Why the Tea Party is the Target of Post-Election Blame Game

Do you ever feel as if standing up for your U.S. Constitutional rights has allowed the liberals and the blame game mainstream media to paint a red target on your back as a Tea Party supporter? Well, it appears that since the election the reengineering of the election results are giving GOP moderates as well as alphabet soup network pundits’ greater incentive to bury the Tea Party movement in another shallow grave.

Peggy Noonan - Attacks Tea Party on CBS "Face the Nation" - calls them angry

One of those pundits is former President Reagan Speechwriter, Peggy Noonan who stated on CBS Face the Nation, Sunday November 11th that , “The tea party style of rage is not one that wins over converts and makes people lean towards them and say, ‘I want to listen to you.’ I think a friendly persuasion has to begin now from the Republican Party to people of the United States.”

Exactly what type of converts is Noonan referring to? Is she asking that Tea Party supporters moderate their positions so that U.S. Constitutional principles become warmed over mush? Does Noonan and other moderates want Tea Party supporters to sacrifice deeply held foundational values on the Obama alter of socialist expediency? This is absolutely and categorically not going to happen.

The Sunday network talk shows are beside themselves with more than usual self serving glee to bury this genuine grass roots movement of millions of Americans as quickly as they can. The problem is clear, The Tea Party has not retreated since the 2009 continuous assault from mainstream media vicious mistruths. The goal was to label the patriot citizens as extreme, rabid racists who were only interested in destroying the failed tax and spend deficit policies that cooperative republican moderates and liberal democrats have forged for several decades.

Well, guess what, one of the most important color blind leaders to come out of the 20th century probably described the Tea Party movement best. Rev. Martin Luther King taught the nation to stand up against unjust systems. Rev. King stressed: “Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. And so we must straighten our backs and work for our freedom. A man can't ride you unless your back is bent. “

The Tea Party movement did not bend its back or kneel to the constant and sometimes withering assaults from self serving civil rights leaders like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, but it stunned the nation 2010, with the results of a survey from one of its own: the New York Times.

The New York Times surveyed Tea Party supporters between April 10th – 12th of 2010, and miracles of miracles occurred. It was not made up of pitch fork carrying, knuckle dragging, and semi-literate Neanderthals as they had been viciously portrayed. Instead, according to the study Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public. The survey also concluded that the Tea Party supporters were not in opposition to Obama because of race. Instead, the surveyed supporters opposed his political ideology and cared deeply about their own “economic well-being.”

When the mainstream media could not demonize Tea Party supporters and candidates as the Neanderthal stereotypes they had tried for more than a year to portray them as, they attempted to delegitimize its national supporters like former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin. The attacker in chief was Chris Matthews of MSNBC and his cohort at ABC News George Stephanopoulos. This continued until the democrats and Obama’s liberal socialist policies were manhandled in the 2010 midterm elections.

The massive Tea Party shift resulted in Republicans gaining 63 congressional seats, and booting out then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Were the Tea Party candidates and their supporters too extreme? Or was it the democrats and Obama who were out of step with America?

Consider this for a moment. Were the Tea Party supporters and the movement extreme when their grass roots determination its determination caused the largest shift of any midterm congressional election since 1938? The result left GOP moderates and liberals as well as Obama with a determination to steer the selection of a Tea Party presidential candidate who they could not beat to a moderate to center establishment candidate who they could demonize. Of course the rest is recent history.

Yet, with the defeat of Mitt Romney, the election of 2012 has still resulted in the Tea Party and its conservatives holding onto the people’s house: The House of Representatives. True Obama, has been reelected through despicable campaign tactics and White House cover ups that border on scandalous tactics, but the Tea Party did not fold.

So is the behavior of a president who lowers his already suspect principles to an even lower level to remain in office the fault of the Tea Party, which helped to hold the House of Representatives? Of course not. If anything, the conservative values of smaller government, less debt, erasing the deficit and protecting life needed to be emphasized more!

Going forward, into 2013 and the 2014 mid-term elections the one benefit, if one could call it that is removed from the Obama arsenal. Obama and liberals cannot blame Bush any longer. Now Obama has to man up and every dime more of deficit spending, every dollar more of trillion dollar debt he owns. He must answer to every cover up and possibly face impeachment hearings in the House.

