Is the Tea Party Anti-Government?

Turn on a radio or a TV and listen to any news show discussing the “shellacking” the democrats received in the recent election and you will likely hear the Tea Party described as an anti–government movement. This is a complete  misrepresentation.

Those who say the Tea Party is anti-government either simply don’t get it or are just not listening. The Tea Party and its’ supporters are strong supporters of the government established by the U.S. Constitution and the philosophy of government it represents.

The constant inaccurate media coverage and the continued bashing of the Tea Parties by the liberal press are only strengthening the Tea Party’s message. Tea Party members are not a bunch of right wing extremists trying to disrupt the system. They are conservatives trying to make their voices heard and participate in the political process. Their grassroots efforts were aimed at the direction and policies of the previous Congress and the Obama Administration.

The Tea Party issues are:

  •  Ending excessive taxes
  •  Reducing government spending
  •  Stopping nationalization of private businesses
  •  Ending excessive government manipulation/control of the financial markets
  •  Stopping redistribution of wealth
  •  Ending government bailout plans
  •  Preventing loss of individual freedoms
  •  Overturning the government takeover of healthcare
  •  Securing the borders and implementing an intelligent immigration policy
  •  Protecting our national sovereignty 

The founding fathers established 28 principles of freedom which were framed into the Constitution. These principles were the foundation of our laws and beliefs for the last 200 years. They helped America become the most powerful and free nation on earth. As a result, we have enjoyed an unparalleled standard of living and individual freedoms unheard of anywhere else on earth. Our Constitution is the most original government charter every conceived. The government it created fueled America’s greatness, the American Dream and the innovation that powered American exceptionalism.

Concerned citizens everywhere have gotten involved. They are exercising their unique right as Americans to participate in the process of government. All citizens that value their freedom have a responsibility to exercise these rights. The Tea Party pushed for a return to a government that follows the Constitution and its principles. The Tea Parties represents the desire by many citizens to restore these values within the government. In the end the Tea Party and its’ members are actually pro-government, they just do not support the over reaching type of government that Washington has become. Through peaceful rallies these citizens have promoted their ideals and made their voices heard. The outcome of the election shows that many of their fellow citizens are listening. Isn’t that the way a Republic is supposed to work?

The real question now is – Is Washington listening?

As Florida Senator-elect Marco Rubio so eloquently put it, “We make a great mistake if we believe that tonight these results are somehow an embrace of the Republican Party. What they are, is a second chance, a second chance for Republicans to be what they said they were going to be not so long ago.’’

America, we have taken the first step but there is still a lot of work to do. We must continue to hold our elected officials accountable. The newly elected members of Congress must stand by the rhetoric that got them elected or face the consequences.

As Thomas Jefferson said, “I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms are in the physical.” 

It appears the system still works in America, the people have spoken. The pro-constitutional government, Tea Party conservatives are not going away. They are exercising their rights to help shape the policies of the government in which they believe.

Restore the Republic, Reject Socialism!

6 responses to “Is the Tea Party Anti-Government?

  1. I’ll never understand that whole redistribution of wealth thing. Wealth is redistributed all the time in a free market. And if you’re talking about government intervention, the only difference between conservatives and liberals is which direction the redistribution is going, to those with higher or lower incomes.

    • The point is the government should NOT redistribute in either direction!

    • Isn’t a government led redistribution a good thing? It redistributes the money also to those people who love to work on things that don’t pay much but are equally important for humanity.

      For an example, someone who loves to work like a banker is likely to earn more money than someone who likes to play some alternative music. But it’s more likely that the one who plays music will positively influence lives and emotions of others.

      The thing is, we live in a world where some thins pay more and others pay less. But people have various passions and everyone should be able to make a living out of what he likes doing. In the end we all die anyway. Why would someone suffer just because he’s more talented for painting than banking?

      That’s the point of redistribution of wealth. Wat part you don’t understand?

