The tea party is is made up of puppets being run by an elite group to serve their needs and not the needs of the people
By: SayNoToTea, 5:07 PM GMT on September 30, 2011
When people mention the truth about their darling Palin or her family the tea party gets their panties all in a collective bunch, but it's ok when they do it. In fact they think it's funny:
McCain attacked 18 year old Chelsea Clinton in 1998 now says Palin's family & kids are off limits
By Steven Leser (about the author)
If you follow politics, is seems that whenever you turn around, you are confronted by an instance of Republican hypocrisy.
In the midst of the scandals and issues concerning Sarah Palin and her family and pregnant daughter, John McCain is quoted by the Wall street Journal as saying:
–“This is a very personal matter for the family. We should all respect the love they have for the child and the desire all parents would have for their children’s privacy.”
–“The media should respect Bristol’s privacy. That’s always been the tradition and practice when it comes to the children of candidates.”
–“The children of candidates do not choose to run for office and be thrust into the spotlight.”
That is a noble sentiment, one with which Barack Obama agrees. If only McCain had been consistent when the family in question belonged to an incumbent from the party opposite.
I rediscovered this snippet from a John McCain speech during a Republican Dinner in June 1998 published in the June 25, 1998 version of Salon:
"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."
You can make an argument that discussing a teen's pregnancy in the context of whether abstinence only policies work is a legitimate question and issue. What legitimate issue is being discussed in McCain's above attack on Chelsea?
This is one of the things that makes being a Democrat so difficult. Do you dive into the muck and allow yourself to use the same disgusting methods the Republicans use to make political points and win elections, or do you let them get away with their tactics and lose? Perhaps, some will say, this question is a false dilemma. Perhaps by not employing those tactics, you can win. I'm not convinced and I would cite the Swiftboat veterans for lies in 2004 as my proof.
McCain's stated beliefs and positions are rife with reversals, flip flops, and doing and saying anything just to get elected. McCain really wanted to have Lieberman as his Vice President, but settled for a lightweight to appease his base. McCain really is pro amnesty for illegal aliens, but his party made it clear he would not win the nomination if he stuck with his principles so he gave up on them. He was involved in the Keating Five scandal, so to try to salvage his reputation, he called up Democratic Senator Russ Feingold to create campaign finance reform legislation. He attacked a teenaged Chelsea Clinton but cries foul about Sarah Palin's children being the subject of a debate.
This is the way of John McCain and the Republican Party. I wonder how many people remember the "Compassionate Conservative" slogan of the Bush 2000 campaign? None of these Republican slogans mean anything. McCain is now talking about change and putting people & the country first. Again, it means as little as his current statement that he doesnt believe in involving the children of candidates or politicians. McCain's only value is saying what he needs to win. We don't need another guy like that in the White House.
By: SayNoToTea, 4:49 PM GMT on September 28, 2011
Americans Dislike the Tea Party More Than Ever Before
—By Andy Kroll| Wed Sep. 28, 2011 3:36 AM PDT
It's hard out there for a tea partier.
The upstart conservative movement was all the rage in the summer of 2009, and channeled that energy into a wave of victories in the 2010 midterm elections, sending dozens of hard-line, intransigent Republicans to Congress. However, a new CNN/ORC poll (PDF) out Tuesday shows that the pendulum of public opinion has swung away from the tea party.
Just 28 percent of Americans hold favorable views of the tea party, an all-time low in the 19 months that CNN/ORC pollsters have gauged Americans' feelings about the movement. At the same time, 53 percent of Americans think poorly of the tea party, an all-time high. According to CNN/ORC, the movement's popularity peaked in the spring of 2010, when 38 percent of Americans said they liked the tea party and only 36 percent said they didn't.
CNN's polls aren't the only ones to pick up a decline in support for the tea party. In a pair of Pew Research Center polls conducted in February 2010 and August 2011, disapproval of the tea party jumped from 18 percentage points; the percentage of those who said they liked the movement increased from 33 to 36 percent. Washington Post-ABC and Wall Street Journal-NBC polls also found declining support for the tea party from 2009 to 2010.
More interesting tidbits from the new CNN/ORC poll: Hillary Clinton remains one of the most popular public figures in American politics, with a 69 percent favorable rating and a 26 just unfavorable rating. She beats out Vice President Joe Biden (42-41), First Lady Michelle Obama (65-28), House Speaker John Boehner (37-39), and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (23-33).