The blame game now clearly stops squarely at Obama’s desk in the Oval Office, or at least until he is impeached or convicted.

The Tea Party is not a fictional aberration that will wither on the vine of history because of an election loss by a presidential candidate. Listen again to the words of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. “

America, this nation matters and must forever remain strong because its patriots refuse to remain silent.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

Print pagePDF pageEmail page



About Kevin Fobbs
Kevin Fobbs is the former community concerns columnist for 12 years with The Detroit News, covering community, family relations, domestic abuse, education, government relations, education, and dispute resolution. He was government and civic affairs director for Soul Source, a Christian news magazine, and host of The Kevin Fobbs Show. His faith-based Hearken The Watchmen column provides insight and answers on family, faith, and how to arrive at faith-based solutions to life challenges. You may contact Kevin with your comments and questions.
  • Clique777

    The problem is Tea Party folks go about politics in a half-baked inside the system way, and that will never win anything. Playing by the rules of the GOP and Dems is a loser approach. The original zeal has waned and lethargy has set in with a lot of folks who like the Tea Party. Until the Tea Party and patriotic Americans learn to behave in ways that are unsuspected, unpredictable and outside the system, they may just fade away. Our Republic is already lost without any asymetric approach by patriots and Tea Partiers. Today a website funded by MediaMatters announced it had more than 500,000 signatures to a petition to get Macy's to remove Donald Trump from its advertising. When half the folks that voted for GW Bush or Mitt Romney decide to be at least as smart and initiative-filed as those 500,000 liberals, things will begin to change immediately. When 20 million Americans boycott the Home Depot and 75% of the Fortune 500 that is supporting homosexual marriage, every progressive cause in American, and contributing hundreds of millions to progressive candidates, within weeks our culture will change dramatically. But, I don't really expect conservatives and Tea Partiers to do anything more than complain. That's what they are best at. The good thing about strategic boycotts against pro-progressive and pro-homosexual public companies is it takes so little effort, like not doing something, going to their stores to buy their products. But then, Tea Partiers are dumb enough to let 500,000 liberals beat them to the strategic boycott punch. This may be your last and best hope of recapturing your Republic from the folks who are purposefully destroying it and the futures of your children and grandchildren.

  • gavinwca

    Peggy Noonan dip sh,,,,,,t who cares what she thinks. She lost her conservative creds a long time ago, Guess she likes those liberal parties to much like Bill Kristol, they want the liberals to love them , we just want freedom from an oppressive goverment.

    • http://www.lewrockwell.com/ Tuci78

      "Peggy Noonan dip sh,,,,,,t who cares what she thinks."

      Right now, la Noonan is what I like to think of as "a kept conservative," a Republican Party loyalist the leftie-luzer lamestream media weasels consider "safe" as a substitute for any kind of genuine American conservative.

      Putting Peggy Noonan up in front of their viewers and readers gives the alphabet soup "journalists" something they can mockingly claim as a "fair and balanced presentation" on the issues of the day. They know that she won't say a damned thing substantive that threatens the chittering root weevils' display of Undying Love for their Metrosexual Mombasa Messiah, and she'll sabotage real constitutionalists in the bargain.

      Peggy's a twofer.

  • boydasmith

    I'm not ashamed of being a Tea Party Supporter. They have crystallized the debate over TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT SPENDING,... AND THE RESULTING INTRUSIVENESS OF GOVERNMENT OVER-REGULATION AND 'MONEY-GRABBING'! It's a good and necessary debate.
    But at the same time, I SEE NO PROBLEM WITH PEGGY NOONAN'S CRITICAL ASSESSMENT of many Tea Party-er's 'STYLE OF COMMUNICATION'. The substance of the Tea Party vision is solid as a rock,... but our style is sometimes self-defeating, and unwise... not always, but sometimes. I really like to hear calm-passion COMBINED WITH PERSUASIVE ARTICULATION! A la Miton Friedman. But sometimes we let our anxious frustration, escalate into emotion that only blinds-to defensiveness those that we should be trying to PERSUADE!
    The substance of our arguments 'should' persuade,.. but unfortunately the opposition is SO INDOCTRINATED into the idea that 'FAIRNESS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN FREEDOM',... that they misread our passion for anger, and hateful rage?
    If we want to persuade the persuadable,.. then we have to notch-it-down, as far as our rhetoric-- which actually inspires and encourages those of us WHO ALREADY UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES,... and make a calm, polite, and reasoned argument to those who are open to persuasion? We can't just whine, complain, and vent,.. we HAVE TO PERSUADE, which is usually difficult.. But sweetness is always more attractive, than bitterness, :).
    "Calm Assertiveness is always stronger energy, than anger and nervous energy' -- in the words of Cesar Milan, the Dog Whisperer, :)
    [email protected]

