Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
....Many posed the questions, during their Tea Party coverage, "Why all this anger now? Why are these people protesting now, when they weren't out in the streets during GW's eight years?"
Why indeed. The ordinary American -- normally quite-silent majority -- will take an awful lot of malfeasance and wasteful spending from our federal government. Most of the time, we are just too darned busy to protest anything. We are not getting paid to protest, unlike the anti-war and anti-poverty protesters our media covers in never-ending flurries of fury. We don't get federal tax dollars to protest, as does ACORN, and we have no sugar-daddy like Soros paying us stipends to lend a deceitful public-protest face to his personal views.
We're the productive class, the vast middle. We're busy living our own lives, busy building the businesses and earning our livings, busy raising our children and doing the host of volunteer services that infuse life into our Churches, Synagogues and civic organizations. We're the citizens doing the lion's share of those things which have made America the great and exceptional Nation she has been for the past 2-1/3 centuries.
Much of the anger now boiling over in protest has been building for the past 20 years, since the end of Ronald Reagan's presidential tenure. Much of it is aimed at Republicans, not just Democrats. And it goes to the heart of the size, scope and fundamental duties of the federal government as enumerated by our U.S. Constitution.
This mounting anger, aimed at the tyranny of a federal government -- completely off-the-rails of its Constitutionally-framed limited scope and power -- may be surfacing now due to a tipping in the fragile balance that was upheld during the G.W. Bush presidency. What was that fragile balance between our quietly continuing our personal business and our taking to the streets?
One thing and one thing only, in my opinion. As long as the federal government is doing the one job of protecting our national security and standing up for us in the face of the world's sleights, we will take a great deal of folderol from our elected officials. We will suffer the profligate spending and invasions on our personal freedoms when we - at the very least - believe our leaders are stridently bent on protecting our interests and our children from harm.
When a president cuts both those legs off at the knees, as President Obama has shamelessly done for 100 days, then frustration boils over into national protest.
Obama's first 100 days has been the last straw. ...
We will suffer the profligate spending and invasions on our personal freedoms when we - at the very least - believe our leaders are stridently bent on protecting our interests and our children from harm.
We will suffer the profligate spending and invasions on our personal freedoms when we - at the very least - believe our leaders are stridently bent on protecting our interests and our children from harm.
I don't believe that.
I do not believe that the masters are remotely interesting in protecting us or our children (indeed this nation itself) from harm.
Nothing that's been done in the last thirty years leads me to think they have our best interests at heart.
Name one major thing that has been done that have positive LONG TERM benefits for this nation.
I cannot think of a single example of policies that serve this nation's long term interests...not one.
For most of us, just answering that Obama is like Bush on steroids explains it pretty well. This goes a bit further and for me, answers the question with implications for politicians of all stripes. The whole article is worth reading, I'm just posting the issue that keeps recurring:
American Thinker: MSM's Tea Party Cognitive Dissonance
....Many posed the questions, during their Tea Party coverage, "Why all this anger now? Why are these people protesting now, when they weren't out in the streets during GW's eight years?"
Why indeed. The ordinary American -- normally quite-silent majority -- will take an awful lot of malfeasance and wasteful spending from our federal government. Most of the time, we are just too darned busy to protest anything. We are not getting paid to protest, unlike the anti-war and anti-poverty protesters our media covers in never-ending flurries of fury. We don't get federal tax dollars to protest, as does ACORN, and we have no sugar-daddy like Soros paying us stipends to lend a deceitful public-protest face to his personal views.
We're the productive class, the vast middle. We're busy living our own lives, busy building the businesses and earning our livings, busy raising our children and doing the host of volunteer services that infuse life into our Churches, Synagogues and civic organizations. We're the citizens doing the lion's share of those things which have made America the great and exceptional Nation she has been for the past 2-1/3 centuries.
Much of the anger now boiling over in protest has been building for the past 20 years, since the end of Ronald Reagan's presidential tenure. Much of it is aimed at Republicans, not just Democrats. And it goes to the heart of the size, scope and fundamental duties of the federal government as enumerated by our U.S. Constitution.
This mounting anger, aimed at the tyranny of a federal government -- completely off-the-rails of its Constitutionally-framed limited scope and power -- may be surfacing now due to a tipping in the fragile balance that was upheld during the G.W. Bush presidency. What was that fragile balance between our quietly continuing our personal business and our taking to the streets?