By: SayNoToTea, 1:34 AM GMT on September 27, 2011
Not sure why my entry was removed. I take it admininstration was at work again.
Of course I did get an e-mail from another poster stating it was their doing. Either way I won't stop my fight exposing the tea party for what it is and what it isn't
By: SayNoToTea, 7:49 PM GMT on September 24, 2011
What If the Tea Party Wins?
by Care2 Causes Editors
September 24, 2011
Editor’s note: As we at Care2 prepare for the upcoming 2012 elections, we are planning to provide examples of what the US could face with a conservative majority in Washington D.C. We offer you this article from the Center for American Progress as an introduction to our upcoming “If they win…” coverage.
Written by Ian Millhiser, a policy analyst at the Center for American Progress
In the Tea Party’s America, families must mortgage their home to pay for their mother’s end-of-life care. Higher education is a luxury reserved almost exclusively to the very rich. Rotten meat ships to supermarkets nationwide without a national agency to inspect it. Fathers compete with their adolescent children for sub-minimum wage jobs. And our national leaders are utterly powerless to do a thing.
At least, that’s what would happen if the Tea Party succeeds in its effort to reimagine the Constitution as an antigovernment manifesto. While the House of Representatives pushes Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) plan to phase out Medicare, numerous members of Congress, a least one Supreme Court justice, and the governor of America’s second-largest state now proudly declare that most of the progress of the last century violates the Constitution.
It is difficult to count how many essential laws would simply cease to exist if the Tea Party won its battle to reshape our founding document, but a short list includes:
Social Security and Medicare
Medicaid, children’s health insurance, and other health care programs
All federal education programs
All federal antipoverty programs
Federal disaster relief
Federal food safety inspections and other food safety programs
Child labor laws, the minimum wage, overtime, and other labor protections
Federal civil rights laws
Indeed, as this paper explains, many state lawmakers even embrace a discredited constitutional doctrine that threatens the union itself.
What’s at stake
The Tea Party imagines a constitution focused entirely upon the Tenth Amendment, which provides that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”—which is why their narrow vision of the nation’s power is often referred to as “tentherism.” In layman’s terms, the Tenth Amendment is simply a reminder that the Constitution contains an itemized list of federal powers—such as the power to regulate interstate commerce or establish post offices or make war on foreign nations—and anything not contained in that list is beyond Congress’s authority.
The Tea Party, however, believes these powers must be read too narrowly to permit much of the progress of the last century. This issue brief examines just some of the essential programs that leading Tea Partiers would declare unconstitutional.
Social Security and Medicare
The Constitution gives Congress the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” thus empowering the federal government to levy taxes and leverage these revenues for programs such as Social Security and Medicare. A disturbingly large number of elected officials, however, insist that these words don’t actually mean what they say.
In a speech to the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, Texas Gov. Rick Perry listed a broad swath of programs that “contradict the principles of limited, constitutional government that our founders established to protect us.” Gov. Perry’s list includes Medicare and “a bankrupt social security system, that Americans understand is essentially a Ponzi scheme on a scale that makes Bernie Madoff look like an amateur.” And Perry is hardly the only high-ranking elected official to share this view.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) mocked President Franklin Delano Roosevelt for calling upon the federal government to provide “a decent retirement plan” and “health care” because “the Constitution doesn’t give Congress any of those powers.” Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), who engineered the House of Representatives’s dramatic reading of the Constitution earlier this year, claimed that Medicare and Social Security are “not in the Constitution” and are only allowed to exist because “the courts have stretched the Constitution to say it’s in the general welfare clause.” Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) said we should eliminate Medicare because “that’s a family responsibility, not a government responsibility.”
Because this erroneous view of our founding document is rooted in an exaggerated view of the Tenth Amendment’s states rights’ provision, many so-called tenthers claim that eliminating Social Security and Medicare wouldn’t necessarily mean kicking millions of seniors out into the cold because state governments could enact their own retirement programs to pick up the slack. This proposal, however, ignores basic economics.
Under our current system, someone who begins their career in Ohio, moves to Virginia to accept a better job offer, and then retires in Florida pays the same federal taxes regardless of their residence. These taxes then fund programs such as Medicare and Social Security. If each state were responsible for setting up its own retirement system, however, the person described above would pay Ohio taxes while they worked in Ohio, Virginia taxes while they lived in Virginia, and would draw benefits from the state of Florida during their retirement. The state which benefited from their taxes would not be the same state that was required to fund their retirement, and the result would be an economic death spiral for states such as Florida that attract an unusually large number of retirees.