    • http://www.lewrockwell.com/ Tuci78

      The machinations of the Republican "establishment" - the ones who diddled us with the nomination of Willard the Wussy in spite of all the Anybody But Romney! opposition throughout the past year - have had nothing whatsoever to do with "calm, polite, and reasoned argument," but rather adherence to the use of government influence on behalf of high-value stakeholders in the American economy.

      It's not small family farmers for whom the Republican "establishment" are concerned, but rather Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill and Monsanto. It's not the small businessman but the biggest of the big transnational corporations. It's not the bank depositors whose interests they're protecting, but the most bottom-heavy banksters in the mix, who claim vast compensation packages for "taking risks" that are backed up by taxpayer bail-outs and therefore never "risks" at all.

      One doesn't have to be "anti-capitalist" to acknowledge that this isn't capitalism they're defending at all, but rather mercantilism, the very antithesis of a market free of government "picking winners."

      Hell, what the Republican Party "establishment" is pushing is precisely what economist Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations in 1776 to condemn.

      American constitutionalists - who seek the restoration of government under the strict rule of law in our republic - have been side-tracked since Nixon implemented his "Southern Strategy" in the '60s, and since that time the Republican "establishment" has idiotically assumed that they'll get the votes of the religiously-motivated social conservatives (the ones who hate the homosexuals, the foreigners, the drug users, and everybody else who couldn't fit neatly into a Baptist congregation) by default, simply because the National Socialists drive the religious whackjobs up the wall.

      In the past several years, however, one man - Dr. Ron Paul - has demonstrated that it's possible to hammer out a broader, more robust, and more genuinely "big tent" coalition precisely among the disparate constituencies that have developed since the Reagan revolution was abandoned by the "establishment" apparatchiki during the failed administration of George H.W. Bush.

      And that scares the snot out of the "establishment" because to embrace the disparate groups to whom Dr. Paul has successfully appealed - while still retaining the support of the religious types - they need to abandon their extremely lucrative sucking-up to the megabusinesses that buy and sell politicians like so much toilet paper.

      Does anybody reading here honestly believe that this is ever going to happen among the Republican "establishment"?

      No? Then why the hell does anybody reading here think that there's a place in the Republican Party for you or anything you care about?


    • boydasmith

      Thanks Tuci for taking the time to reply to my comment.

      I think that your comment actually demonstrates clearly the kind of insulting, ridiculing approach that Ron Paul supporters-and-non-supporters who want limited government use when trying to make the case for limited government.

      Forgive me Tuci, but your obvious disdain for people of religious faith, and so-called 'establishment Republicans' is not really helpful when discussing the central issue of intrusive government. I suppose that Ronald Reagan also falls into the category of the non-purist who's not up to your standard?

      You and Ron Paul seem to have as much disagreement with Ronald Reagan's views --- America is '.. a light on the hill',.. as you do with other 'non-purists'?

      First of all, no one is perfect,.. neither you nor me. If you want to persuade me that I'm wrong, that's fine,... but you haven't 'persuaded' me that you are 'right'. Your words have only insulted me, and others who really do want to see a more limited government, and more individual freedom and responsibility.

      Your comments only lead me to distrust Ron Paul and his supporters EVEN MORE than I otherwise would have. So what have you accomplished?
      Insults just STIFLE meaningful discussion,.. and denote a self-righteous, know-it-all mentality. How do you lift and dignify others, when your vindictiveness is geared only to demolish their argument by demolishing them? Great ideas and thinkers don't need these tactics,... they're short-sighted, mean-spirited, and small. It's simply political narcissism,.. and philosophical 'self-pleasuring'.

