ate? Why Does He Use A Stolen Social Security Number (042-68-4425?? And Has A Forged Sel.ective Service Card?? Yikess, Plus Is A Proven “Pathological Liar” !! Chin Up Buckwheat You Colored Folks Have A Way Of Believing “Liars”. If You Need Any Facts Checked “Susan Daniels And Associates 9754 Thwing Rd Chardon, Ohio 44024. God Bless America And Sheriff Joe Arpaio With The Tea Party Patriots.

  5. What can we do to convince people like my mother to stop believing the lies the media is spreading….I feel helpless…plus so many do believe the tea party is racist and I got into a confrontation with a very ignorant but intimidating angry black man…I feel helpless…

  6. Mark Hollis says:

    OK, the argument makes the TEA Party into a “reasonable moderate party” that appeals to the mainstream of America. That’s that is being said.

    But what’s being done?

    The TEA Party freshmen in Congress have scuttled negotiated agreements between the Speaker of the House, the leadership in the Senate and the President that would have prevented a downgrade in America’s credit rating. This is not the action of a moderate or reasonable party.

    The TEA Party representatives in Congress have started a “witch hunt” or a return to McCarthyism in claiming that the State Department and the Executive are infiltrated by Muslim extremists and the Muslim Brotherhood. This is not reasonable or true.

    TEA Party representatives and candidates have frequently called to question the President’s citizenship. Everyone who is black that I have spoken to calls this “naked racism.” TEA Party representatives in state legislatures have passed “papers please” bills, signed into law by TEA Party governors that promote ethnic profiling. People I speak to who are Hispanic tell me this is “naked racism.” Hispanics tell me the actions of the TEA Party governor of Florida in singling out registered voters with Hispanic surnames to disenfranchise them and preventing them from voting in this year’s election is “naked racism.” This is not the action of a moderate or reasonable party.

    This same governor in Florida has greatly expanded the expenditures of his state by forcing all recipients of food stamps, AFDC, Workfare and other government assistance in the worst recession since the Great Depression to take tests for drugs, despite having no proof that this segment of Florida’s population uses drugs. The result of these tests proved the exact opposite. The Courts took a very dim view of his blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment, which is something a reasonable and moderate party should dedicate itself to uphold.

    The TEA Party governor of Virginia passed a bill that forces women seeking an abortion to pay for and receive a medical procedure that is absolutely unnecessary. The TEA Party supposedly stands for less government intervention into peoples’ lives. This radical intrusion does not square with the stated aims of the TEA Party.

    The very first bill introduced and passed through the House of Representatives and sponsored by TEA Party Congressmembers was a bill to redefine the awful crime of rape. The redefinition would have forced a woman, so abused, to prove that deadly force was used, that her very life was threatened — else she could not prove a rape happened (the implication being that the woman consented or was a slut, begging for it). This loss of legal protection is the act of a misogynist, not the action of a reasonable and moderate party with the intent of representing 52% of their constituency who are women.

    The press is not afraid of the TEA Party. I find that TEA Party leaders are afraid of the press. They consent to interviews only with Faux “news,” which is not considered by the rest of the press to be a news organization. If you work for Murdoch, you blacklist yourself from working for anyone else because the rest of the press does insist that commentary and bias be left out of straight and factual news reporting, and that opinion be clearly represented as such. The best exemplar of this is Sarah Palin’s criticism of Katie Couric — a total news lightweight — for daring to ask Palin what newspapers she read.

    Blame press bias all you want, but in light of how TEA Party elective officeholders and candidates run from reporters, this seems more the act of candidates and officials who have gotten themselves into trouble with their own outrageous statements.

    • Lunatic Fringe says:

      Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the type of ill-informed, low information voters which gave us the current regime. So you spent 25 years in television huh Mark? Yeah it shows.

      • Mark Hollis says:

        Cool! An ad-hominem attack!

        I disagree that I am ill-informed (though I do not consider Faux “news” to be a good source of information). As to low-information, I’m not sure what you’re referring to, unless it’s the ravings of Glenn Beck.

        I listen carefully to the rhetoric. And then I watch what they actually do. The rhetoric was all about jobs, jobs, jobs.

        Where are those jobs? Where are the congressional bills for those jobs? Instead, you have attacks on women and attacks on the Middle Class, as well as other bills that simply will never get out of the House of Representatives.

        • Lunatic Fringe says:

          Cool, an attack on Fox (or faux if you prefer, very original) and Glenn Beck! Oh, and the last time I checked there were 23 bills passed by the House and sent to the Senate. But it seems Mr. Reid won’t even allow a vote on any of them. Why would that be? I guess he’s just one of those obstructionist Tea Partiers huh?
          This site needs a better class of trolls.

          • Mark Hollis says:

            Please see my notes on the Senate below in answer to SirGareth’s question about how any one person in Washington can hold up progress of a bill.

            And, if you’re defending the TEA Party (and not the Republican Party) there is only one TEA Party Senator, Rand Paul. The rest of the 99 Senators are in some other party.

          • SirGareth says:

            Dont bother, as usual Mr Hollis is completely misinformed and his arguments are inane at best.

            Mr Hollis does not understand the Senate process called cloture so his statement is absurd. It takes only a small super majority (60-40) to bring any issue to a vote regardless of which particular senator opposes such a vote.

            What is true is that ONE particular senator representing less than one percent of the US population (Harry Reid) can keep any legislation from reaching the Senate floor to even come up for a vote.

            If I were elected to the Senate i would start tossing chairs around the place until this absurd process is recognized for what it is and tossed out with the rest of the broken furniture.

          • Mark Hollis says:

            My mistake. I thought I was writing someone who was thoughtful and interested in discussing reality.

            If you think I am misinformed, incorrect or am misstating the facts, please point me to the actual source of the Senate Rules document from whence you get your facts. Spouting slogans is not stating rules or describing how things work in the Senate and House. At least you affirmed that it does take a super-majority in the Senate to get anything done. .

            But let’s not call the other side “Marxists,” shall we. A good discussion does not need to descend into name calling. Especially since Marxism has been completely proven impractical, even as a political theory.