      • I don’t understand any principle that takes from anyone against their will, what they have earned to give to someone else. The process that you describe is socialism which I am against. However you can achieve the same ends through charitable donations to fund the arts – but let’s be clear if you chose to do something you enjoy rather than chase the dollar more power to you but you should expect to be subsidized for your choice. That’s what makes it a choice.

  2. I understand why it reminds you of socialism and I understand you’re against it. I’m reading your blog because I’m trying to understand your point of view. I think there’s nothing wrong with a little bit of socialism like in Europe. Of course communism was a mess. But I also think extreme capitalism is a mess.

    I’m not trying to insult you or anything, but I’m raised in a family and in a country where selfishness, unwillingness to share and help, being indifferent to homeless and poor is considered evil, rude, arrogant and extremely against christian values. That’s why I was surprised to see there are people who openly and publicly declare to be that way. More precisely, I was surprised that you write all these things but don’t consider yourself evil, arrogant and antichristian. I just can’t get it. Maybe you’re not and I am, who knows, it’s probably some difference of cultures and the way we were raised.

    On the topic though, the point is that money is a power in our world as it is now. It means existence, well being as well as social status and respect from others. But the way you can get it is not fair. There are countless examples of people who don’t contribute any good to humanity but have more money than people who are much more valuable to humanity. Because things that sell are not necessarily truly valuable. I agree that something could be done with charities and stuff but I think it doesn’t work well when I see the huge numbers of homeless people in USA, comparing to Europe. No one should be left on his own to THAT extent to let the winds of life make him live like an animal.

    You and me (I presume) have families, jobs, some security in people around us. I know that even if I go broke I won’t be homeless and hungry because there are so many people who would help me. I guess the same goes for you. But there are people who don’t have anyone, alone and poor.

    I don’t like lazy and leechy people, just like you don’t. But if someone wants to paint some paintings that people will be able to understand only decades from now,the least we can give him is a decent life. A small home, food, health care and some pocket money. Let him paint without struggling to survive.

    It’s a shame for humanity the way Nikola Tesla died. If it wasn’t for that man, who knows where civilization would be now and what goods of modern life you and me wouldn’t enjoy. He was “worth” to humanity more than you and me could ever be yet he died a poor man.


    • I think that there are probably many areas in which you and I agree. Our biggest disagreement is over by whom and how social support is managed. I do not believe that this is the role of government. Charity is a personal decision and should be left up to the individual. A person’s income is not necessarily reflective of their financial condition or their own obligations. For example a couple with two kids and an above average income maybe caring for elderly parents, sick relatives, paying for college for a child or helping out a family member with a problem – there are not always tax breaks to offset these things. So even though they are already doing their share they could now be faced with an additional tax burden which limits what they can do for their own family circle. You raise a good point regarding Christianity. Prior to the Great Depression when our nation was more in touch with its’ christian values and the government had not yet begun to so heavily intervene in the daily lives of its citizens – people took care of each other through their families, churches and communities. They accepted that responsibility because if they didn’t nobody else was going to do it. We need to restore that sense of self reliance. I am not saying there weren’t some poor people who still went without. Unfortunately, that will always be the case some where in the world. Also in every culture there are selfish, greedy people. These people will always try to find away to cheat whatever system is in place.

      I am not perfect but I am not evil or anti-christian. I enjoy making regular charitable contributions to our local food shelf and community charities. I believe that charity begins at home (family & community). I also like being able to direct where the money goes. If you have read enough of my writing you know that I often mention the idea of community and taking care of each other. I am just adamantly opposed to a government “nanny state”. I think that all governments tend to be inefficent and less responsive in providing services to individuals as opposed to large groups or communities. Basically, I believe in the core principles of the republic founded by our forefathers. It was based on religous principles of which charity is a key element. As John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

      In the end we agree that we should take care of our fellow man – we just differ on how to achieve the objective. Thanks for your comments.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s