RSSUnited States Battle for Independence 2010: Tea Parties vs. The Obama Culture of Dependence
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. (Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776)
No truer words were ever more self evident than in 2010 …
People have asked what is the Tea Party about and what do they stand for. Michael Barone’s article in The Washington Examiner hits pretty close to the point. The Tea Party is against higher taxes, out of control spending, record federal deficits, bail outs, politicians who have for got who they work for and most importantly, BIG GOVERNMENT. What do the Tea Party folks really want … INDEPENDENCE!!!
The direction put forth by Our Founding Fathers is what has allowed “We the People” to become the most prosperous, Representative Democratic nation in the world, not an over reaching and controlling nanny state government. We are the most productive, charitable and yes, whether you like it or not President Obama … the dominant world super power.
Barone touches on that very point in ‘Tea parties fight Obama’s culture of dependence.’
It is really a battle about culture, a battle between the culture of dependence and the culture of independence. Probably unknowingly, Roesgen was reflecting the the midcentury sociologist Paul Lazarsfeld’s dictum that politics is about who gets how much when. If some guy is getting $400, shouldn’t he just shut up and collect the money? Shouldn’t he be happy that his state government, headed recently by Rod Blagojevich, was getting an extra $50 billion?
But public policy also helps determine the kind of society we are. The Obama Democrats see a society in which ordinary people cannot fend for themselves, where they need to have their incomes supplemented, their health care insurance regulated and guaranteed, their relationships with their employers governed by union leaders. Highly educated mandarins can make better decisions for them than they can make themselves.
That is the culture of dependence. The tea partiers see things differently. They’re not looking for lower taxes; half of tea party supporters, a New York Times survey found, think their taxes are fair. Nor are they financially secure: Half say someone in their household may lose their job in the next year. Two-thirds say the recession has caused some hardship in their lives. But they recognize, correctly, that the Obama Democrats are trying to permanently enlarge government and increase citizens’ dependence on it.
Where would America be today if The Founding Fathers has formed a big brother government that was an all controlling nanny state? In order for success, there needs to be failure. President Obama just does not get it because he believes the Government should act as the all encompassing dominant entity like a King and the people should just be peasants acting in a plebeian manner. Never was this more evident as when Obama just recently mocked the Tea Party folks protesting his policies and agenda by stating, “they amuse me … they should be saying thank you.”
This is the 2010 version of the Battle of Independence in America. That is why Democrats and Obama have so misread the signs of the Tea Party and wanted to be dismissive. Much of what the Tea Party proclaims is not fringe or extreme. It is very emblematic of what every day Americans believe. Which can explain why in so many polls Obama’s policies are opposed by a majority of the American people and the middle of the road, in pendent voters with no party affiliation. How else does one explain a Republican like Scott Brown winning in Massachusetts? America was not based upon the redistribution of wealth model. It is not about a government hand out, although that id what Obama and Democrats would like to create so to form a permanent voting block of dependent individuals.
At some point every American is going to have to stand up, think for them self and their family and decide whether they want to be independent and that their children and grandchildren will have the rights endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Or be a dependent class of people solely beholden to whatever government is in power.
Barone in his article recalled a liberal MSM confrontation between CNN’s Susan Roesgen with a Tea Party goer and his daughter (VIDEO). The liberal media carrying the water and Obama message just could not understand that the dad did not want the government cookie that would make he and his family dependent upon BIG Government.
“Do you realize,” CNN’s Susan Roesgen asked a man at the April 15, 2009, tea party in Chicago, “that you’re eligible for a $400 credit?” When the man refused to drop his “drop socialism” sign, she went on, “Did you know that the state of Lincoln gets fifty billion out of the stimulus?”
Roesgen is no longer with CNN, and CNN has only about half as many viewers as it did last year. But her questions are revealing. They help us understand that the issue on which our politics has become centered — the Obama Democrats’ vast expansion of the size and scope of government — is really not just about economics.