            Anyone who reads what I wrote about the rules of the Senate will know that I am correct—unless they’ve decided to ignore facts. As to the Majority Leader, you may decide you don’t like him or the ideas he has. That’s completely fair. I have had issues with elected politicians, too. But you suggest he has power that he does not.

            Republicans (and I’m not talking about you) have been whining about how the Senate has not taken up a budget to pass on their own. Really what they are saying is that nobody in the Senate is willing to take up the Ryan budget, which eliminates all of the social safety net Americans have had since the 1930s, 1970s and in 2006—the last two pieces of which were signed into law by two Republican Presidents: Nixon and Bush (II). If I list my house at $250,000.00 and you offer me $1.50 for it, do I have to commence negotiations, simply because you made me some kind of an offer? No. A dollar-fifty is not initiation of a negotiation that I will entertain. And the Ryan budget is not an initiation of a negotiation that the Senate or this President will entertain.

            While you may think that the TEA Party is, somehow a non-party; some kind of interest group, it’s actual aim is to change government in the United States. And to do that one either has to take up arms as a disloyal opposition or one has to discuss solutions and engage in politics, winning office at the ballot box as a loyal opposition.

            But here is the problem of being a loyal opposition. To actually serve a constituency (and I mean all of a constituency), you have to be prepared to compromise some of your ideals.

            Instead, I see you creating some kind of ersatz “title” for yourself. “Sir Gareth.” Americans are not allowed to have a knighthood. Then you tell me that I am incorrect about the rules of the Senate and the House—despite the fact that I did accurately describe the rules of those two bodies.

            Then you wander off into some kind of argument that the Senate ought to not exist, when the Senate exists as a compromise, so you have not read your history or they didn’t teach you about how the Constitution was written. I seriously doubt, at this point, that any Constitutional Convention would be able to abolish our bicameral legislature, despite your feelings about it.

            I invite you to run for office. If nothing else, you may get quite an interesting education.

          • SirGareth says:

            RE: “But let’s not call the other side “Marxists,” shall we. A good discussion does not need to descend into name calling. ”

            I call (current) Democrats, Mr Obama, and his supporters “Marxists” simply because it is the most accurately descriptive term that can be applied to them.

            You should have no more difficulty in accepting this simple appellation than I do the term “conservative.” “Conservative” accurately describes me and I am happy to be so addressed. It let’s you and others know pretty much in advance what my perspective is on any political issue under discussion. The details and moral support of my ideas may bear my own concepts but the big idea is that guides me is conservatism. (government reduced to the minimum requirements for the application of force in order to secure our personal liberties – ie government without “plans”)

            Why do believe that my addressing you as a Marxist is somehow “name calling”?

            You should be proud of your Marxist ideology if you seek to defend it successfully.

            Complete this thought for me if you will:

            “The fundamental evil intrinsic in all collectivist political schemes lies in the fact…..”

            I suspect that doing so would cause you to do violence to your ideology and, that if you could complete such a statement at all, it would need to be hedged in some tortuously qualified rhetoric that makes little sense.

            I really do prefer to state my position plain, I invite you to do the same.

          • SirGareth says:

            Mr Hollis

            RE: “Really what they are saying is that nobody in the Senate is willing to take up the Ryan budget, which eliminates all of the social safety net Americans have had since the 1930s”

            I have some very sad news for you, your “social safety net” does not exist. It was stolen by politicians who sold it for votes to enable them to lead a cushy life and to avoid relying on the same “safety net” they stole from you.

            How is it we came to accept the idea that one set of politicians can borrow the money that the next generation of politicians must collect taxes to pay back. Its one thing to bond for roads etc but quite another to buy the retirement schemes of today’s voters by enslaving the next generation to the debt incurred in doing so.

            Is this moral? If so why not force your grand kids to co-sign for your credit card debt so they can pay it off when they grow up.

            Aren’t they indebted to you? If so why not. Why not sell them into indentured servitude – whats wrong with that?

            Oh, is it that it only becomes moral acceptable when today’s politicians force tomorrows kids to honor their corruption.

            I hope you begin to realize that your position is MORALLY indefensible.

            By the way I have been forced to pay $260,000 into Social Security and some $80,000 into Medicare over the 50 years of my working life and rely upon both of them now but I would give them both up to return our country to one based upon the moral concepts that were the foundation of our Judeo-Christian civilization.

            In short where in our founding documents is it the federal government role to give us “social safety nets”

            By the way, “the common welfare” does not refer to your “individual welfare.”

            Therefore defense spending “promotes the common welfare” But the social security disability fraud scheme does not “promote the common welfare”.

          • Mark Hollis says:

            OK, let’s talk reality.

            My father is receiving a Social Security check. If you’re over 40, your parents are, or will soon if they are alive and if they weren’t 16 when they gave birth to you. Is this true or not? I know it’s true for my father and I’m pretty secure in knowing that.

            My father paid into the Social Security system for his entire career. He was a CPA. And as a CPA in private practice, he paid both “sides” of Social Security. This is to say his paycheck deducted 7.65% of his income as his portion and his firm (owned by him and his partners) paid an additional 7.65%. Is this true? Do you agree that both an employer and an employee pays 7.65% of their income as FICA? Or is there some other standard or person or something that you think pays (or doesn’t pay) for Social Security?

            Let’s assume I am correct here. Everyone pays in 7.65% of income to Social Security. And every business also kicks in 7.65% as well. And if you are self-employed (as I am) one pays “self-employment” tax of 7.65% (which is the employer contribution).

            My father started working when he was in college. He started his career after he got out of the Army—he was drafted for Korea. He started working as a CPA in the 1950s, I think 1954. So, from 1954 until he retired, which was 2006, he paid into the Social Security system. That’s 52 years. He might have contributed more in his teens and in college. And, when you’re in the Army you contribute. But let’s leave that out for now.

            So for 52 years he puts in to Social Security and he pays both halves! And you’re saying that he’s putting the burden of his Social Security check on his grandchildren?!

            Because he paid into the system (longer, actually, than most people do), he is entitled to receive the Social Security benefit. Are you disputing that he earned it? Are you saying that paying in 15.3% of his income annually for 52 years is not enough to earn what he is receiving as a Social Security check? And he is not free?! He shouldn’t receive what he has paid in for 52 years to get?

