Posted on 06/03/2011 6:29:08 PM PDT by billflax
America has forgotten her roots and the limited government which produced the greatest mixture of freedom and prosperity in history. Like their modern counterparts, the first tea partiers sensed this. They rejected a government that betrayed its ideals. Today’s Tea Party primarily focuses on the economic aspects of government expansion, but even as prosperity is a profound blessing, it is freedom we must defend.
When King George demanded we buy his tea, colonists objected. Astonished at their outrage, Parliament authored tax subsidies to contrive consent. It became a test of wills over sovereignty. Was the king supreme or did justice reign? The price of tea reduced dramatically, but Americans chose principles over handouts and threw the tea into the bay. Patriots could accept neither Britain’s mandates nor her bribes. When the redcoats embarked to confiscate our guns the minutemen cast off British tyranny for good.
America’s founders established the rule of law and not of men. A nation built on God, guns and guts where justice reigns instead of kings. We still talk about justice in America, but in modern parlance, its meaning has been corrupted.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.forbes.com ...
I paraphrase Brooks' answer: "No. The Republican party needs to emphasize the traditional basis of our system of government. They need to focus on smaller budgets and more responsible spending. I don't see the Tea Party having a role there."
Just boggles the mind.
I paraphrase Brooks’ answer: “No. The Republican party needs to emphasize the traditional basis of our system of government. They need to focus on smaller budgets and more responsible spending. I don’t see the Tea Party having a role there.”
Just boggles the mind.
It’s stunning what a horse’s ass the guy is.
I despise Brooks. He is desperate for the GOP to lose in 2012. He wants more Obama.
Something else which Brooks does consistently is that he totally ignores Sarah Palin. He will talk about Republicans who have declared their candidacy for 2012. He will talk about Republicans who might potentially declare — Giuliani, DeMint, etc.) But the name of Sarah Palin will not pass his lips. If asked directly, he dismisses her and simply says, “I don’t think she’ll run” and then he starts to talk about Huntsman or Pawlenty or Romney.
I despise Brooks. He is desperate for the GOP to lose in 2012. He wants more Obama.
I think he called her “a joke” on one of the lamer talk shows a while back.
I’m longing for the Wednesday morning in November when he awakes to find the joke’s on him!
Limited government?
Like oil company subsidies?
Like bailouts?
Well, he may inadvertantly have a point, not that he knows why.
Please show any place anything I’ve ever written calls for subsidies or bailouts?
I was referring to the article.
Limited government ?
... no mention in the article of subsidies, yet that seems to be what the Republicans (including new Tea Party members) in Congress are up to.
Doesn’t sound like limited government to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.