      Now, if you want to discuss an issue, then try to make a case based on the 'principle' that supports your interest.

      You have a point,.. and I agree with you that when government and business 'cabal' together we get 'crony' Capitalism, which hinders the free market because it hinders healthy competition--- by picking winners-and-losers and unfairly tilting the playing-field!

      With that I can agree with you, based on the principle that fair competition is a necessary component of the free market.
      However, I don't agree with the labeling (establishment, RINO, National Socialists, religious whack-jobs, etc.) of Republicans.

      Sure it might make you feel good to say it,.. but in the long run it won't further the discussion for actually resolving differences. Respect is better than anger,.... practice calm persuasion, :).

      - [email protected]

    • http://www.lewrockwell.com/ Tuci78

      "... but your obvious disdain for people of religious faith, and so-called 'establishment Republicans' is not really helpful when discussing the central issue of intrusive government..."

      Yeah, it is. Absolutely, incontrovertably, and constitutionally.

      The chief problem with the religious whackjobs is that they predicate their approach to civil society (and most other aspects of objective reality) upon an appeal to the ineffable.

      People of faith (whether they're the kinds of American anti-evolution jerks who got exposed so gaudily in the course of the 1925 Scopes Trial, or fellahin who grovel toward Mecca five times a day and are presently proposing the destruction of the pyramids, the Sphinx, and the other remnants of ancient Egypt in compliance with their Prophet's crap about graven images) have as their key debilitation that their fundamental basis for moral valuation and ethical conduct depends upon divine inspiration.

      This means that one person's religious belief - his personal and wholly subjective perception of the Almighty and his/her/its will - dictates how he looks upon his neighbors and everything they think and say and do.

      Violate that religious whacko's idea of what the Great Sky Pixie wants done - all right and proper - here on earth, and the religious idiot wants to have the government's police power turned against you.

      Now, government is the agency in any society to which we each delegate the exercise our unalienable secondary individual right to use deadly force in defense of our primary inalienable rights to life, to liberty, and to property. Government is goons with guns. Nothing less, and (for those of us defending the principle of limited government under the rule of law) nothing more.

      If an American Christian religious whacko insists that the proper job of government is to instantiate his/her peculiar vision of the Kingdom on Earth, just how is he different from the Muslim jihadi who's determined to ram Sharia down upon the infidels all around him?

      One divinely inspired frothing bloody idiot proclaims "God commands that thus-and-so be done!"

      Another psychotic nutcase (nominally of the same sect, a lot of the time) yelps: "No, that violates the holy ordination in the apocrypha, which were inspired by the Almighty though rejected by the Whore of Rome!"

      Gaggles more join in, and we're into a discussion of angelic choreography on the head of a pin, which is only harmless when it has nothing at all to do with whether or not statutes are enacted and armed government thugs go forth not as "peace officers" but as "law enforcement officers."

      The Founding Fathers of our republic had relatively recent experience of religious political conflict in England and all over the European continent (I'll happily go into great detail if you need it rubbed in with a power sander), and were operating on the basis of over a century's worth of political philosophical wrangling as to what might be the proper, peaceable relationship between religious faith and government.

      They came to the extremely well-reasoned conclusion that mingling the government (the police power in society) with religious ordinations is a recipe for religious war. The best course of action, they determined, was to make it impossible for the government thugs to meddle in the private citizen's expressions of personal conscience (insofar as those expressions don't violate other citizens' rights to their own lives, liberties, and property) and for no religious sect to be allowed control of the "breaking-things-and-killing-people" machinery of government.

      A nice, stable, "Keep Your F-cking Hands Off!" arrangement on both sides.

      If you don't like that, take it up with the Founders and those Enlightenment philosophers (John Locke, Trenchard and Gordon, the Levelers, et-considerable-cetera) upon whom our Founding Fathers had relied, starting your contention with Thomas Jefferson, who wrote:

      "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

      Now, as for "...the labeling (establishment, RINO, National Socialists, religious whack-jobs, etc.) of Republicans" as the various kinds of malfeasant enemies of the republic they so truly are, have you got some aversion to correct taxonomy?