            Now, let’s go to my sister. She’s disabled. She has a horrid, horrid disease called Adult-onset Mitochondrial Disease. Essentially, her Central Nervous System is disconnecting itself from itself and the rest of her body. She’s going to die from it. And we don’t know if she’ll die because her brain quits signaling to her heart to beat or because her brain quits telling her diaphragm to breathe. She can’t see any more. She doesn’t have much of a short-term memory left. Last January, she lost her ability to walk. She’s in a power chair. At age 50, she applied for and got Social Security Disability. Today, she’s 58.

            My sister worked very hard as a Physical Therapist. She started seven companies and built each one into a thriving practice. She sold each company once it had grown enough to sustain itself because she liked growing new companies and innovating. And oh, by the way, she hired people. She was a “job creator,” but she’s not and never has been a millionaire.

            My sister receives a check. She started working at age 16. And she paid into the Social Security system then and all through High School and College—first part-time and later, after College full-time. In the companies she started, she paid the entire 15.3% of the Social Security tax for herself, because she was both employer and employee. And, one of the benefits of Social Security is a disability benefit.

            She didn’t give herself this disease. And there is nothing she has ever done to deserve this. But you are saying she is stealing from her children? Really? Or maybe there is some moral corruption in her that gave her this? I disagree.

            Let’s talk about her children, OK? One is a Captain in the US Army. He’s in a Forward Operating Base in Afghanistan. He’s on the front lines. He’s paying in 7.65% into Social Security, your tax dollars (because he’s serving in the Army) are supplying the rest. In that he’s protecting your behind, you think he’s stealing from you?

            He’s married. Wife lives in Seattle. She’s working and is paying her 7.65% into Social Security. If they have a child and he were to die in Afghanistan protecting your behind (perish the thought!) his child would receive a Social Security check until he was 18—and through College if he attended. Are you suggesting that my nephew, who is right now, at this very moment protecting you, serving in Afghanistan is somehow stealing something from the next generation? And were he and his wife to have a child that child would be stealing something if he died and was an orphan?

            You want orphans of our servicemen to beg on the streets? You want old 81-year-old men to beg on the streets? You want disabled, blind people who cannot walk to beg on the streets? All because you have this crazy idea that their begging on the streets or being sent to orphanages or somewhere out of sight where their existence wouldn’t offend you would make you feel “free?”

            My father’s grandchildren, my sister’s grandchildren, my grandchildren did not all ready work hard all their lives to pay into the Social Security system. And, in my father’s case, he’s going to get out a lot less than he put in. I think it’s going to be the same with my sister. And yet, you want children of our servicemen who die in combat to get—what? Poke in the eye with a sharp stick?

            Just because you think that someone out there—not you—is getting something you consider to be a “handout?” It’s not a handout, they’ve worked hard for it. And all of the politicians who created this system—that allows our seniors and our disabled Americans and the children of servicemen who die some dignity in their lives—are corrupt and morally wrong?

            Dickens wrote about how morally wrong the 19th Century orphanages and work-houses in England were in “Oliver Twist.” While it’s fiction, he wrote it in order to try to get people in England to take a good hard look at what they were subjecting the children of their fellow man to. It was drawn from fact.

            But the world you’re creating is a fiction I would not like foisted on my fellow Americans. I don’t like the idea of people begging to get a crust of bread just because they’re old and can’t work any more, or they’re blind, disabled, can’t walk and can’t work in the profession that they were successful at any more. Or because their father or their mother died protecting their country and now they don’t have a parent to raise them.

            That’s not America.

        • SirGareth says:

          But didn’t you just make an ad-hominum attack on Fox News.

          I find that Fox News is for the most part identical in its left wing east coast leftist fairy tale promoters; ie ABCNBCCBSNPR .

          We don’t trust the media, they have an agenda and it has nothing to do with providing information to the public.

          They are the cheerleaders for statism, for controlled economies where the remunerations of a compliant press is well endowed by a grateful government

          Who would give up their prized seats on Air-force One, where the scotch is served is Johnnie Walker Blue label and the rest of the perks are equally succulent, but accurately reporting a dis-favorable event displeases his Nibs enough to kick you off “his” Sumptuous and opulent air yacht?

          We are completely dis-served by the press and I never again will buy a newspaper or watch anything reported as “News” by the big government propagandists referred to as main stream media (piss stream media). They fool only the stupid people now; ie leftists

    • SirGareth says:

      Mr Hollis.

      The Tea Party consists of well informed citizens who oppose the reckless spending of the political class of BOTH parties that have bankrupted the chances of our children to secure the blessings of liberty by denying them economic justice.

      Both parties have swelled the ranks of the overpaid, non-productive, government sector employees in return for political support by means of massive cash infusions from these same government employee unions . Unions who have secured a stranglehold on the productive members of our society.

      A union’s power is normally checked by the right of refusal to purchase products or services whose value has been eliminated through excessive union demands. Greedy unions normally drive their employers out of business and that is a significant check of unreasonable union demands.

      This check does not exist within ANY union whose employer enjoys the right to take payment from taxpayers by government instruments of force for services supposedly rendered on their behalf.

      The Tea Party stands opposed to ANY government unions and stands to dismantle this threat to our our liberty.

      If you are favored by this form of tyranny it is understandable that you would denigrate the Tea Party but it does not make you correct.

      The Tea Party remains strong and is changing the face of the nation with regard to government union larcenies occurring at the school district, county, state, and federal levels.

    • THOMAS STEWART says:

      Hay Hey Mark Now I Know Who Is Behind Your “Complaining” George Soros Owner Of The Demo Party!!! God Bless America And Mitt Romney POTUS Soon!! With Sheriff Joe Arpaio As The Next Secty Of Homeland Security!!!

  7. Alejo says:

    I don’t understand what it is about the media that makes them so jaded. This has been the case for a very long time though. I’ve been interested in JFK’s assassination lately and have watched the as it happened CBS and ABC coverage from that tragic day. It’s amazing that even back then the bias was palpable. The narrative was that Texas was the hotbed of right wing violence and that hateful rhetoric (sound familiar?) was to blame. I wonder how they felt when they found out the assassin was some communist loser who had lived in Russia! Oh well, what can we do? They control our universities and journalism schools.

