The Party of No
A random thought I had recently:
The liberal media has been relentless in their portrayal of anyone opposed to the massive influx of socialist agenda propagated by the Obamanation and the rest of the Socialist party (regardless of affiliation, but predominantly Republicans) as members of the Party of No. Their thinking, if I can speculate, is that the American people want change and reform, and by labeling the opposition as standing in the way of that change, ie: the people saying 'no', they can galvanize opposition to their overhaul of the concept of the US into their socialist ideal.
I think the Republicans, and their "enemy of our enemy" friends, should turn the tables a bit, so to speak, and adopt the Party of No as the unofficial moniker for the Tea Party movement. After all, what is the Tea Party if not the Party of No to socialist takeovers? ... of No to putting up with backroom deals, corruption, and Washington politics as usual? ... of No to out-of-control government spending bankrupting our children and future generations? No to more massive unfunded entitlement programs? No to big government, no to losing more freedoms, no to everything the government is trying to do?
Ask yourself this: would a politician voting 'no' on every single bill presented by the repugnant corrupt Congress we have now be any worse than your average Congress-scum? Why must the voters choose between big-government neocons and big-government socialists? We need a Party of No More, and it seems like the media, as an extension of the liberal political propaganda machine, has created the opening, and the American people just need capable trustworthy representatives to step into it, and pledge their support for the people, the country, and the Constitution, and be the Party of No.
The liberal media has been relentless in their portrayal of anyone opposed to the massive influx of socialist agenda propagated by the Obamanation and the rest of the Socialist party (regardless of affiliation, but predominantly Republicans) as members of the Party of No. Their thinking, if I can speculate, is that the American people want change and reform, and by labeling the opposition as standing in the way of that change, ie: the people saying 'no', they can galvanize opposition to their overhaul of the concept of the US into their socialist ideal.
I think the Republicans, and their "enemy of our enemy" friends, should turn the tables a bit, so to speak, and adopt the Party of No as the unofficial moniker for the Tea Party movement. After all, what is the Tea Party if not the Party of No to socialist takeovers? ... of No to putting up with backroom deals, corruption, and Washington politics as usual? ... of No to out-of-control government spending bankrupting our children and future generations? No to more massive unfunded entitlement programs? No to big government, no to losing more freedoms, no to everything the government is trying to do?
Ask yourself this: would a politician voting 'no' on every single bill presented by the repugnant corrupt Congress we have now be any worse than your average Congress-scum? Why must the voters choose between big-government neocons and big-government socialists? We need a Party of No More, and it seems like the media, as an extension of the liberal political propaganda machine, has created the opening, and the American people just need capable trustworthy representatives to step into it, and pledge their support for the people, the country, and the Constitution, and be the Party of No.
Comments
Post a Comment