Who won the debate between the MSM and the Tea Party from above? CNN’s Susan Roesgen was fired, CNN has lost their audience and the Tea Party is alive and well in 2010.
It’s up to you America … the United States is at a cross roads and this up coming midterm election in 2010 and the Presidential election in 2012 will determine whether America will be the shining example that Our Founding Father’s risked their lives for and fought a War of Independence for … or will we become like a social European country. Its your choice America.
Posted April 18, 2010 by Scared Monkeys 2010 Elections, 2012 Elections, Barack Obama, Economy, Government, Healthcare, Obamacare, Obamanation, Obamanomics, Politics, Polls, Socialism, Tax & Spend Liberals, Taxes, Tea Party, We the People | 5 comments |
If you liked this post, you may also like these:
Comments
5 Responses to “United States Battle for Independence 2010: Tea Parties vs. The Obama Culture of Dependence”
Leave a Reply
*** While I am not the Author of this post, I loved it so much, thought it was worth re-posting:
**************************************************
Welcome to Tax Day 2010, or as it’s known at the White House, Obama’s terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day.
And if last week’s Boston tea party with Sarah Palin is any indication, it’s only going to get worse.
The first question I got after walking off the stage on Boston Common yesterday was “How big is the crowd?” The number — somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 — is irrelevant. The crowd was impressive, and not just for its size.
This was a smart, savvy, and disciplined group. They knew what the game was and were playing it to win. Liberals hoping to see the Tea Party Express careen off a political embankment were very disappointed.
The government-establishment politicians targeted by tea partiers are counting on one of two things happening before November. Either the tea partiers will get bored, lose focus, and move on; or else their passion and anger will inspire them to do something stupid and self-destructive that will marginalize the entire movement.
Both scenarios are possible. But judging by Boston’s event, they’re getting less and less likely.
For weeks, local liberal activists had talked openly about infiltrating the event with bogus racist or homophobic signs (quick question: If the tea partiers are racists, as the liberals allege, why do the lefties have to bring the racist signs themselves?). The local media was awash in handwringing about the “angry mob” descending on the Common.
One local alt-weekly, the Boston Phoenix, ran a less-than-credible cover story attempting to portray the tea-party movement as an active ally of racist militia movements. Another liberal publication published signs for tea-party opponents to use to “greet” Palin. One featured two elephants copulating. Another referred to her as a “crazy bitch.” And in a bizarre twist from the “feminist,” anti–Second Amendment Left, another sign showed Palin’s face on a bleeding tea bag with bullet holes all around.
In that climate, who knew what to expect? Would the nonstop insults and ridiculous accusations drive some attendees to react angrily, rather than thoughtfully, under the glare of the media spotlight?
I had nothing to worry about. The crowd was spectacular — funny, enthusiastic, happy, respectful. Many people I talked to seemed disappointed that so few liberal plants and counterprotesters showed up. They wanted the chance to prove that they were rational, reasonable, and ready to debate.
There were a few lefty cranks in attendance. Some of the published Palin attack signs were on display. One group of girls held signs reading “I heart abortions. They’re fun” that were clearly designed to provoke. Other signs simply declared everyone in attendance racists, sexists, homophobes, and “retards.”
Because liberals are classy that way.
The tea partiers didn’t even break a sweat. They ignored the provocation and enjoyed the show instead.
As for offensive or racist signs from tea partiers, I worked my way through the entire crowd twice and didn’t see a single one. Members of the mainstream media also conducted a thorough sign-by-sign search looking for anything that could be construed as racist, and as of my latest Google News search this morning, they had nothing.
No memo went out to tea partiers about what signs to bring, or how to handle some clueless college punk with a sign calling them “retards.” They did this without leadership.
The tea partiers don’t need it. They are activism entrepreneurs, self-motivated and self-organizing. Today, for example, there will be more than 100 tea-party events in big cities such as Washington, D.C., and smaller communities such as Lowell, Mass. Their financial reach is nationwide, too, as they find candidates like Scott Brown and pour millions into their campaigns without any prodding from a party or leader.