    • SirGareth says:


      The press turned to a propaganda arm of the federal government during FDR’s regime. It is no different in any regard from Izvestia or Pravda. It exists by and for the government it seeks to “explain” to us.

      Obama’s version of the state controlled media requires all press copy reporting on him by the WH (WhoreHouse) Press Corps be submitted to his offices for editing and correction. To violate his scheme means banishment from access and therefore banishment from your means of financial support.

      The press (including FOX News) is totally corrupt. If you understand this simple fact you will understand how we have allowed the greatest nation on earth to be subverted into the steaming pile of dog$hit it has become.

      The best thing you can do for the press is to bury it; don’t buy it. Help it die anyway you can.

      • Mark Hollis says:

        Obama’s version of the state controlled media requires all press copy reporting on him by the WH (WhoreHouse) Press Corps be submitted to his offices for editing and correction. To violate his scheme means banishment from access and therefore banishment from your means of financial support.

        Nothing could be further from the truth. Not even Romney tells that many lies. It is true that GW Bush did take away press credentials from reporters who asked questions he did not like, but never, ever has any member of the press been “edited” by the White House. Ever.

        In fact, you can generally see the entire press conference being held by any President in it’s entirety with all of the questions and all of the answers on the Cable News channels (though Faux “news” has been known to cut away from them if it seems someone they don’t like is getting the upper hand — you can always change the channel to CNN, who will cover it or go to CSPAN, which will rebroadcast it after broadcasting it live).

        Oh, but you live in your own world of paranoia, where the White House edits the press.

        Really, that is truly laughable. And pathetic.

        • SirGareth says:

          Press Conference:

          The President selects his questioners who have submitted their puff balls to him before the press conference begins.

          The fraud in chief has a frigging teleprompter with his scripted answers to his pre-approved scripted questions.

          How can you answer questions with a teleprompter???

          The whole WH press corps is a gallery of sycophantic whores and ANYONE who believes anything they report is a fool.

          From the New York Slimes by one embarrassed reporter who somehow found a shred of integrity

          “The quotations come back redacted, stripped of colorful metaphors, colloquial language and anything even mildly provocative.

          “They are sent by e-mail from the Obama headquarters in Chicago to reporters who have interviewed campaign officials under one major condition: the press office has veto power over what statements can be quoted and attributed by name”

          “Most reporters, desperate to pick the brains [slim pickings - Sir G] of the president’s top strategists, grudgingly agree. After the interviews, they review their notes, check their tape recorders and send in the juiciest sound bites for review.

          The verdict from the campaign — an operation that prides itself on staying consistently on script — is often no, Barack Obama does not approve this message.”

        • THOMAS STEWART says:

          Hay Hey Mark Because You Worship The Biggest Hustler In American History Barry Soetoro AKA Barack Obama AKA ??? Is Not The Tea Partys Fault!! So With The Rest Of Your ACORN Followers Vote Several Times For Barry Than Pull-Up YouTube ” 7 Lies In Under 2 Minutes”. God Bless America, “Obama Lies Freedom Dies”

  8. Day By Day says:

    Thank you Greg–I’m quoting you in my letter to ABC.

    You explained this soooo well.

  9. I am Breitbart says:

    Yes, and where’s the HUGE LIST of ALL THE HORRIBLE/ILLEGAL/DANGEROUS things that HAVE BEEN DONE by the OWS group, the ironically, the LAMESTREAM MEDIA ARE IN LOVE WITH???


    They are baiting us. They want good citizens to finally get sick of being blamed and blow.

  10. Day By Day says:

    I wrote to them, but they only allow 500 words. Funny–tehy have a drop down menu that asks for suggestions for content, then after you send it, they have a warning that you will be turned orver to their legal department! Something is terribly worng with these people. Here is what I wrote: (had to be 500 words, but thsi is the long version)
    Dear ABC News Programers,

    When James lee took over the Discovery channel, “right winger” conservatives bent over backwards to use this as an examle of why NOT to blame horrible deeds on fellow americans with different ideologies as so often happens to us. At the time, AOLNews opinion editor John Merline wrote:
    “It’s an unfortunate reflex these days among pundits and politicians trying to score cheap political points against their ideological opponents. Just find the thinnest thread to tie them to the actions of some deranged nut job who happens to espouse somewhat similar views. See how dangerous and extremist their positions are?
    “So, liberal talk show host Keith Olbermann once blamed competing talk show host Bill O’Reilly for the murder of abortion doctor George Tiller.
    “Conservatives once tried to draw parallels between the Unabomber and Gore.
    “President Bill Clinton attempted to connect the horrible Oklahoma City bombing to the rhetoric coming from right-wing talk shows.
    “It’s all bad logic of the reductio ad absurdum variety. And we’d all be better off if everyone took this opportunity to forever swear off this pathetic rhetorical device.”

    What Keith said then stands now. Stephanopoulos and Ross let america hear regarding the movie tragedy was, “There’s a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado, page on the Colorado Tea Party site as well, talking about him joining the tea party last year. Now, we don’t know if this is the same Jim Holmes. But it’s Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado.” Is this the state of modern journalism?

    This was NOTa simple mistake. Remember Jared Loughner and your insitence on tieing this to the Tea Party Movement? Remember Travon Martin and your gross neglece in reporting about Zimmerman. No violence has ever been atributed to tea partyers–not once–and it is rampet in the Occuppier movement. Yet you cover up their violence and contiue to try to villify people who want smaller government and better opportunity in a free market. We continually defend your right to do this and you continually tromp on us. What is so threatening about wanting a smaller government and to stop out of control spending? How can you, in good consciousence continue on this road? I do not get it.

    Please read I Am The Tea Party, And The Media Wants You To Fear Me by Greg Campbell (http://dustinstockton.com/2012/07/i-am-the-tea-party-and-the-media-wants-you-to-fear-me/#comment-5985) and please have your “journalists” read it too. It may help for a more civil discourse–because you are not helping now.

