Tuesday, September 22, 2009

No Politicians At Tea Parties

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Frank Rich of the New York Times wrote a piece recently designed to be a hit-piece on Glenn Beck. He aptly titled the editorial, "Even Glenn Beck Is Right Twice a Day." The title is a reference to a broken clock, of which has the right time twice a day.

The first sentence of the article reads: "IF only it were just about the color of his skin."

Mr. Rich obviously has fallen head first into the sewage the Left has been spewing, calling anyone that dares disagree with the great and wonderful Obama a racist.

Despite the ominous tone of the accusation of racism that dominates the early part of Mr. Rich's article, Frank goes on to say that all of the disapproval against Obama is much more than just bigotry, health care, or even Obama.

He's right, for once, sort of. Bigotry has little to nothing to do with the protests. Health care is an ingredient, but not a primary reason. Even Obama himself is not entirely the problem. The policies of Washington, and the willingness of the political establishment to move away from the original intent of the U.S. Constitution, is a larger part of the frustration by The Right, than simply the existence of a bunch of radical Democrats.

Then Frank shoves his head up his butt, again.

In the fourth paragraph of the editorial it reads as follows:
  • Many of those Americans may hate Obama, but they don’t love the Republican establishment either. Michael Steele, who was declared persona non grata at one of the mad “tea parties” in April, was not invited to that right-wing 9/12 March on Washington last weekend. There were no public encomiums for McCain or Bush. No Senate leader spoke to the gathering, and perhaps only Palin and Ron Paul would have been welcome from the ranks of what passes for G.O.P. presidential timber. If there was a real hero to this crowd, it was the protest's most prominent promoter, the radio and TV talker Glenn Beck.


The vast majority of those that oppose Obama's policies do not hate him. I am sure there is a small group of folks that are truly racist, or truly hate the man, but I believe that is a very small crowd, and that the number of those folks is so small, it could very well be considered negligible.

During George W. Bush's presidency just about every Democrat I spoke to poured out hate for Bush. They openly talked about their hopes that Bush would suffer at the hands of an assassin, and they constantly screamed that Bush was a liar.

A single Republican Congressman says that Obama lied, and suddenly the entire non-liberal members of the American population are a bunch of racists.

Rich goes on to say that the folks at odds with the president are not real fond of the Republicans, either. He is right, but for the wrong reasons. Frank Rich believes folks are bothered by the GOP because the "right-wing loonies" have taken control of the party. In reality, it is because the Republican Party has been pushing non-conservative moderates into leadership positions, and has turned its back on Reagan's influence. The Party of Reagan is becoming "liberal-light," and as a result, does not stand very sturdy on any issues.

Then Frank Rich goes into his real error in the paragraph.

The editorial explains how none of the GOP politicians were invited to the 9/12 March on Washington a little over a week ago, and that perhaps only Sarah Palin or Ron Paul would have been accepted. Then Frank goes on to add that the real hero to the crowd was conservative talker Glenn Beck.

In short, Rich is saying the Tea Parties on 9/12 were only populated by a cross-section of the far right crowd who is so crazy they don't even accept their own political party, and were all in reality just a bunch of Glenn Beck followers.

According to Newsmax, when Glenn Beck began breaking viewer records he had about 3 million viewers. The University of Indiana estimates that there were about 1.8 million people at the 9/12 event, and this is not counting the millions of people at other events across the nation. So, if Frank Rich is right, and the Tea Party People are only far-right, Glenn Beck following, fringe loonies, then that means that every single one of Glenn Beck's viewers made it to a Tea Party, and they all brought friends (possibly kicking and screaming)!

A lot of the conservatives at the 9/12 March are no doubt big fans of Glenn Beck, and I would be a viewer too, if he was on the tube at an hour that I am normally home. But many of the Tea Party'rs were not necessarily "conservatives." Many of them were libertarians, not-so-liberal Democrats, and various brands of independents. A lot of them, also, were people who voted for Obama, and are now having buyer's remorse.

"But none of the Republican Politicians were invited," would argue Frank Rich, "so the group must've been something more radical than even the GOP."

There was a very important reason why few politicians showed up, and why none of them were invited. But, if you truly understood the reason for the Tea Parties, you would understand the reason for that.

Ask the average, unknowing person what the Tea Party protests are all about, and the majority of responses will be "taxes."

rrrrrrr - Wrong!

Many folks who at least try to pay attention to the news will tell you the rallies are all about protesting against Obama's health care proposition.

rrrrrrr - Wrong again!

Lately, a lot of the members of the liberal left may tell you the protesters are out there because they are upset that the president is a black man.

rrrrrrr - You can't get much more wrong than that!

The Democrats say that these people are being paid by the GOP and insurance industry to be out there. As far as they are concerned the rallies are all manufactured, and are being controlled by insurance lobbyists, politicians, and conservative talkers.

rrrrrrr - If that were the case, then why weren't the politicians all over the stages? In other words, Wrong Again!

I am sure there are dozens more thoughts about why the Tea Parties are happening, and every last one of them are wrong.

The reason can be summed up in three words: United States Constitution.

And because the rallies across America are about the U.S. Constitution, this is why the politicians Were Not Invited.

Still confused?

The federal government operates outside the U.S. Constitution in many ways. This is nothing new, but the creeping incrementalism of this phenomenon has been increasing speed during the last hundred years. The Obama Administration has the movement of the federal government away from the U.S. Constitution moving at break-neck speed. The people, while being boiled slowly like a frog in the pot by previous administrations, didn't notice, or didn't care. But when today's Democrats decided to turn up the heat, and the hammer and sickle of socialism began to materialize at the end of the tunnel, the sleeping giant was awakened, and the American People cried out: "Enough!"