So how can it be a surprise to the mainstream media that a new New York Times/CBS poll shows that tea-party attendees are better educated than the average American? This is only news to those who’ve never spoken to a tea partier. It also reflects previous research about talk-radio listeners, showing that they’re some of the best-educated and most knowledgeable of all media consumers.
Which is why they’re not bothered that Senator Brown avoided the Boston event. They know it’s about political strategy, and they get it. Many of the Massachusetts conservatives who worked hard to elect Brown in January knew his politics were more moderate than their own, but they also understood the strategic importance of electing him.
And while the Boston crowd treated Palin like a rock star Wednesday, they also know her limitations — as the new poll shows. She may or may not be presidential material, but she does a great job of laying out the failings of this president and the hopes for our next one.
There were many great signs at the event, but the trend that caught my eye was how many of them specifically mentioned November 2, Election Day. These folks have their eyes on the prize. Repealing Obamacareand dumping Washington’s far-left leadership won’t happen in a city park; it will happen in a voting booth.
And the tea-party folks I spoke to Wednesday won’t need an SEIU-organized bus to get there, either.
— Michael Graham is an NRO contributor and author of the new book That’s No Angry Mob, That’s My Mom (Regnery, 2010).
————————————————– ~~~~~~~~~~ _____________________
*~****~ *ATTENTION LIBERAL TROLLS *~****~~*
Like Brenda in Virginia says,
“Try the TEA”
You will really like it. Green, Herbal, Orange Pekoe, Ginseng, Chamomile, English Breakfast, Darjeerling—name your brew—–it’s all GOOD!”
See you in November, Trolls
=)~
[...] is the problem.” No truer words were ever more self evident today in 2010. Once again, the big government, nanny state Democrats have real issues to deal with the voters in the upcoming 2010 and 2012 elections. Independents and [...]
The key concept is “equal.” The so-called progressives preach “social justice,” which is based on the idea that, the Declaration non-withstanding, it is unfair that some of us are poor and others rich, or some born smart and others not so much. The real goal of their politics is to recreate society with two classes, the governed and the governors, who would be the intellectual elite, the wise, the educated and connected. The governed would be the rest of us. If you want to do anything other than govern and if you’re not one of the bien pensants you belong in the class of the governed. No matter what your constellation of skills and talents, you are only entitled to what the governors think you’re worth, no matter how rare your gifts or valuable your products. You will only get to fulfill your talents, dreams and hopes if the governors allow it, and don’t expect to make more than anyone else. That would be unjust.
But guess who gets the highest incomes, the biggest houses, the best of everything.
Now ask yourself why some of the richest counties in the nation are clustered around the District of Columbia.
You wrote: “We are the most productive, charitable and yes, whether you like it or not President Obama … the dominant world super power.”
Last week you accused Obama of saying we are a superpower “whether you like it or not”. Several commenters (including me) pointed out that you completely pulled the quote out of context, but you never responded to us.
So let’s do this again. Here’s the full sentence:
“It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them.”
Do you still really believe in your original interpretation of that quote, as opposed to most people’s interpretation (i.e., we get pulled into conflicts whether we like it or not)?
#4-Gee—if most people are interpreting the statement as you have posted above—what are you worrying about?
America’s MAJORITY opinion has already been polled to death since our new President took office. The majority do not believe Obama is tough enough on Terrorisim, don’t believe he should have accepted a bogus Nobel Peace Prize, and do not like that he bows to our enemies & Foriegn Leaders. Period. What President in US History ever did this? Answer—None. A handshake is one thing. But bowing actually is considered an insult to us and not even proper protocol in other cultures.
Many bloggers here are proud to be Americans, and proud to be acknowledged as the dominant World super power where time and time again, Obama seems to apologize for it? Interpret as you wish- that’s how I see it anyway and this board does have a tendency to call them as we see them. You don’t have to agree.