    Back to Stephanopoulos and Ross. There were 14 people with the name Jim Holmes in Aurora, Colorado. tehy HAD to know that. They should be fired–not made to apologise, not repremanded, not suspened. Fired.

    I’ll close with Greg’s words:
    The Tea Party is not a vigilante group, a gun-rights group or an anti-government group. In fact, this group, more than any other that I have seen, is incredibly interested in working with government. We are a grassroots group with the goal of producing smaller, administratively-minded government with fiscal responsibility and accountability being our central goal. We are a dedicated and vocal group that aims to express our vision of government in the most American of ways; we look to peacefully protest and to maintain a functional dialogue with our representatives in government. Yet, for some reason, the fascists in the media are hell-bent on painting the Tea Party Movement as anything but what it truly is.

    How absurb. You ask for “Suggestions for new content” and tell people who submit that you will turn them over to the legal department!

    “in the event that you have submitted such content, please be advised that the submission has been forwarded to the Company’s legal department for handling.”

    I thought your bad behavior toward conservatives was just your ideological agenda –but apparently you have more serious issues than that.

    • Mark Hollis says:

      But Greg’s words are false. All due respect to what Greg believes is true, it is not true that the TEA Party is interested in working with government. I refer you to the scuttling of agreements made between the Administration, the Speaker of the House and the Senate leadership. And we’re not just talking debt ceiling here, we’re talking several agreements.

      Scuttling an agreement to preserve the United States credit rating (something we have earned as a country since the beginning of the 1800s) is not a sign of a party interested in a “government with fiscal responsibility and accountability being [the] central goal”—it is the action of a party interested in destroying the government of the United States.

      And invading a woman’s vagina with an ultrasound tool is not about being a “smaller, administratively-minded government.” It’s about creating a bigger government that wants to crawl up a woman’s vagina simply because she wishes to undergo a medical procedure that ought to be a private matter between herself and her physician. As is forcing persons receiving food stamps, welfare and AFDC to undergo a drug test, relieving them of their Fourth Amendment rights.

      So, if people are afraid of the TEA Party, it’s probably not because of the media (other than the fact that the media outlets report the facts of the actions taken by TEA Party representatives and governors), it is because of the actions taken by the TEA Party.

      TEA Party candidates—just like Republican Party candidates—swept into power in the US House of Representatives promising jobs. Instead, both parties have decided to not create jobs. They’ve decided to try to prevent women from charging men with rape if the man got her so drunk she was incapable of resisting. They have decided to attack a woman’s right to choose to have contraception. They have decided to attack a woman’s right to have an abortion. They have decided to pass legislation to overturn the Affordable Care Act (over 30 times!), saying that overturning it will reduce the costs of medicine, when the Affordable Care Act reduces the costs of medicine, saves consumers money in insurance and increases the number of Americans insured.

      Maybe Mr. Campbell would like to believe otherwise, but the facts are at variance with his statement.

      • SirGareth says:

        Mr Hollis

        1) The legislative process should not defined by secret agreements between a two or three power brokers.

        2) Rape is a serious charge that in my own evaluation deserves the death penalty in its most heinous forms. We trivialize rape by allowing it to be used by certain women who regret giving their sexual favors to men who don’t appreciate such gifts properly on the following day with a return token of their own appreciation. Hence a woman who consents after voluntarily surrendering her virtue in a state of inebriation still consents; Adult women do not let “men get them drunk”

        Furthermore, no law enacted by any state “requires” a woman to have her vagina probed by medical people although Obamacare will undoubtedly penalize those women who don’t have their vaginas probed or their breasts examined by federal decree. The government has now embarked upon invading both our bodies and our individual health records via Obamacare.

        You seem highly selective in your outrage over the federal invasions of our bodily privacy. Have you or your family been groped by federal officials at an airport yet?

        3) The Tea Party does not promise jobs, it instead promotes economic freedom. Jobs are not a function of government; they are the function of free people interacting freely within the scope of capital, labor, and consumer markets free from intrusions and invasions of the imperatives of the least trustworthy and least stable among us; the political class.

        • Mark Hollis says:

          The Tea Party does not promise jobs … Jobs are not a function of government…

          This is a very interesting perspective. So the TEA Party wants to gain elective office. Which is a job. To… what? Quit?

          But that aside, I have actually read a little history, sir. And I am fully aware that President Madison vetoed a bill that would have the federal government construct improvements to roads leading to the interior. He wrote an essay, saying it was unconstitutional for the federal government to construct a road, though it could appropriate money for others to do that and to maintain them.

          So I have to ask, how should our roads be made? And how should they be maintained? The object that got the federal government into road building more than anything was the bicycle, which became very, very popular in the late 1800s. And, because gravel and mud is not really great to ride a bicycle on, there were many petitions to construct good, smooth, paved roads for bicyclists.

          These roads are presently used by automobiles and trucks and you had better bet that there would be a public outcry if we just let them fall apart. So I would argue that government does have a role in job creation, because we want roads. We also like to have our trash picked up. We like to have public schools. We like to have city planners to keep things orderly, so you’re not living next door to a chemical plant—indeed, that plant is located in an industrial park that is planned, and placed comfortably away from human habitation.

          We also don’t particularly like dumping sewage into rivers, so governments hire companies to construct sewage treatment plants. Do you think that private industry should do that and use the profit motive for sewage treatment? Because when the profit motive was what we used for sewage, we simply dumped it into rivers and lakes, which burned in the 1960s and 1970s.

          So government is a job opportunity for the political class, which wants your vote, no matter what party they are members of, because your vote will get them a job they really, really want.

          As to intrusions, invasions and imperatives, more and more, I see industries writing the laws they will live under. I don’t regard that as an intrusion or invasion.

          • SirGareth says:

            RE: “This is a very interesting perspective. So the TEA Party wants to gain elective office. Which is a job. To… what? Quit?”

            This is equivocation that deserving of ridicule even on a grade school playground. The “Jobs” in question are only those of the fixed number of congressional seats and the Tea Party seeks no seats and runs no candidates under their party name.

            RE: “So I have to ask, how should our roads be made?”