Any piece of legislation proposed by Congress should have a question attached to it. The question should be, "Where in the U.S. Constitution does it allow the federal government to do such a thing?"

Over 85% of the federal government is unconstitutional, and so the majority of our tax money is going to things the federal government has no business doing. Our income taxes should be all but eliminated, and the government programs that do not abide by the Constitution should be repealed.

Problem is, all of this unconstitutional junk has become institutionalized. Many Americans have come to depend upon much of what the government does. So the elimination of the unconstitutional programs, which includes the entitlement programs, needs to be done in a gradual manner.

Ask yourself a simple question: Where in the U.S. Constitution does it give the federal government the power to get into the health insurance business? Where in the U.S. Constitution does it allow the federal government to own a share of the automobile industry? Where does it allow for bailouts of banks? Where does it allow for government paid abortions? Where does it allow for the federal government to consider changing the definition of marriage? Where does it even allow for the federal government to make the Supreme Court the final arbiter of the U.S. Constitution? Where?

The answer to each and every one of those questions is "no where," and "precedence" is not a part of the Constitution either.

The United States Government has no authority to do any of those things Obama and his Democrat crew wants to do.

Right about now I am going to need to grab the reins of my stallion, and head off a few folks at the pass.

I can hear those voices out there now. "But it is up to the U.S. Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution."

No it's not. It is up to the Supreme Court to "apply" the Constitution. Either the Constitution allows the federal government to do something, or it doesn't. The language is clear, and the limitations against the federal government are many.

Let's use Roe v. Wade as an example. According to the average Democrat, and the majority of Republicans, Roe v. Wade is the court case that made abortion legal in the United States. A Texas State Law outlawed abortion in Texas, and a law suit made its way all the way to the Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court determined that Texas was in the wrong, and with a single ruling, overturned a state law, making abortion legal from a federal standpoint.

Where in the U.S. Constitution did it allow the U.S. Supreme Court to do that? Abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, and is specifically not mentioned in Article I, Section 8, which is where the U.S. Constitution lists the powers of the federal government. Therefore, as per the 10th Amendment, abortion is a state issue. That means that Texas had a right to ban abortion in her state, and the U.S. Supreme Court had no allowance to even see the case in the first place, much less overturn a lawful state law.

If the U.S. Supreme Court had been following the Constitution, they would have seen that the federal government has no jurisdiction over abortion because it is not a federal issue, and would have refused to see the case.

Instead, the Supreme Court overturned a state law (which is unconstitutional), and made law with their ruling by making abortion legal (which is also unconstitutional).

If the federal government wanted abortion to be a federal issue, they would need to propose an amendment, and get three-quarters of the states to ratify it. Otherwise, abortion is none of the federal government's business.

I have heard another argument so many times it makes my head spin. When I talk about limiting government, and eliminating federal income tax, I always get someone leaving a comment about how insane it is to do so, because then we wouldn't have police and fire protection, and anarchy would ensue.

The U.S. Constitution is written to limit the "federal" government, not local government. Each state has its own constitution as well. Your police and fire services are provided by your local government, as it should be. It is the responsibility of the state, county, and municipal governments to take care of such protective services. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it provide for the federal government to take up such responsibilities.

It's like Obama's health care plan, for example. Whenever I talk about the danger of Obama's proposition, those leftists that have been reading my site long enough remembers how a couple years ago my son had cancer while in between jobs, and he had to resort to using a public option for health care. The state run system provided by taxpayers enabled him to have his surgery, and return to the workforce. He now has private insurance, and would rather not use the county hospital again if he can help it, but the government health care came in handy at a very difficult time.

Liberals like to say, in defense of Obamacare, "Your son was saved by government health care. Do you plan to pay any of that money back?"

I have no problem with people temporarily using the public option which is currently provided by states. My son used a program associated with Medi-Cal, a state run health alternative - and its existence is completely constitutional. The U.S. Constitution does not prohibit the states from providing a public option in relation to health care. However, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that allows the federal government to get involved in health care.

Which leads us back to the original question: Why were no Republican politicians, even conservative ones, invited to the 9/12 March on Washington DC?

The reason they were not invited is because they are part of the problem. The March was not for government officials to participate in. They would use it as a platform for re-election, and that is part of the problem. The politicians have stopped being statesmen that serve the people, and have become cockroaches that believe they were destined to be leaders in the U.S. Government, and are willing to do anything they can to keep their power.

A few members of the GOP appeared, like Mike Pence, and it pissed off a lot of Tea Party attendees. The rally was not for the politicians to beat their chests and look good so that they would be looked favorably upon in the next election. The 9/12 event was about the people speaking out against the unconstitutional nature of the U.S. Government. It was an opportunity for citizens to gather together and speak out about how the current administration desires to move even more away from the U.S. Constitution. The 9/12 March was about the people of this nation congregating to voice their disapproval of Washington, and to begin to take back the country, and return it to its rightful place within the limitations of the U.S. Constitution.

The politicians were not invited because the Tea Parties are not about them. The Tea Parties are about the American People, and the sovereignty of the states.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Even Glenn Beck Is Right Twice a Day - The New York Times, Frank Rich

Glenn Beck Smashes Ratings Record - Newsmax

No comments:

Post a Comment