For this reason, tenther proposals to simply let the states take over Social Security and Medicare are nothing more than a backdoor way to eliminate these programs altogether. If the Tea Party gets its way, and our nation’s social safety net for seniors is declared unconstitutional, millions of seniors will lose their only income and their only means to pay for health care.
Medicaid, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, and other health care programs
The Tea Party’s constitution has plenty of bad news for Americans below the retirement age as well. Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), for example, recently claimed that any federal involvement in health care whatsoever is unconstitutional because “the words ‘health care’ are nowhere in the Constitution.”
Sen. Coburn lumped Medicaid in with Medicare when he claimed that providing for the frailest Americans is a “family responsibility,” and Gov. Perry includes Medicaid on his list of programs that “contradict the principles of limited, constitutional government.” Sen. Mike Lee’s (R-UT) claim that “the Constitution doesn’t give Congress” any authority over health care is a blanket statement encompassing all federal health programs.
If this vision were to be implemented, all federal health care programs would simply cease to exist and millions of Americans would lose their only access to health insurance.
Education is also on the Tea Party’s chopping block. Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) routinely grills education secretaries at congressional hearings, insisting that the Constitution does not authorize any federal involvement in education. Similarly, Rep. Foxx insists that “we should not be funding education” because she insists doing so violates the Tenth Amendment. And Sen. Coburn does not “even think [education] is a role for the federal government.”
In its strongest form, this position wouldn’t just eliminate federal assistance for state-run public schools. It would also eliminate programs enabling Americans to pay for their college education. Millions of students would lose their Pell Grants and federal student loans if the Tea Party’s full vision of the Constitution were implemented.
Some tenthers, however, offer a slightly less drastic position. It is commonplace for the federal government to grant money to the states if those states agree to comply with certain conditions. Federal law, for example, provides generous public education grants provided that states gather data on student achievement and comply with other such conditions. Many Tea Partiers argue that these conditions violate the Constitution. Thus, Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-TX), claims that the Constitution only permits the federal government to provide states with “block grants.”
The truth, however, is that the federal government has never told states how to educate their children—and it could not do so if it tried. Under a Supreme Court decision called Printz v. United States, federal laws ordering a state to take a specific action actually do violate the Tenth Amendment. So, the state of Texas is perfectly free to turn down federal grants if they do not like the conditions attached to them.
Moreover, it is not clear how federal grants of any kind can exist if Congress is not allowed to attach conditions to them. If Congress cannot constitutionally require states to spend grant money on standardized testing, for example, how can they require that it be spent on education and not on building a new wing for the governor’s mansion? Thus, even the slightly more moderate position advocated by people like Rep. Farenthold would likely eliminate the federal government’s ability to provide educational assistance to low-income students or otherwise help fund public schools.
Antipoverty programs, federal disaster relief, and other help for the less fortunate
Sen. Lee would go even further in cutting off assistance for low-income Americans. In an interview with a Utah radio host, Lee claimed that the framers intended all antipoverty programs to be dealt with exclusively at the state level. This would not only eliminate programs like income assistance and food stamps, it could threaten unemployment insurance, federal job training, and other programs intended to provide a bridge out of poverty.
In the same interview, Sen. Lee claimed that federal relief for hurricane, earthquake, tornado, and other disaster victims is “one of many areas where we ought to focus on getting that power back to the states,” a position that would kill the Federal Emergency Management Agency and prevent the nation as a whole from rallying to the support of a state whose financial resources are overwhelmed by a major natural disaster.
Sen. Lee also claims that “the framers intended state lawmakers deal with” food safety in this same radio interview. This position would not simply endanger the residents of states with inadequate regulation of their food supply, it would also create costly and duplicative state inspection programs and impose logistical nightmares on food-importing states.
If a cow is raised in Texas, slaughtered in Oklahoma, and then sold as steaks in New York, which state is responsible for inspecting the meat? The likely answer is that all three states would have their own system of laws, tripling the regulatory compliance costs for the meat producer.