      Discussion can't be furthered by the evasion of plain fact. The Republican "establishment" - and the National Socialist Democrat American Party (NSDAP) - are what they are, corrupt and reeking and hateful.

      Being polite about it is going somehow to make 'em less rotten and stinking and odious?

      I encountered with delight today the publication of yet another essay by historian Clyde Wilson (whose 2006 discussion of the central rottenness of the Republican Party I'd mentioned earlier on this thread). This new consideration is titled "Why Save the Republican Party?" I'll pull a few paragraphs from near the close:

      "The Republican party does not represent its voters (and never has). It represents only itself. Consider: the strength of the party is now in the Southern, Plains, and Rocky Mountain states. The presidential and vice-presidential candidates were both from the deepest and most liberal North. Republican voters are conservative Christians. Neither candidate could be said to represent that viewpoint. Republican voters are much concerned about the effects of recent immigration policy. Neither candidate had any sympathy for that position - quite the contrary. Republican voters are concerned about the loss of manufacturing jobs and the ongoing proletarianization of the middle class. Both candidates are on record with contradictory policies.

      "Republican voters are opposed to Obamacare, perhaps the single policy inclination most widely shared among them. But the head of the Republican ticket is the inventor of Obamacare. Republican voters were clearly disturbed by the trillion dollar bailout of misbehaving bankers. No help there. While Republican voters are rather too inclined toward jingoistic responses to foreign threats, it cannot really be said that they want to start unnecessary wars, support a worldwide military empire, or watch Americans being killed abroad and pay for the privilege. Yet Romney was the most imperialist candidate in recent times.

      "The Republican nominations were not made in a political convention. There was no political convention. It was an infommercial. The only candidate with any principles and ideas, and who had aroused any grassroots enthusiasm, was completely shut out.

      "Note that the appeals for the survival of the Republican party never say why that is a good thing or what positive results might be expected from that survival. They simply assume that is something that is unquestionably desirable. The simple truth is that the Republican party survives only by the tactical employment of the great state-sponsored wealth of people who want to keep it as it is and by election laws which have made it nearly impossible to change the duopoly that controls American political action and allows the media unchallenged control of political debate. A situation which obviously violate the rules of democracy and the spirit of the Constitution."

      Gotta love Dr. Wilson. I understand that the Southern Poverty Law Center keeps a picture of him on one of their dart boards.


  • ARMYOF69

    The Republican Party does not deserve the support of the People's Tea Party.

  • LTG

    It's time for the Tea Party to Secede from the Republican Party!! If we lose, we lose. At least we will have not pandered to the cowards that run the Republican Party.

  • WhiteFalcon

    Don't worry about Peggy Noonan. She is an idiot. When the Tea Party draws such responses, it is an indication that we are being effective. If we weren't, there would be no response. We are definately getting under their skin, and we should get further and further under their skin. We need to take over control of the Republican Party and we should look toward running some conservative people on the Commieonazicrat party (Democrat) ticket sometime in the future

  • har82

    I am sick of being painted - red -. A long time ago republicans were the - Blue - color.

    Red ,,, has for 100 years or better been - associated - with Red Communists . As in Communist China, or Marxist communist Russia. Remember ,, as in - pinko commie - of the 40's and 50's and earlier.
    However, perhaps it is appropriate now. As in - blood red -. The - communists - have come out of the closet .. And they have - infested - ,, every aspect ,, of our government. November 6th, 2012 ,,, was proof enough of that.

  • Phillip_in_TX

    It is quite simple. They need something to divert the attention away from the "VOTE" being "STOLEN" by "VOTER FRAUD!"

  • fullspinzoo

    One more thing- We need to take back the Senate in '14. That should be our current goal. And fire that pathetic excuse for a Momon.

  • fullspinzoo

    We need to hold on to OUR principles. That's all we have left. Don't cave. Don't allow these idiots to dictate what's right and moral for this country. This election was won by one thing and one thing only. VOTER FRAUD!!!! We need to regroup and come on stronger next time. We don't need to compromise our values!

