Response to Anti-Tea Party Propaganda: part 1

Our Local New York Times Editorialist, Rod Haxton, has, surprise surprise, written against the Republicans and the far right cliff hanging Tea Party. I usually just ignore his editorials, but every once in a while, I feel compelled to respond to some of the nonsense. I’d like to point out that overall, the emotionally driven rhetoric and propaganda that he accuses the Tea Party, actually comes from his own finger-tips.

First, he starts off by referring to the Tea Party as being people who are “walking along the cliff’s edge on the far right” who offer “a lot of rhetoric”.

Now perhaps I am in error, but it is my understanding that the Tea Party is made up of people of all stripes, including Democrats. Read here for the LA Times article proving that Tea Party members are also democrats. According to a Gallup poll:

28% independent, 17% Democrat and only 57% Republican

Anecdotally speaking the tea Party people that I personally know are anything but far right wingers. This is yet another example of emotional propaganda arguments the Left uses to marginalize their opponents including the Political Right while acting super intellectual.

Next, he wrote,

“They are essentially wanting to take this country back 100 years- to a time without Social Security or Medicare, without protection for those with disabilities, an era of overt racism, before the existence of labor unions and when the unemployed were left begging on street corners.”

It seems to me that our Local New Times Editorialist wants to take us back to the days of 1775 and King George, and the right for government to tax us in to slavery. But notice he gets to set the table and the Conservative/Tea Partier/whatever, must agree to his rhetoric. So let’s look at each point.

1) If a private citizen were to start a pyramid scheme like social security, he would be arrested. Also, social security is broke! It has been broke for decades. To defend it is insane.

Social Security is unconstitutional. It only became law due to the fact that a President was elected four times and was able to stack the Supreme Court. If that had not happened, it would have been struck down just as the Federal Income Tax Act originally was. The Constitution does not enumerate the power to the Federal Government to tax its citizens into a pyramid scheme that was destined to produce a permanent Democratic voting block.

2) The Americans with Disabilities Act is also unconstitutional. Why should the Federal Government be empowered to attack businesses because they didn’t build a ramp for a person in a wheel chair. It may be a morally right thing to do, but should it be legislated?

Rod should know better. He has had sons with disabilities. Should we raid his small business to be certain it is up to code?

The fact is, the American with Disabilities Act has nothing to do with helping disabled people. It simply uses that rhetoric in order to aquire governmental power over our lives. For example, the Act has had far reaching impact our society. This Washington Post article states,

President Obama's White House adviser on disability policy, said advances in technology make revisiting the law a necessity.

"When ADA was passed in 1990, the Web wasn't what it is now and technology wasn't what it is now," Dale said during an interview on Friday. "The ADA and the law have to pick up with technology."

Dale, who is legally blind, noted that he's unable to type in passwords or use certain authentication software on Web sites. But adding voice-recognition software might help, he said.

So now the Federal Government needs to make certain blind people can get logged on? Perhaps you've seen those ridiculous braille signs placed in the most ridiculous places? Thank the Federal Government for that. Only common everyday people can use everyday common sense.

I wonder. If I went to Rod's office, would his bathroom be up to code? Perhaps his newspaper should be forced to have a braille section too?

3)How in the world can the myth that Tea Party people want to return to days of slavery? This accusation is the worst of Rod's rhetoric. In fact, the anti-slavery movement was long before the Civil War. It was a major issue at the Founding of our government. Is it wrong to return to foundational principles of freedom that paved the way for the Civil Rights movement?

4)How can Republicans stop the forming of unions? Why is government supposed to be buddy buddy with unions? Should not the government represent all voters?

Perhaps Rod's employees would be allowed to form a union?

5)Why is it assumed the Federal Government is to be empowered to make certain no citizen is standing on the corner begging? The Federal Constitution purposely leaves that power to the States. However, an assumption here is that the large soup lines is the fault of Republicans. It was precisely the Democrats and their policies that prolonged the Great Depression in order to create a dependent class of voters. They are known statists.

The idea that Tea Party people want people out of work is nonsense, but it is exactly what Democrats want...dependents forever enslaved to their merciful welfare state.

Conservatives in general and the Tea Party in particular are just people who want to see the Federal Government return to its legitimate role. They know that we can't spend Trillions of dollars and bankrupt our children. This is an issue of Freedom and Liberty. The current direction of the country is threatening the very fabric upon which it was founded. For Rod to liken Tea Party people being back-woods hicks, who use propaganda and rhetoric, is to do the very thing he falsely accuses.