            Why roads are a common good and as such should be built and maintained by the smallest unit of government capable of exercising eminent domain to support such roads. The taxes collected for this purpose should be allocated solely to roads and collected through a suitable means solely from those that use them. Such funds should stay local where its difficult for mischievous politicians to steal the funds for deliverance to their friends (functionally obsolete rail projects etc)

            Jobs are created for roads whose demand is clearly represented by use patterns. These jobs are not a function of the political intrigues of party politicians, but allocated through competitive bidding at the most local level possible. It is recognized that DC “project roads” simply divert stolen capital through the corrupt political process rather than represent the sanctity of free people making free market decisions. Would you have DC bureaucrats decide when its time to fix the potholes in the road your driveway connects to?

            RE: “We also don’t particularly like dumping sewage into rivers, so governments hire companies to construct sewage treatment plants.”

            Well I do live in a private community where roads, sewage, and water are all provided at a very nominal cost to residents through a “private” fee structure. We have a directly elected board and do not tolerate unions of any kind. If you want a union job take it elsewhere. We watch our hired managers like a hawk. Therefore we get exceedingly great value for our fees. Your insistence that government screw us in this regard as it has everywhere else I have domiciled is therefore completely off target

            RE: “As to intrusions, invasions and imperatives, more and more, I see industries writing the laws they will live under. I don’t regard that as an intrusion or invasion.”

            Well I do, having my wealth allocated to industries that produce what free people want with investments that free people willingly pay for.

            We existed without the EPA for 200 years before this cancer on our republic began to metastasize into the autocratic tyranny it has become. We have a legitimate tort system for redress of real grievances against our neighbors be they private residences of jointly owned industries that make all of our lives possible in a modern world.

          • THOMAS STEWART says:

            Hay Hey Mark Hollis Your So Full Of It!! At First I Thought George Soros< Now I Know It Is Barry Soetoro Himself!! Or "Fat Cakes". Because The Favorite Tool Of "Alinskyites" Is "Mockery". God Bless America And Mitt Romneys Family.

        • Mark Hollis says:

          You are using anything Breitbart’s organization says as factual?!

          Sorry, Brian. The Washington Post has a listing of those votes as of 07/11/2012 and then they voted again on 07/12/2012. Now, you may object to the Washington Post as a source, but even the Conservative Weekly Standard would tend to disagree with Breitbart.com.

          I highly recommend second-sourcing your news and, with respect to Breitbart, Faux “news” is not a second source.

          • SirGareth says:

            “Faux News” Oh, as in the French term meaning “false”

            I am always astounded at the intellectual prowess of you Marxists. You are so stunningly original in your comments.

            How did you ever come up with such a clever play on words?

            Peut-il être votre esprit hors du commun?

  11. Pingback: I Am The Tea Party, And The Media Wants You To Fear Me | | All about everything

  12. conrand says:

    Mark….who in the world do you think you are that you even have the right to speak (and so very graphically, I might add) about women who have been raped…etc? Obviously you could care less or you would not offend/hurt to the core the women who know first hand what it’s like to be violated!! You think you know so much….oh really! I think you are just full of yourself and like to hear yourself (self-righteous) mouth flap!

  13. Bilwick says:

    State-shtuppers (Harley Harris above, for example) don’t like uppity troubl;e-makers like the Tea Party stirring up the tax serfs.

  14. SirGareth says:

    Mr Hollis

    By what twisting and torturing of the constitutionally defined legislative process does one representative out of 435 control the entire legislative process within the house?

    Similarly how can one senator representing far less than 1% of the US population control the senate’s legislative process.

    Do you support this evolved form of government which is entirely extra-constitutional and which effectively thwarts the processes the constitution was supposed to enshrine.

    We citizens were supposed to be protected against governmental assaults on our wealth by sending people to Washington who represent OUR interests and not the interests of one particular state (Nevada) or one particularly atypical (even goofy) bay area congressional district (San Fransisco)

    I take it you support the transmogrification of our proud constitutional heritage into the ugly self serving beast it has become. It must somehow serve your own parochial interests simply because there is no other sane proposition for defending it.

    • Mark Hollis says:

      Very nice five-pound words, sir.

      One Senator can hold up any vote in the United States Senate. It’s easy and has been happening more and more—especially with Republicans in the minority, though most of those are not TEA Party members. Here is the essence of the problem in the Senate, according to the Senate’s rules: Time. And this is not to say that Senators are lazy—this particular Senate has worked more hours than most. Thus, Judgeships, ambassadorships, and other key federal jobs go unfilled because the Senate simply doesn’t have enough time to vote on confirmation.

      Before senators can vote on a bill or nomination, at least 60 members of the Senate must agree to cease debating the matter and allow a vote to proceed. Thus, a filibuster is nothing more than a refusal to provide the sixtieth vote and allow the endless cycle of debate to be broken. Since Obama took office, Republicans in the Senate (please, understand that I know that Rand Paul is the only TEA Party Senator thus far) have withheld the sixtieth vote more than at any time in US history. But even if there is a vote for “cloture” (to end debate and have a vote), unless the senators unanimously consent to holding a vote immediately, dissenting senators may demand up to 30 hours of post-cloture debate before a vote can actually take place and hold up any other business in the Senate as well for that period of time.

      Thus, the ability to waste 30 hours before anything can be accomplished empowers dissenters to prevent more than a fraction of the Senate’s business from ever being completed. And I’m not talking about a bloc of dissenters, this can be an individual Senator. Also, in many cases, one senator’s mere threat of a filibuster—an action known as a “hold” in Senate lingo—can prevent a bill or nomination from moving forward because that threat carries with it the power to waste as much as 30 hours of floor time. Oh, and did I mention these “holds” can be secret? So constituents who may want to see a particular piece of legislation move may not even know that it was their Senator that threw a wrench in the works.

      So, to answer your question directly, yes. One single Senator can hold up anything. Were the TEA Party to want to make any kind of a massive change in our current form of government as it stands, changing the rules of the Senate that cause that body to run out of time would be an important plank.

      But I don’t think the TEA Party would do that, and let me explain:

      No matter what happens in this election, the TEA Party will be a minority party, as only one third of the Senate is up for election in any given election cycle. And these rules strongly favor the minority party to prevent legislation they consider odious from passing (this worked extremely well just before the Civil War).