  • eddyjames

    From U.S. occupied Texas:

    Don't blame the Tea Party. This is all the fault of the beltway republicans and rino's. Why would anyone in their right mind run "Obama light " Romney who stepped down in 2008 so McCain could be the nominee? Against a liberal you need to run a real Conservative, not some moderate who is just one step to the right of "Bleeding Heart liberal" Romney is just barely a moderate more like left wing republican. We were forced once again to vote against the greater of two evils. A lot of Conservatives didn't see enough difference to be bothered with even voting. I'm thinking long and hard about whether or not I'll ever vote for a republican again. Maybe straight libertarian. With such a small difference between the two parties maybe I'll just become an anarchist ! No government might be better than the government being forced down our throats now. It couldn't be any worse. " U.S. out of Texas!!

  • reggiec

    Whistling past the graveyard
    It is easy to explain the Democrat’s descent into the cesspool of lies they have promoted in recent advertisements. It has become their stock in trade. The establishment, elite GOP is beginning to resemble them but with the GOP it is in the form of eating their own. Their bluster, name calling, primary shenanigans and dire warnings of disaster are evoked by fear of ghosts from the past reincarnated in the grass roots activist organizations. Look at the recent rule changes concerning the delegates to the Republican convention. The elite are making every attempt to exclude grass root delegates from any influence even if they have to blatantly break rules to change the rules. Their fear is real; it is part of the liberal and go along to get long RINO elite cell structure. It has been embedded in their brains for decades. They have to be wetting their pants after the Kansas Republican Primary. Nearly every establishment Republican lost to a Conservative (17 out of 22). Todays pundits fear that their position as the past leaders is in danger and they should be fearfull.
    It is the fear that the American people will realize that our Founding Fathers really had it right. The modern liberal/RINO rhetoric is completely destroyed when stacked against the ideals of those grave yard ghosts in the form of our Founding Father’s spirits and subscribed to by the conservative grass roots movements. The Liberal/RINO fear is that we have finally awakened and have had enough. The recent primary victories by Conservative candidates in 2012 elections got their attention like a knuckle sandwich and they are whistling past the graveyard. Let them hear us ROAR in 2014! THIS IS OUR COUNTRY AND WE WANT IT BACK!!!
    It may take a few election cycles but vote Conservative for every level in government. We may not be able to remove the present illegal convention rules but in the future we can remove those who made them. We don’t need a third party. We need a hostile takeover of the Republican Party.

  • ricbldwn

    Let the GOOP slink off into the night,the real right will fight them too.

  • sscannell05

    I'm trying to figure out the "Angry" part. Dissatisfied yes; but angry is far from the Tea Party Movement. The RNC were the ones showing anger and resentment. They know it's their fault the Republican Party is in a shambles. Turn from the right path and it can become fatal. Change the rules to shut people out = lost votes. I still voted Republican; but, alot just walked away

  • mogul264

    The TEA Party is essentially the same as was Ronald Reagan's government .....Constitutional ! And every candidate since (save McCain, who STILL wasn't very conservative!), nominated by the GOP leadership has been ANTI-Reagan, and very moderate to RINO in their leaning! They do NOT want change!

    Seems to me that not only the Democrats, but, the GOP LEADERSHIP AS WELL, have shifted far left in their convictions! This confuses the voters when BOTH parties are LIBERAL! Small wonder they DIDN'T CHANGE the politicians when they wanted a CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT!

    This sorry state of affairs is SOLELY due to this lackluster leadership's desire to maintain their OWN power circles; willing to allow the 'loyal opposition' to maintain the status quo, REGARDLESS of the damages to the nation, so they could keep THEIR perks....prestige, committee leaderships and rankings, vote bartering, medical plans, parking slots, etc, ........................... and especially, their RETIREMENT system!

    They also do not want to 'upset the applecart' of their system of incumbent advantages, NO TERM LIMITS, INSIDER TRADING, and select donor organizations who allow them to keep full coffers to support their reelection campaigns, in return for the politicians' 'good will' (not to mention favorable legislation)!

    Pardon me. I've re-read the above and it seems bitter! Good! It was MEANT to be!

  • Naurya

    There is Biblical precedent for the Tea Party. if the Watchman of God does not sound the alarm he or she will suffer judgement. Such are God's people today. The Tea Party is more about honesty truth and fidelity than any of the political parties.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Erik-Osbun/100001215333702 Erik Osbun

    Shove it Noonan, the TEA Party wants freedom!