No, Obama, it’s not the TEA Party’s fault – it’s your fault

No, Obama, it’s not the TEA Party’s fault – it’s your fault.

That’s right. You want to point some fingers? Did you ever hear the old saying that, “When you point a finger at someone else, several fingers are pointing back at you?” Well, it sure as heck applies here.

“Bush drove the economy into a ditch(?)” No, the age of entitlement drove the economy into the ditch. And you sir, Obama, are a product of the age of entitlement – a product of the soft-underbelly of American success. You’re a pampered academic elitist with wild theories about society and governments, theories that were safe as long as they remained in the classroom.

Unfortunately for US, too many members of the media were inculcated with the same academic disease. They missed the basic point that academic theory and reality are distinctly different things. Academic theory is safe but annoying as long as it is treated as backseat driving.

Well, if Bush drove the car into the ditch, the solution wasn’t to allow the two-year old in the backseat to take the wheel. “I know how to solve hunger in the world, mommy. We tell farmers to grow more food.”

So, you thought that was a ditch in 2008? If that was a ditch you’ve about driven the car off the cliff. If we’re not plunging into jagged rocks below, we’re hanging off the twisted guardrail by a hair’s breath. “Everybody hold real still until help arrives.”

But is the help coming? If you’ve called for a dump truck full of cash with orders to dump more green over our frightened and agonizing heads, I assure you a few bills will get caught on the window wipers and the added weight will pull us over.

But, you haven’t learned your lesson yet, have you? You’re going to stick to your guns through thick and thin. Of course, the thick is what your friends, like Soros, get. The thin is for the rest of us.

About a year ago, I met someone I’d spoken to casually on several occasions. A television was playing and your smiley face came on the screen. I winced and commented that I felt you were leading us to ruin. At that moment, I discovered my acquaintance was an ardent Obama supporter.

Offended by my attitude, over the course of the last year, every time he’s seen me, he’s moved to the other side of the road, sidewalk or dining establishment and given me a dirty look. But, today, at McDonald’s, I overheard him speaking with some people at another table. I didn’t catch the entire conversation but I can tell you that, based on the words I did hear, the bloom is most assuredly off the rose.

You know, it took a majority of those in the media several years of thumping on George W. Bush’s reputation day and night to thoroughly vilify the man to the extent that someone I once considered reasonably stable would engage in wild fits of calling him “Hitler” and other disreputable names. You’ve got the media working in the opposite direction, carrying your water for everything they’re worth, and, I assure you, as things are going, if Bush’s name is mud, one day yours will be the primordial ooze that resides several layers further down.

As I see it, your reputation, along with the hopes and dreams of all Americans, has a limited number of options. In either case, it takes a big man to pull this off and I have little confidence you’ll even try.

The one option is for Barrack Hussein Obama to admit his theories and ideology were based on pasteurized cow pies and to recognize that fiscal conservatism is more than theoretically sound, it’s the only reasonable course to follow. Of course, for you to make this kind of a quantum shift in your perspective, you’d probably have to hold a news conference where you actually had something to say:

“After deep and careful consideration, I’ve realized I’ve been taking America down the wrong path and, today, I am switching my political allegiance to, not only the Republican Party but as a TEA Party member, as well.”

No, I’m not holding my breath.

The other solution is to pretend we have a system in the U.S. akin to Britain’s policy of removing prime ministers on votes of No Confidence. You can pretend that we have this system as you realize that, from those who are awake, No Confidence is the only plausible outcome of such a vote.

In other words, it’s not just that Geithner needs to go; it’s that he needs to go and he needs to take you with him.

In the meantime, how long do you think your media will continue to stick its neck out for you when even those in its ranks who are the most symbiotic to your dung-based theories realize that the last of their credibility is dissolving into wet and moldy shreds of newsprint?

Liberal Flashcards

So, now I'm a fiscal terrorist

At first I was offended; the lamestream media, Vice President What's-his-face, and other pundits on the Left have taken to calling TEA Party folk like me 'Terrorists" (I guess they got tired of calling us racists). Generally speaking, I don't like being compared to a wacko whose idea of a good time is to strap bombs around his waste and blow himself and others into little bits.

In my outrage over the latest verbal assault from the Left, I turned as I often do - no, not to a schematic of how to build a human bomb - but to my trusty Merriam-Webser's Collegiate Dictionary (Tenth Edition). There, I sought the solace from this latest verbal assault and the definition of this word that has caused the Left so much angst over the last 10 years or so: a word they struggle to use against human bombers but so easily apply to fiscal conservatives.

Reading the definition, I suddenly realized that, maybe, they're right. Maybe I am a terrorist.

According to Webster, a terrorist is someone who uses "systematic ... terror ... as a means of coercion."

I will not deny that the TEA Party, through its elected officials, has sought to coerce, cajole or otherwise convince the government to apply some fiscal sanity to our burgeoning debt crisis. Considering, if someone finds fiscal conservatism to be a form of terror, than seeking some restraint on government spending could be a terrifying experience.

I like to think of this in terms of a family setting. Joe and Cindy Somebody have found themselves up to their necks in debt and Joe has decided it's time to take a stand.

"Cindy, we have got to stop spending like this."

Suddenly, the neighbors peer through the window shades to see why Cindy next door has run into the street screaming as though chased by a knife wielding psychopath. And there's Joe, sitting at the kitchen table with a shocked look at his face wondering what happened to make his wife act that way.

If spending within our means or trying not to saddle our children and grandchildren with our irresponsible debt is so incredibly frightening for liberals, maybe we should make the same suggestion to them that Joe will most likely make to Cindy when she stops running.