Moreover, if New York decides that Oklahoma’s inspections’ regime is inadequate, its only recourse would be to require meat producers to submit their products to a customs check at the border before it could be sold in that state. The result would be higher taxes for New Yorkers forced to pay for these customs stations, and higher costs for businesses forced to submit to inspections every time they brought food across a state border.
Child labor laws, the minimum wage, overtime, and other labor protections
Nearly 100 years ago, the Supreme Court declared federal child labor laws unconstitutional in a case called Hammer v. Dagenhart. Twenty-two years later, the Court recognized that Hammer’s holding was “novel when made and unsupported by any provision of the Constitution,” and unanimously overruled this erroneous decision.
Sen. Lee, however, believes that, while Hammer might “sound harsh,” the Constitution “was designed to be that way. It was designed to be a little bit harsh,” and thus we should return to the world where federal child labor laws are unconstitutional. Moreover, Lee has a very powerful ally prepared to sweep away nearly all national protections for American workers.
Under existing Supreme Court doctrine, Congress’s authority to “regulate commerce … among the several states” includes the power to regulate the roads and railways used to transport goods in interstate commerce, as well as the goods themselves and the vehicles that transport them. Additionally, Congress may regulate activities that “substantially affect interstate commerce.” This “substantial effects” power is the basis of Congress’s authority to make labor laws universal throughout all places of employment.
Yet Justice Clarence Thomas claimed in three separate cases—U.S. v. Lopez, U.S. v. Morrison, and Gonzales v. Raich—that this “substantial effects” test is “at odds with the constitutional design.” It is possible that Thomas’s vision would still allow some limited federal labor regulation—such as a law prohibiting children from becoming railway workers—but anything resembling the essential web of federal laws that protect American workers today would be impossible.
Civil rights laws
Shortly after he won his party’s nod to be a U.S. Senate candidate, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) revealed that he opposes the federal bans on whites-only lunch counters and race discrimination in employment. In a rambling interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, Paul explained that, while he believes that Congress may ban discrimination from “public institutions,” he does not support antidiscrimination laws that regulate private business.
As Sen. Paul suggested in that interview, these basic civil rights laws—like national laws banning child labor and establishing a minimum wage—can be snuffed out of existence if Congress’s power to enact commercial regulations is read too narrowly.
In 1964, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the federal ban on whites-only lunch counters—once again relying on the “substantial effects” test to do so. For this reason, it is likely the Justice Thomas would strike down this and other federal laws protecting civil rights.
Gov. Perry suffered well-deserved ridicule when he suggested in 2009 that Texas may secede from the union if “Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people.” But Gov. Perry’s ill-considered remark is merely a distraction compared to a much larger movement to effectively secede from the union one law at a time.
Gov. Perry joins lawmakers from New Hampshire, Montana, Virginia, Idaho, Florida, and many other states in backing unconstitutional state laws purporting to “nullify” a federal law. Many state legislatures have passed, and a few governors have signed, laws claiming to nullify part of the Affordable Care Act, and Perry signed a law that partially nullifies federal light bulb standards.
Nullification is an unconstitutional doctrine claiming that states can prevent a federal law from operating within their borders. Although nullification conflicts directly with the text of the Constitution, which provides that Acts of Congress “shall be the supreme law of the land…anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding,” it has experienced a significant revival among state lawmakers eager to second-guess national leaders’ decisions.
This doctrine is not simply unconstitutional, it is a direct attack on the idea that we are the United States of America. As James Madison wrote in 1830, allowing states to simply ignore the laws they don’t want to follow would “speedily put an end to the Union itself.”
America has long endured the occasional politician eager to repeal the entire 20th Century, but, as President Dwight Eisenhower observed nearly 60 years ago, “Their numbers [were] negligible and they are stupid.” Sadly, this is no longer the case. Tenthers increasingly dominate conservative politics and their numbers are growing.
If this movement succeeds in replacing our founding document with their entirely fabricated constitution, virtually every American will suffer the consequences. Seniors will lose their Social Security and Medicare. Millions of students could lose their ability to pay for college. And workers throughout the country will lose their right to organize, to earn a minimum wage, and to be free from discrimination.
Worse, because the Tea Party believes their policy preferences are mandated by the Constitution, they would do far more than simply repeal nearly a century of essential laws. Once something is declared unconstitutional, it is beyond the reach of elected officials— and beyond the voters’ ability to revive simply by tossing unwise lawmakers out of office.