      And because every party has been in a minority then, now and may be in the future, there is little willingness to change the rules of the Senate.

      Now, let’s go to the House of Representatives. In the House, if you are in a position of power (as chairman of a committee, for example), you can hold up anything that your committee is considering indefinitely and prevent any floor vote on it with the following exception: A Discharge Petition.

      A discharge petition is a means of bringing a bill out of committee and to the floor for consideration without a report from a Committee and usually without cooperation of the leadership. A successful petition “discharges” the committee from further consideration of a bill or resolution and brings it directly to the floor. The discharge petition, and the threat of one, gives more power to individual members of the House and usurps a small amount of power from the leadership and committee chairs. The modern discharge petition requires the signature of an absolute majority of House members (218 members).

      If you have 218 members of the House who are signing a discharge petition, you have all ready sewn up passage of the bill, but you can bet that the Committee and its Chairman will take umbrage and you’ll find yourself targeted if you circulate such a petition.

      So, to sum up: One Congressperson can tie a bill up in committee if he or she can get the committee to decide to not report the bill. One Senator can tie up a bill by causing the Senate to run out of time. These are the current rules of these two bodies and it’s the way things happen in Washington.

      • SirGareth says:

        RE: “One Senator can hold up any vote in the United States Senate. It’s easy and has been happening more and more”

        WRONG, only the Senator from Nevada can do this and it is nowhere enshrined in the constitution that party bosses can do this. Any other senator can be told to shut up and sit down through cloture. Did you say you worked in media; no wonder you are so misinformed, you must read your own press.

        The Senate has been irretrievably damaged by the 17th Amendment; the editing of a document created by people of far greater wit and wisdom than the criminal class that followed them to “improve it” The role of the Senate was to serve as the house of government, not of the people. Its was to stop the federal government from seizing power from the states. Its is now a whorehouse of party politics.

        The House was to represent the people and as such ALL government spending was to originate SOLELY in the House. Today Obama spends trillions off budget with no consent of those responsible for paying the bills

        The rest of your rant is equally misguided and off point but if you resist the urge to scrawl tomes memorializing your ignorance regarding our republic Ill pick your arguments apart as the a crow does carrion.

      • SirGareth says:

        Mr Hollis,

        The Senate was never intended to be a vast legislative machine cranking out hundreds of thousands of lines of undecipherable “code” with which it hopes to cripple our liberties.

        Your problem is one of orientation.

        The Senate was supposed to take care of the ho-hum aspects of government like ratifying federal court justices, treaties, the heads of the war and state departments etc. The fact that senate activities, the courts, etc, are of vital interest to US citizens reflects just how intrusive and destructive of our liberties the federal government has become.

        We all want our “rulers” to consider the way “we” want things, but if the feds make it go “my way”, then “your way” is violated.

        A conservative respects the concept that there is no “one way” but some “300 million ways” and if we are left in peace to manage our own affairs (savings, medicine, education, farming, industry, transportation, energy, risk, etc etc) we will have something called “liberty” which honors no particular “way” but instead honors our individual humanity and this is the only respect that keeps us from accepting slavery in its many forms.

  15. Richard says:

    And don’t forget the guy that flew the plane into the IRS building (was it in Dallas?) and immediately the media said it was probably the cause of right wing hate speech or a crazy right winger who did it. Come to find out he was a left leaning Democrat. That somehow was failed to be mentioned on the national news shows.

    • The Bruce says:

      Facts usually have a way of foiling the Left’s false narratives. When proven wrong, they either shut up completely or go out of their way to smear the person that proved them wrong.

      • SirGareth says:

        The left fails to address the central issue: Just who controls the controllers?

        They appear to have a remarkable faith in the least virtuous, most despised members of society, politicians and their appointed bureaucrats; all of whom go to Washington with the stated aim of doing good but then focus all of their energies in doing well.

        If a poll were taken as to who were the most trustworthy, a Mafia Don or the US Congress, the congress would take second place.

        If any should doubt this, be reminded that the entire Congress and their senior aides have exempted themselves from ALL of the provisions of the Obamacare they have foisted upon us in the dark of the night behind closed doors. Oh, did I mention their children also do not have to repay their student “loans” (you and I must do this for them)

        Americans stay armed because the police often become the criminals during times of stress (Katrina) or take flight and run like cowards (LA riots). If you dont have firepower you dont survive. Although it must be admitted that much of this danger can be avoided if one avoids any areas run by Democrat politicians.

        Finally we need to keep our arms in order to pick off the politicians at a mile or more should they ever forget just who owns the country and whom they serve. The founders were quite explicit in this regard and the hand held weapon in the hands of an oppressed people will always form the best surety against arbitrary and capricious government.

  16. IMO says:

    Tea Partiers spend more time and energy defending themselves than doing anything productive.

    • Mark Hollis says:

      Problem is, when one faces them with facts that they don’t like, they attack you.

      • The Bruce says:

        Sounds like you’re describing the Left far more than any Tea Party member.

      • SirGareth says:

        The Tea Party is not a political party, it is a truly grass roots conservative movement to restrict the urge of big government types to build the autocratic federal tyranny so much desired by the Democrat-Marxist ideology so idolized by the press since the days of FDR and mainstream media; ie big government and its propaganda agency.

        The leftists fear the Tea Party, they do not fear the feckless (and statist) ACLU. Only one of these organizations stands for civil liberties and it isn’t the ACLU who stand only for big all-intrusive government

      • THOMAS STEWART says:

        Hay Hey Mark Hollis It Really Sounds Like You Did Not Have Any Toys While Growing-Up And You Just “Played With Yourself”!! Yikeess Now I Know Why They Call Them The Liberal Goons!!! God Bless America And The Tea Party Patriots.

    • SirGareth says:

      What a joke, The Tea Party destroyed the big government, big government union types in the last election. I attend Democrat party meetings, Republican party meetings and Tea Party meetings alike.

