Thursday, July 30, 2015

Tea Party Core Values

Core Values
Fiscal Responsibility: We support fiscal responsibility through reasonable spending, balanced budgets and reduced debt at the federal, state and local levels. Assuring that government honors and respects the freedom of the individual to earn and spend the money that is the fruit of their own labor. Deficit spending as now practiced in Washington D.C. compels us to take action as the increasing national debt is a grave threat to our national sovereignty and the personal and economic liberty of our children.

Constitutionally Limited Government: We support a constitutionally limited government of the people, by the people and for the people to protect the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law. We believe in the original intent of our founders and reject the flagrant disregard of the Constitution as practiced in the courts. We support states' rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. We are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land.

Free Markets: A free market economy is the foundation of the country and its people. Government's interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and growth. Therefore, we support free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business through unfounded rules and regulation.


  1. Here you go Iouman. Join our party. Anything you see above that you disagree with?

  2. William.
    A good set of values upon which you can form a party slogan. Do the principals enumerated however stand up to examination. Let us look at Free Market principals. I totally agree in the intent but the reality is totally at odds with PRESENT DAY reality.
    If you follow the principals of total freedom in trade then what happens to tariffs and government charges currently used to regulate trade between your country and other nations?. Without these tarrifs?US manufacturing must all but cease. What of the subsidies to your agricultural industry? can your nation consume all the meat you produce and if so why do your farmers need subsidies? If you rely on exports,why is a subsidy needed to keep inefficient producers in business.
    Freedom to earn and spend money according to his labour. So William,where does the Union movement fit in to bargain on behalf of the many who are too small to bargain for themselves? Are you advocating a system where the biggest and the strongest prosper at the cost of the weakest?.

    The above are simple questions,the answers to which could well encourage others to adopt your views;however I feel your philosophy is slanted too much towards the tablets cast in stone which is your constitution. In 1788 the world was a simple place, economies were in most cases self regulating entities. The changes in trade brought forward by many years your Declaration of Independence. Britain and other colonial powers sought to interfere with the commerce between nations and to somehow garner profit from the labors of foreigners and settlers in lands previously colonized. Labor laws are a different matter and to proclaim that government must not interfere in this area is a pipe dream.
    Cheers from Aussie

  3. Let's just say that 30 States break away peacefully and adopt the Constitution and the original Bill of Rights.

    Are you saying that no one in the world would trade with them?

    Are you saying that the remaining 20 States wouldn't trade with them?

    We currently trade with all sorts of countries with all sorts of guiding documents including communist forms of goverment.

    Are you saying that people who live under our founders principles would be am exception?

  4. William
    I shall respond to your post when you consider and answer the questions I posed. You are apparently relying on the "if factor”. There are too many ifs in your post to allow for a constructive answer. What you may perhaps be doing is to form a set of imaginary circumstances to foster your position. Well mate, all I can say is if your auntie had balls, she would have been your uncle! please address my remarks and we can go from there.

    1. King, who cares about tariffs, regulations, and unions. When our nation first formed we started from scratch. We can start from scratch again. Countries that did not care to deal with the new entity would be free to ignore.

      The separation would be a clean solution considering the impossibility of overturning existing layer upon layer of useless laws, over regulation, national health care that is doomed to failure, and ever increasing debt.

      Just get it over with and split it up.


    2. Obviously pinky punky has a problem with fiscal reaponsibility, limited government, and free markets.

      Who cares

    3. She is smarter than the founders.

    4. No, but she is smarter than you and that is one of those core things that pisses off old white conservative dudes to no end.

    5. All progressives are smarter than us Tea Party hicks. That's a given. Hillary is the smartest woman alive, Al Gore was and remains the world's smartest man. Bill Clinton is a genious. Just ask any socialist and they will tell you, set you straight. Bernie Sanders ideas are revolutionary, what a mensch. That communist stud DeBlasio up there running New York city, well, has anyone ever met with a more learned person? And don't get me started on BO. I get a chill running up my leg.

      US hayseeds that believe in the founders thoughts are a bunch of rubes. Heck, some of us didn't even attend Ivy League universities. Free markets? Limited goverent? Fiscal reponsibility? My lord, who could still hold such antiquated thoughts in such a modern world?

    6. You put the conversation in a fairly small box King when you exclude ‘If’ and shout ‘PRESENT DAY’. Present Day is after all a series of errors and successes, adventures and misadventures predicated on a very long history of Ifs, Ands and Buts. Your exclusion suggests that you are as stuck in the present with all of its errors as you accuse anyone who sees addressing present day problem with previously used approaches as being stuck in some other time frame or dimension.