One thing and one thing only, in my opinion. As long as the federal government is doing the one job of protecting our national security and standing up for us in the face of the world's sleights, we will take a great deal of folderol from our elected officials. We will suffer the profligate spending and invasions on our personal freedoms when we - at the very least - believe our leaders are stridently bent on protecting our interests and our children from harm.
When a president cuts both those legs off at the knees, as President Obama has shamelessly done for 100 days, then frustration boils over into national protest.
Obama's first 100 days has been the last straw. ...
For most of us, just answering that Obama is like Bush on steroids explains it pretty well. This goes a bit further and for me, answers the question with implications for politicians of all stripes. The whole article is worth reading, I'm just posting the issue that keeps recurring:
American Thinker: MSM's Tea Party Cognitive Dissonance
....Many posed the questions, during their Tea Party coverage, "Why all this anger now? Why are these people protesting now, when they weren't out in the streets during GW's eight years?"
Why indeed. The ordinary American -- normally quite-silent majority -- will take an awful lot of malfeasance and wasteful spending from our federal government. Most of the time, we are just too darned busy to protest anything. We are not getting paid to protest, unlike the anti-war and anti-poverty protesters our media covers in never-ending flurries of fury. We don't get federal tax dollars to protest, as does ACORN, and we have no sugar-daddy like Soros paying us stipends to lend a deceitful public-protest face to his personal views.
We're the productive class, the vast middle. We're busy living our own lives, busy building the businesses and earning our livings, busy raising our children and doing the host of volunteer services that infuse life into our Churches, Synagogues and civic organizations. We're the citizens doing the lion's share of those things which have made America the great and exceptional Nation she has been for the past 2-1/3 centuries.
Much of the anger now boiling over in protest has been building for the past 20 years, since the end of Ronald Reagan's presidential tenure. Much of it is aimed at Republicans, not just Democrats. And it goes to the heart of the size, scope and fundamental duties of the federal government as enumerated by our U.S. Constitution.
This mounting anger, aimed at the tyranny of a federal government -- completely off-the-rails of its Constitutionally-framed limited scope and power -- may be surfacing now due to a tipping in the fragile balance that was upheld during the G.W. Bush presidency. What was that fragile balance between our quietly continuing our personal business and our taking to the streets?
One thing and one thing only, in my opinion. As long as the federal government is doing the one job of protecting our national security and standing up for us in the face of the world's sleights, we will take a great deal of folderol from our elected officials. We will suffer the profligate spending and invasions on our personal freedoms when we - at the very least - believe our leaders are stridently bent on protecting our interests and our children from harm.
When a president cuts both those legs off at the knees, as President Obama has shamelessly done for 100 days, then frustration boils over into national protest.
Obama's first 100 days has been the last straw. ...
Reagan was one of the biggest spenders increasing the size of Govt in recent history. Why is he excused from the ire?
And if the conservatives were so upset with Bush, they had a funny way of showing it. In 2004 they relected him to office.
For most of us, just answering that Obama is like Bush on steroids explains it pretty well. This goes a bit further and for me, answers the question with implications for politicians of all stripes. The whole article is worth reading, I'm just posting the issue that keeps recurring:
American Thinker: MSM's Tea Party Cognitive Dissonance
Reagan was one of the biggest spenders increasing the size of Govt in recent history. Why is he excused from the ire?
And if the conservatives were so upset with Bush, they had a funny way of showing it. In 2004 they relected him to office.
You missed the point on both.
We will suffer the profligate spending and invasions on our personal freedoms when we - at the very least - believe our leaders are stridently bent on protecting our interests and our children from harm.
I don't believe that.
I do not believe that the masters are remotely interesting in protecting us or our children (indeed this nation itself) from harm.
Nothing that's been done in the last thirty years leads me to think they have our best interests at heart.
Name one major thing that has been done that have positive LONG TERM benefits for this nation.
I cannot think of a single example of policies that serve this nation's long term interests...not one.
Missile defense system-the one that is now being cut.
I don't believe that.
I do not believe that the masters are remotely interesting in protecting us or our children (indeed this nation itself) from harm.
Nothing that's been done in the last thirty years leads me to think they have our best interests at heart.
Name one major thing that has been done that have positive LONG TERM benefits for this nation.