      The most civil well educated and and most well attended are the Tea Party meetings, followed by the Republicans, The Democrats resemble the monkey cage at your local zoo except the feces flinging monkeys in the zoo are more civilized than our Democrat-Marxists

  17. SirGareth says:

    Addressing yet Marxist tome of Mr Hollis

    RE: “My father is receiving a Social Security check…..”

    Goodie your father was screwed too, If he likes it that’s fine with me; I don’t and I collect Social Security too. I paid $260,000 into the “system” for over 50 years that the congress and most government agencies exempted themselves from until it became politically untenable to do so any longer. Do you think congress was being altruistic in denying itself from “good deals” like Obamacare and Social Security?

    RE: …..he paid both “sides” of Social Security. This is to say his paycheck deducted 7.65% of his income as his portion and his firm (owned by him and his partners) paid an additional 7.65%.

    This “employer pays” is a ruse so stupid only a naive little Marxist would fall for it. In the competitive world of the private economy employees must earn the ENTIRE costs associated with their employment, PLUS return a profit to the owners of the business that took a risk on their employment. The private economy cannot tax citizens to supply benefits to employees – thus every employee of the PRODUCTIVE sector MUST pay ALL of the social security and medicare costs his employer hands over to the government on his behalf

    RE: “So for 52 years he puts in to Social Security and he pays both halves! And you’re saying that he’s putting the burden of his Social Security check on his grandchildren?”

    I probably paid far more into “the system” than your father did and did my stint during Vietnam as well (taxed by SS). The point here is that in 1983 (29 years ago) the government started “investing” excess SS collections into a concept called “bloated government” with its excessive wages and benefits for government unions and with no useful product returned to the consumer.

    This “investment” is now completely bankrupt and we need to either borrow money from our adversaries or create fake Federal Reserve notes to make good on its promises. This is EXACTLY what is wrong with big government. It is a concept born of an unholy alliance of Stupidity, Ignorance, Arrogance, and Dishonesty that could only succeed in screwing us if it had a lot of guns to intimidate us with. Oh I guess it does have the guns – and so it goes; the march from freedom to slavery.

    RE: “Because he paid into the system (longer, actually, than most people do), he is entitled to receive the Social Security benefit.”

    Lets see how this works; I paid the full monty into SS (maximum contribution) for 45 of my 52 (15-67) working years into the system. This means the majority of my “contributions” are set aside to fund the SS benefits for the less fortunate (or more lazy) people than I. Congress and most government employees “exempt themselves” from this duty to take care of those who are either too stupid or lazy to take care of themselves.

    My Brother made a very small wage (perhaps like your father) and so SS deemed him to be worthy of the “progressive” benefit structure of SS and although he contributed less than 1/3 of what I did he takes nearly the same benefit as I do – how nice for him.

    In actuality he earned three times what I did in hos working life under the auspices of his S-corporation that was also very generous with him at dividend time (no SS or Medicare deductions). See what I mean, its all corrupt as everything the government does is corrupt – it is a criminal enterprise and I don’t want criminals managing my savings.

    RE: “Are you disputing that he earned it? Are you saying that paying in 15.3% of his income annually for 52 years is not enough to earn what he is receiving as a Social Security check? And he is not free?! He shouldn’t receive what he has paid in for 52 years to get?”

    I’m saying he was forced to invest in the ultimate “Solyndra” of retirement schemes – as such he is so screwed but not nearly as screwed as his heirs will be.

    RE: “Now, let’s go to my sister. She’s disabled. She has a horrid, horrid disease called Adult-onset Mitochondrial Disease.”

    I’m sorry but you, your father, your family, her family should be taking care of her.
    The social security “disability” roles are growing 10% a year and its primarily fraud. Government is an instrument of FORCE not CHARITY. Charities pass the plate, criminals pass guns: why don’t you just stick someone up with a gun and tell them your sister is ill, that should make your actions completely acceptable shouldn’t it? Why not; it’s essentially how government collects “charity”

    What is left unsaid in all your rant is the concept of commercially available “insurance” which for total disability is quite cheap. I used to buy it. I also bought “catastrophic” health care insurance for my daughter, when she was uninsured. It covered her for $2,000,000 and cost me about 40 bucks a month. (80% coverage after 5000 deductible)

    How does our corrupt and criminal political class manage insurance better than commercial for profit enterprise?

    RE “You want orphans of our servicemen to beg on the streets?”

    No, but what has this got to do with bloated and corrupt government?

    RE: “You want old 81-year-old men to beg on the streets?”

    No, if they cannot take care of themselves I expect their family and friends to take care of them; maybe if he’s such a worthless character of no virtue whatsoever that no one in their right mind (admittedly this exempts government) would deign to toss him a penny.

    RE: “All because you have this crazy idea that their begging on the streets or being sent to orphanages or somewhere out of sight where their existence wouldn’t offend you would make you feel “free?”

    You don’t think Americans should feel free? How odd. You know the slaves were freed from their plantations in 1865. Many just went back to their slave bosses and essentially said “please take care of me as you did before” It was a slave’s mentality since that’s all they knew. The USA is now a great plantation replete with “massas” up in “dee big white house on dee hill” They feed us (food stamps) house us (HUD) train us (DOE) , medicate us (Medicaid) and give us our work (Jobs Programs)

    So if this is the new vision for the USA just what in the hell was wrong with slavery where slave masters did exactly the same thing?

    RE: “Dickens wrote about how morally wrong the 19th Century orphanages and work-houses in England were in “Oliver Twist.” While it’s fiction….”

    That’s the trouble with Marxists, instead of enjoying fiction they live in it.

  18. Peace in our time says:

    I do not argue with Progressives anymore. It’s a waiste of time and energy. They believe in a humanist religion and are lost. That religion is a lie of Satan. Romans 1:22 – 32′ We are called to be light to the world and must use our time as embasitors of Christ.
    In a political sense, the Tea party has the right ideas but of course we are constantly lied about by the media. Balance budgets, honest money, accountability, all of which the tea party is about, mean nothing to these zealots. Christ said, “before thay hated you, they hated me”. With the restoration of Isreal as a nation, the clock is ticking and we see all the other signs of the times mentioned in the Bible. I’m not saying we should give up in the political arena but with our families and others get closer to Christ. Let us not loose sight of why we are on this earth.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>