      You mention tariffs… with respect to the US, tariffs had a specific purpose when addressing the deficiencies of the articles of confederation; To fund the operations of the federal government in a fair and consistent manner. IF the central planner and pandering impulses of the power obsessed had not used tariffs as a weapon, perhaps 600K people in the US wouldn’t have perished. Those tariffs favoured one region over another. IF the Supreme Court hadn’t upheld ‘separate but equal’ perhaps race relations in the US might be considerably different. IF the federal government and its partner in crime, the Federal Reserve, didn’t use a method of payment and exchange to regulate asset prices perhaps people in the US could own their own homes and still compete. IF the government didn’t attempt to regulate the price of commodities and let the market sort out supply and demand then subsides would be a non-issue. IF society hadn’t decided that ‘now’ and ‘me’ were more important than ‘future’ and ‘humanity’ them perhaps the issue of abortion would be one of clinical necessity and not social expedience and if that were the case then perhaps we would have 55 million more people born of caring families, educated in the good schools, with the best health care rather than importing 3 generations of people who are arguably less educated, less healthy and so socially different that America has potentially made yet another grave error in judgement in its long term longevity?

      With respect to unions, you know as well as I do that there are unions that protect workers legitimate rights; groups of interested individuals working together and then there are unions that push political agendas for power and wealth. What IF unions stuck to doing what they were intended to do rather than becoming a political wing forcing members to pay for the pushing of a political ideology the member might very well disagree with… then unions would only be a headache for an employer to deal with?

      IF, I am afraid, is a part of every political discussion, every business discussion and every social discussion and we must always be able to look at the successes and failures of the present day and ask… “What if we did it differently… what If we deviated from a by gone approach in error and returning to it is required to right the problems of today… What if people could see that it might be in the best interest of a segment of the population to stop others from asking ‘What If’.”

    7. TS
      Interesting comments accompanied by some superficial verbosity. You have joined this debate later than most and have perhaps missed the most salient point. William is advocating a RETURN, not to the last decade but to the very beginning of your modern history. His text book, road map and secular bible is the Declaration, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. William asks “what if” conditions of government were applied to the new nation as they were applied to the present United States. Viz: King, who cares about tariffs, regulations, and unions. When our nation first formed we started from scratch. We can start from scratch again. Countries that did not care to deal with the new entity would be free to ignore.

      Your points taken at face value have little relevance to the debate. I must address your remarks within the context of the debate and here we strike the first stumbling block. Will you permit Unions to operate within the new government? Bearing in mind your comments re unions above, it would appear you would need to introduce regulations to control militancy by the labor force or coercion by management. What then of smaller government? This will be sufficient as an example.

      TS You know and so does the rest of the world that secession is a pipe dream. That returning to the past is practically impossible and that continuation on the present path will eventually lead to collapse of the nation. Perhaps then, but only then, will Rip Van Winkle arise from his slumber and with Muscat and hat on sideways he may retrace the steps of Johnny Appleseed.!!

      Cheers from Aussie

    8. King, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness. Basic natural rights that once repeatedly impinged upon by an overbearing government create an obligation to succeed.

      We have government sponsored abortion mills, hardly an advancement of life.

      We have law requiring us to purchase health care against our desires, is this liberty?

      Executive directed actions by various unelected minions prevent us from pursuing our own paths towards happiness.

      Succession is a natural right given to us by our creator. Codified in our original documents. Hardly a secular matter.

    9. “superficial verbosity”… when placed against the ‘Pledge of Allegiance’ as debate clinching evidence.. I’ll take that as a complement.

      Not for the first time have you reframed the points of constitutional principle and free markets to your point of reference as if it is the only one. Quite understandable given your ongoing relationship with the idea of a heretical sovereign and opposing views regard to citizens and their government. Your position places citizens, from birth, as servants of the government, however derived, which has the unquestioned right to mould and dictate the ethos of its humble subjects. Note that I said, ‘however derived’ because some people want to be ruled, guided, humbled and cared for and in that respect… more power to them and there longevity.
      You frame the conversation with “the world is now too complex for such simple thinking”. I would submit that trade and trade roots existed long before government installed traffic signs or wage controls and further, government hubris for its own enrichment and at the behest of friends who rent seek for profit is actually the cause of the complexity.

      Trade unions, more or less, are a function of the presumed monopsony power of the ‘robber baron’ types yet, were it not for government favouritism those industries quite likely would never have had so much power. Supposed friction between a business and employees is again a function of governments attempt at wage manipulation. Without constant pulling and pushing of government, prices and fair wages will reflect each other. This is not unlike the argument for minimum wage. If the monopsony power of a company is so great that it allows an employer to take undue advantage of its workers, why doesn’t someone build a competing business, give fair wages and steal good labor away from the offender?... or is the monopsony power really the original function of government?