For this reason, the Tea Party’s agenda is not simply one of the most radical in generations, it is also the most authoritarian. They do not simply want to eliminate decades of progress; they want to steal away “We The People’s” ability to bring it back.
By: SayNoToTea, 5:00 PM GMT on September 17, 2011
When did the Tea Party get so cruel?
By Ryan Gilbert
3I'm not trying to be the least bit facetious, and I'm not trying to imply that the Democratic Party is wrought with saintly idols. Rather, I'm thrown off by the Tea Party base's mindless embrace of brutality and discrimination.
Last week, during the MSNBC/Politico presidential debate, the invitation-only crowd broke out into cheers when it was cited that Texas Gov. Rick Perry has proudly presided over 200 executions. Seconds later, NBC Nightly News anchor and debate moderator Brian Williams asked Perry about the audience's ovation.
"I think Americans understand justice," Perry said. "I think Americans are clearly, in the vast majority of cases, supportive of capital punishment."
Williams then asked Perry whether he "struggled to sleep at night with the idea that any of [the executed] might have been innocent."
"No, sir," Perry said. "I've never struggled with that at all."
Really?! Never? Not once? The majority of Americans "struggle" with this uncertainty. According to a recent Gallup poll, 59 percent of Americans agree that within the last five years, "a person has been executed under the death penalty who was, in fact, innocent of the crime he or she was charged with."
It gets worse.
Last night's CNN-Tea Party Express debate was like the cherry on top of this cold, sick, death-layered sundae. Debating the uncertainty of whether Americans can and should be required to buy health insurance, CNN lead anchor and debate moderator Wolf Blitzer proposed a hypothetical to Texas congressman Ron Paul. "A healthy 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, ‘You know what? I'm not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I'm healthy. I don't need it.' But something terrible happens, and all of a sudden he needs it. Who's going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?" In response, Paul said, "That's what freedom is all about – taking your own risks." Blitzer then asked Paul if he was "saying that society should just let him die?"
This is where things get disturbing.
The audience responded, before Paul even had a chance to, by crying out, "Yes!" That's right. The audience was gleefully cheering on to "let them die." Let. Them. Die. Four days ago, we were honoring those lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. Four days ago, we were yearning for a time when we all put aside petty differences and came together. Four days ago, we were "United We Stand." Today, we are "Let Them Die."
How did we go from honoring those we've lost to repulsively reveling in the deaths of those who might have been innocent or uninsured? This is not the American ideology our forefathers fought and gave their lives for. This is not the American originality that took us out of the Great Depression and through two World Wars. And this is certainly not the American benevolence that bonded us 10 years ago after the tragic events of 9/11 and encouraged us to think not only of ourselves. Perry and Paul have sordidly managed to turn "justice" and "freedom," hallmarks of what are supposed to make America great, into slogan words laced with ignorance and discrimination.
These nationally televised debates are just the tip of the bigotry iceberg. There's already a law banning same-sex marriage in North Carolina, but state Republican leaders are bothered that a court could find the law unconstitutional. Therefore, they're pushing to amend the state's constitution to define marriage as only between one man and one woman. Mississippi's Republican-controlled state legislature is pushing a "personhood" law that could ban abortions and birth control. The Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives won't even consider bringing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act up for a vote.
These debates have done nothing more than show just how toxic the Republican Party's "Me! Me! Me!" ideology has become. I pray that the predictions of another economic collapse in this country greater than the Great Depression over the next year never happens because many of us seem to lack the compassion and selflessness required to rebuild a nation. Republican candidates and politicians say, on the one hand, that they have the superior moral foundation because of their Christian beliefs, yet they're the first to decide which lives they do or don't like, and which ones to put a price tag on
Updated: 10:19 AM GMT on September 20, 2011
By: SayNoToTea, 2:19 PM GMT on September 03, 2011
10 fictitious Tea Party beliefs
By John Amato and David Neiwert
We’ll admit up-front that the title of our forthcoming book,“Over the Cliff: How Obama’s Election Drove the American Right Insane,” indulges in some rhetorical imprecision: conservatives in the United States are of course not really insane in any clinical or legal sense, and we are not suggesting they undergo sanity hearings to determine if their rights should be suspended. We mean “insane” in the common-sense meaning of the word -- having taken leave of their senses.