I cannot think of a single example of policies that serve this nation's long term interests...not one.
Missile defense system-the one that is now being cut.
FYI, We never had a missle defence system Annie.
We had (and have) an offensive missle system, not a defensive system.
Nice try though.
Reagan was one of the biggest spenders increasing the size of Govt in recent history. Why is he excused from the ire?
And if the conservatives were so upset with Bush, they had a funny way of showing it. In 2004 they relected him to office.
You missed the point on both.
Yep! she's pre-dialed to Bush Bashing WbbATT,, she dosen't get competing signals well,, it just "noise" to her!
Reagan had higher taxes on the 1% than Obama is proposing.
The Scotus has determined that gun laws are in line with the constitution.
Now why are the people carrying signs that say things like "Obama is a Kenyan".
These were tax protests by libertarians that republicans are turning into hate spews on democrats.
The signs they carry and the quotes they give at these rallys prove what they are really about.
When you look at the signs the gay rallys carry and quote the people at them you then can not come back and pretend they were about something other than the idividuals attending say it was.
The same is true of these puplic events.
Now the next one is set for July 4th. How much of the crowds are giong to be claimed by these people as they mix in with the regualr citizens celebarting?
The reason they have chosen this date is so no real number can be gleened on their actuall attendance.
We will suffer the profligate spending and invasions on our personal freedoms when we - at the very least - believe our leaders are stridently bent on protecting our interests and our children from harm.
I don't believe that.
I do not believe that the masters are remotely interesting in protecting us or our children (indeed this nation itself) from harm.
Nothing that's been done in the last thirty years leads me to think they have our best interests at heart.
Name one major thing that has been done that have positive LONG TERM benefits for this nation.
I cannot think of a single example of policies that serve this nation's long term interests...not one.
For most of us, just answering that Obama is like Bush on steroids explains it pretty well. This goes a bit further and for me, answers the question with implications for politicians of all stripes. The whole article is worth reading, I'm just posting the issue that keeps recurring:
American Thinker: MSM's Tea Party Cognitive Dissonance
....Many posed the questions, during their Tea Party coverage, "Why all this anger now? Why are these people protesting now, when they weren't out in the streets during GW's eight years?"
Why indeed. The ordinary American -- normally quite-silent majority -- will take an awful lot of malfeasance and wasteful spending from our federal government. Most of the time, we are just too darned busy to protest anything. We are not getting paid to protest, unlike the anti-war and anti-poverty protesters our media covers in never-ending flurries of fury. We don't get federal tax dollars to protest, as does ACORN, and we have no sugar-daddy like Soros paying us stipends to lend a deceitful public-protest face to his personal views.
We're the productive class, the vast middle. We're busy living our own lives, busy building the businesses and earning our livings, busy raising our children and doing the host of volunteer services that infuse life into our Churches, Synagogues and civic organizations. We're the citizens doing the lion's share of those things which have made America the great and exceptional Nation she has been for the past 2-1/3 centuries.
Much of the anger now boiling over in protest has been building for the past 20 years, since the end of Ronald Reagan's presidential tenure. Much of it is aimed at Republicans, not just Democrats. And it goes to the heart of the size, scope and fundamental duties of the federal government as enumerated by our U.S. Constitution.
This mounting anger, aimed at the tyranny of a federal government -- completely off-the-rails of its Constitutionally-framed limited scope and power -- may be surfacing now due to a tipping in the fragile balance that was upheld during the G.W. Bush presidency. What was that fragile balance between our quietly continuing our personal business and our taking to the streets?
One thing and one thing only, in my opinion. As long as the federal government is doing the one job of protecting our national security and standing up for us in the face of the world's sleights, we will take a great deal of folderol from our elected officials. We will suffer the profligate spending and invasions on our personal freedoms when we - at the very least - believe our leaders are stridently bent on protecting our interests and our children from harm.
When a president cuts both those legs off at the knees, as President Obama has shamelessly done for 100 days, then frustration boils over into national protest.
Obama's first 100 days has been the last straw. ...
Ahhh bobo, so you " schooled " this guy with all of your original "it's Bush's and the bankers faults" thoughts, fuckin sooper ..........
Reagan was one of the biggest spenders increasing the size of Govt in recent history. Why is he excused from the ire?
And if the conservatives were so upset with Bush, they had a funny way of showing it. In 2004 they relected him to office.