      You state that the purpose of tariffs is to regulate business. I would suppose then that you have no problem with the central bank inflating or preventing assets finding fair market value? The stated reason for tariff was to fund constitutionally authorized functions; Protection against unfair trade advantage perhaps but I would suggest that disparity between nations over decades has considerably more to do with government manipulation and military intervention for non-defence purposes than any free market principles gone awry.

      Regulation of commerce between states was meant to prevent one state from ‘impeding’ free trade between other states, not to play favourites of one industry or region over another. The first tariffs after ratification did exactly that. While you frame the discussion of tariff as one nation protecting itself against the manipulations of another, what occurred was the tariff was weaponized… tariff to play favourites even within an economy… a tool to pander to friends… that’s not government, that’s oligarchy and rather than creating a cohesive environment it works to play people against each other, not as competitors but as enemy’s. The world will never be equal but the power of government wrongly applied makes it grossly unfair.

      Your succession points are valid but succession by any other name looks like the Soviet Union or perhaps Sudan. Putin theorized that the US would dissolve much like the USSR. US difficulties are as much a result of the grotesque manipulation of people doing business with each other by kleptocratic associations as to the careful and patient efforts of Communist International. Present Day reality is a reflection of poor decisions made over centuries and righting these decisions can only be incremental; but ethos that created this complexity can change… I’m thinking that one way or another, it must change or humanity is on a collision course with extinction…. Or at least 90% of humanity with the powerful remainder being mere freaks with hybrid human names like CPO3-Eric, born in a test-tube and educated in a highly evolved version of Doublespeak.

    10. TS
      My t hanks,I trhink.

      A few early morning quick points before I have to attend to more pressing matters.
      “Not for the first time have you reframed the points of constitutional principle and free markets to your point of reference as if it is the only one”. Not at all the most important dot point. It was used in the discussion with William as a point to counter his assertion. I subsequently asked further questions concerning far more important aspects of establishing the government of the Utopian Nation William and perhaps you envisage.

      “Your position places citizens, from birth, as servants of the government, “. What a crock of brown stuff TS,Can you not understand the role of government within a democracy?. Remember, it is us the people who elect the goverment and it is us the people who throw them out if they fail to live up to our expectations. Even though Americans who are wedded to the past reject the democratic principals, I submit your nation is a republic in name only. You to have the chance to change goverment at mid term and the end of term and at the same end of term election you can change your President. So you want to start all over again using the original building blocks? Can you not see, you will have exactly the same constraints on government and populace as you have now?

      Further to the above, At least here in Australia we elect the party which provides us with what the majority consider to be the most appealing choice. The process is simple and voting is compulsory so at least we get a representation of views across the spectrum. With compulsory voting of course we get a three or four percent donkey vote and some of the other votes are cast by those will little knowledge or interest of why they are in the booth at all.

      Perhaps you may be able to enumerate you vision for the governance of a new state within the US, perhaps that way we could get to the kernel of the nut which so far appears to be encased within the hairy exterior of a coconut shell. I for one am having trouble in understanding the everyday problems such an act of secession would entail. Defense, border security.taxation,civil rights would all need to be reevaluated.

      Cheers from Aussie

  5. William my thanks for the response. Now, to be fair,I am probably the last member of this group who should refute your proposition. If you consider my views as being those of an interloping foreigner, then I am sorry.

    It is difficult to know where to start but start I must. Your secular bible appears to be the constitution. The powers deriving to the states do not appear to include the power of secession with the possible but doubtful exception of Texas. Supreme Court Justice Antonio Sella has produced a list of reasons why secession is impossible and not the least among these reasons is the Pledge of Allegiance clearly illustrated through the line “one nation, indivisible.”,
    So there you are William, the last attempt at secession brought on the civil war and surely this would be the possible result if another attempt was made now.

    Even with the remote possibility of a new nation being conceived and born within your great nation, how can the provisions of the constitution, as ratified, together with its 20 odd amendments satisfy the idealism which forms the very basis of your movement?.

    On what variant of the old ways can you envisage the new nation securing its borders and gathering revenue to provide the services necessary for its governance and survival of the populace. If you propose secession, do you also undertake on a proportional basis, the repayment of the current debits of the nation and do you expect to take unto the new nation a pro rata amo0unt of the national wealth?.,

    So many questions William and I have not even bothered t look up references. Perhaps you should consider the possibility of converting the sixty percent of people who do not vote. If you succeed, you will have the numbers to control the entire nation. Believe it or not, I believe in some of the aims and aspirations of the extreme right so I wish you well as you piss into the wind, all that will happen is that you will get your own back.

    Cheers from Aussie