What other word, after all, can properly describe the behavior of people who adamantly insist on believing things that are provably untrue? Einstein facetiously defined insanity as doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. Defiantly clinging to exploded fantasies and thoroughly debunked false “facts,” even when evidence of their falsity is planted directly in front of them, is a kind of insanity too.
The numbers of things that the American Right -- embodied in its wildly popular new “grassroots” Tea Party movement – believes but that are provably untrue is actually a pretty long list. But we’ve put together the Top 10, listed by importance in their increasingly Planet Bizarro-like worldview:
1. The birth-certificate conspiracy. Reality: Not even official birth certificates from Hawaii, newspaper clippings from 1961, and the testimony of state officials will convince the true-blue Tea Partiers. Which is why WorldNetDaily’s Joseph Farah lectured the National Tea Party Convention for an hour about the “truth” of the birth-certificate story.
2. Death panels. Reality: PolitiFact named Sarah Palin’s Facebook invention its “Lie of the Year,” and the belief was thoroughly exposed as a falsehood by every news network (even Fox). Yet Palin still insists that the panels exist somewhere in the health-care reform bill that was signed into law, its actual language notwithstanding.
3. Obama is a Muslim/Socialist/Fascist. Glenn Beck’s fantasy of the week -- one week Obama was a Socialist, the next he was a Communist, then a Fascist. Then it was on to Marxism and Maoism -- was avidly adopted by sign-bearing fans at Tea Party gatherings, who sometimes shared Beck’s confusion by just calling Obama All of the Above. Reality: Give us a break. Obama’s self-evident cautious centrism, embodied by his health-care reform package stripped of a public option, as well as his more recent embrace of a limited offshore drilling program, has infuriated liberals in his party -- but it hasn’t stopped Tea Partiers from denouncing the president as a radical anyway.
4. Obama is going to take away our guns. Well, the NRA managed to scare a whole lot of people into buying up every gun and piece of ammunition in sight the first year or so after Obama’s election. And at least five police officers died because the suspects they were arresting feared Obama was going to take away their guns. But Obama not only has adhered to his promise not to address gun-control issues, there hasn’t been even a breath of it from his administration. Which, of course, just makes the paranoids that much more paranoid: It’s proof that he’s really up to something.
5. Obama is raising our taxes. Reality: Obama lowered taxes for 95 percent of working Americans in his first year in office. But, you know, he’s a liberal Democrat – and for true-blue right-wing folks, that ALWAYS means a tax hike.
6. Fascism is a left-wing phenomenon. We can thank Jonah Goldberg -- with a big assist from Beck -- for the popularity of this one, even though Goldberg’s thesis has been demolished and angrily dismissed by academic historians. It’s especially come in handy for Tea Partiers with Obama-as-Hitler signs, who are not impressed by those pointy-headed professorial types anyway.
7. Global warming is a hoax. So Sean Hannity assures us, citing the Climategate brouhaha -- which was itself shown largely to be a hoax of its own. Meanwhile, the world’s ocean levels keep rising, and glaciers and the polar ice cap keep receding -- regardless of the endless words thrown up denying that they are.
8. Some 16,000 new IRS agents will enforce the new health care reform act by throwing you in jail. Reality: The IRS is actually only increasing its spending in the coming budget year as it normally would -- but some Republican operatives decided to figure out how many positions its increased budget would buy, and came up with 16,000, a figure that then became gospel on Newt Gingrich’s lips. According to the same mythmakers, this nonexistent new army of health care police was going to start throwing people in jail if they failed to buy health insurance -- though in fact, the only penalties contemplated for such failures are fines and taxes.
9. Two million people were at the 9/12 March on Washington. At the culmination of a monthlong promotion (highlighted by a national Tea Party Express bus tour) by Beck and Fox News, about 70,000 people gathered on the National Mall on September 12 to protest. Beck cited an erroneous early report that over a million had shown up. Later that grew to be two million, the figure now commonly cited by Tea Party leaders as evidence of their tremendous numerical force.
10. The Tea Parties are a non-partisan, broad grassroots movement. Sure, if by non-partisan you mean rabidly paleo-conservative, to the point of even dismissing Republicans, and by grassroots you mean fake populism organized and whipped up by the most popular cable-news network on television, with a heaping helping of corporate financing.
Tea Party folks and their defenders also want to believe that they’re just ordinary Americans who want to be serious about helping their country. But it’s pretty hard to fit that description when you embrace plain old nuttiness.