"Honey, I love you, but if being responsible about the way we spend money has that affect on you, maybe I should handle the finances from now on. I mean, honestly, if we don't do something about this now, the alternative is bankruptcy and ruin. Besides, the neighbors are starting to talk, what with you running around screaming every time I suggest balancing the budget."

So, as a fiscal terrorist, I apologize to Biden, Chris Williams and all the other liberals who find my position so scary. If we had known you were so incapable of handling money within the bounds or reality, well, maybe more of us would have refrained from putting you in these frightening positions where you'd be called upon, by some, to deal with issues like debt, income and fiscal responsibility.

They say the first step is admitting there's a problem. Now that we've identified the problem, maybe you should focus on things that are a little more comfortable for you, such as attacking Sarah Palin just because she's a woman with too much sense to be a liberal.

In the meantime, as the next election approaches, keep in mind that, if people are careless enough to put you back in office, you'll probably have to deal with scary financial matters again. If you're not up to the task, maybe you should let someone with a stronger stomach and a little more common sense do the job.

Conservatives must keep 2012 insight while fighting Battle of the Debt Ceiling

By and large, I've remained somewhat silent, until now, about the ongoing 'deficit' battle in our nation's capital. Frankly, it's a complicated matter and it would be naive of me to think that there is a simple solution, hence my silence as I've mulled this over. I must admit, however, that I did meet Illinois Republican Joe Walsh and encouraged him to stand strong on this issue. But, the question is, what does standing strong really mean and what is the right thing to do?

For those unfamiliar with this blog or its author, I proudly consider myself a TEA Party member. I believe the 2006 and 2008 elections were disastrous for the continued viability of this country and, Nancy "save the world from republicans" Pelosi should consider this, will lead to a diminished America with far-reaching negative effects for the world as a whole.We must reverse course and get this country back on track. That's why I created this blog and why I'm sitting here this morning, with other things to do, taking time to write this piece.

To find the correct solution to a problem first starts with an accurate assessment of the situation and ones goals. The situation is this, the loggerhead in Washington, D.C., is a result of the 2010 election. In other words, without the influx of constitutionally minded TEA Party conservatives, there would be no debate. Obama and the spendocrats would have long ago passed a debt ceiling increase and republicans warning of America's debt would have been ignored by the spendocrats and the lamestream media that supports them.

We, the TEA Party, have largely framed the debate. We've forced them to consider their spending habits. That was certainly part of our goal, as I see it, in 2010. It was also our goal to change the way things are done in Washington, D.C. Many within the TEA Party have expressed outrage over the propensity of our elected officials to conduct our business behind closed doors where it's easier for them to operate based on their personal agendas rather than the nation's best interests. Clearly, and in spite of the hollow words of candidate Obama, there is less transparency in D.C. than ever.

It is also our goal, once again, as I see it, for our elected officials to operate within the limits of the constitution. Rumors that Obama may abuse the 14th Amendment to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling certainly puts that issue at risk. Of course, it's redundant to point out that Obama the "constitutional professor" has shown a marked lack of reverence for the constitution.

Still, there are many in the public who, with far less concern over the value of limited government, would applaud Obama for stepping out from the shadows to 'save the day' by solving the current crisis. Pundits who point out Obama's negative position on this issue should be a little more wary of that possibility.

While Obama has otherwise faded into the weeds during this crisis, the republican-controlled House is at odds with the democrat-controlled senate, constitutional republicans are at odds with their wishy-washy brothers and sisters and Ole' Plastic Puss Pelosi is espousing her customary baseless and insane nonsense from the wings. This all leaves the rest of us wondering: 1) do we stand firm against a debt ceiling increase at any cost or; 2) do we support Senate Leader John Boehner's plan?

For me, this is where I went back to take another look at our goals. Changing Washington, D.C., spending habits is certainly a major goal, and we've certainly made ground in that respect, at least in terms of the course of the debate. Of course, as some have pointed out, even with an agreement, what guarantee do we have that our elected officials will abide by it?

That is some duly deserved cynicism. Yet, an agreement that begins turning this ship away from a policy of dramatic overspending is still a good thing.

The other goal is to continue bringing America back to a constitutional footing in 2012. Consider what will happen after 2012 if Obama is re-elected, if the Senate remains under democrat control and if the House returns to the liberal fold.

The first effect of such an electoral outcome we can anticipate is the abandonment of fiscal conservatism. Whatever deal is reached now, in terms of the debt ceiling crisis, will mean nothing post-liberal-electoral victory in 2012. Any, albeit limited, restraint Obama and the liberals have demonstrated since 2009 would vanish like a wisp of smoke in a wind storm.

To put it succinctly, the debate today hinges on the outcome of an election tomorrow (November 2012). It, likewise, will probably play a significant role in the outcome of that election. Therefore, and though it may pain us to consider the situation this way, we cannot ignore the long-term political ramifications of the current debate. If we win this battle and it costs us the war in 2012, this situation will make the elections of 2006 and 2008 look like conservative landslides.

Therefore, to state our goals, as I see them, in the current Battle of the Debt Ceiling: 1) Avoid causing any harm to the nation's credit rating; 2) shift America away from fiscal irresponsibility and onto a course of fiscal conservatism; 3) maintain a strong conservative position from which to assail Obama and the liberals in the 2012 election.

As I see it, this probably means supporting the Speaker of the House and his plan. Let the democrats, who already voted against a balanced budget, now vote against a 'reasonable' plan to get us out of this crisis. Let Obama veto such a plan, if he dares, or even continue to stand publicly against it if it never reaches his desk.

This battle will probably not be our opponent's Waterloo but it could very well be ours if we don't play it right.