Eagle

Home

News
Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs

Short Takes

Plain Talk

The Ryter Report

DONATIONS

Articles
Testimony
Bible Questions

Internet Articles (2015)
Internet Articles (2014)
Internet Articles (2013)
Internet Articles (2012)

Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)

Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Books
Order Books

Cyrus
Rednecker

Search

About
Comments

Links

 

Startlogic Windows Hosting

Adobe  Design Premium¨ CS5

20 years


The Tea Party must remain a "movement." It
cannot successfully become a political party

If the Minutemen that fended off the redcoats at Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts on April 19, 1775 thought they were anything other than a political movement, the United States would still be run by the British. The one to two million US voters who initially attempted to show their contempt for the social progressives who stole the US Congress with the help of MoveOn.org in 2006 and stole both a super majority in Congress and the White House in 2008 with the help of ACORN and MoveOn.org were, and still are, not a political party today. They are a political movement of voters, not candidates for political office.
If the American people, as a whole, remember that in November, they will take back both Houses of Congress and will be poised to impeach the impertinent illegal alien who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

When it comes to growing a new crop, or new generation, of Congressmen and Senators at the federal level, the people at the grassroots level need to learn one major fact of life—and they must learn it very quickly if they didn't pick up on it in 2006 and 2008. When you build a house you don't build from the roof down, you build from the foundation up. What does that mean in political terms? It means you can't jump into the political stream and sponsor third party candidates in a Tea Party Party and think they are going to win an election. They aren't. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

Why? Because there are two oceans to fish in for votes. Face north. (Do that literally.) On your right is the Atlantic Ocean. On your left is the Pacific Ocean. Now, think of the Atlantic Ocean as the rightwing, or conservative, pool where Republicans, Libertarians and constitutionalists alike all fish for votes. Now, think of the Pacific Ocean (which you note is much larger than the Atlantic), as the Democratic fishing hole. Moderate Democrats, liberals and social progressives all fish for votes there. Think of that portion of the Pacific area known as the Indian Ocean as the primary fishing grounds for the social progressives and Independents, but take care to note that the waters of the Indian Ocean mix freely with the Pacific, contaminating all of it. Now you have a snapshot of the political landscape of the United States.

For Republicans (i.e., conservatives of any stripe) to win elections, working class family values Democrats have to vote Republican because the GOP pool, where all conservatives swim, is much smaller than the Pacific pool and there are fewer of us. (Philosophically, I'm a Libertarian. Politically I identify myself as a Republican because, in national elections, I know that only the Republican or the Democrat is going to win. If there is a third party candidate in the race, he or she is going to pull from 1/2 of 1% to 5% of the vote. And, the votes he or she gets will come off the tally of the Republican candidate since those votes are coming from the GOP pool. This all but guarantees the Democrat will win because the Indian Ocean is not the "independent pool for conservatives." The independents who swim there are members of the Green Party, the Communist Party, and other wacko environmental parties. Conservative independent candidates swim with the Republican fish in the Atlantic. The left does not want us peeing patriotism in their pool. There are two pools because we have a two party system.

If the American people want to win the Election of 2010, and then the Election of 2012, they need to understand that third party candidates in a two-party system are spoilers. If you want to fix this nation, the first thing you have to do to fix it is win back the House and Senate with enough of a majority to undo the damage done by both the 110th and 111th Congresses. That means, we have to return the GOP to power with enough votes to override every Obama veto—with enough votes in the House and Senate to not only impeach Obama for lying about his citizenship status but also identity theft since the man uses 27 different Social Security cards, and then, have enough votes in the Senate to remove him from office and then prosecute him.

If the American people forget the hard lesson they should have, but apparently did not, learn in 2006 and 2008 and continue to persist in viewing people who can't win elections as candidates and not just popular voters, the Social Progressives will be able to stop at the Registrar of Deeds Office on Wednesday, Nov. 3, 2010 and pick up the title deed to the buildings at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, First Street (where NE, NW, SE and SW meet), and most important, the US Supreme Court building at 1 First St., NE. Because on that day, the Social Progressives will own them outright. Liberty will forever be lost in America and the word "freedom" in the United States will contain that hollow communist "dumb" sound at the end of "free"—free-dumb rather than freedom.

The spontaneous, patriotism-inspired Tea Party Movement—when it began—reminded me of the John Doe Movement in the 1941 story written by Richard Connell and Robert Presnell, "Meet John Doe," that was immortalized on the screen by Frank Capra. Only in Capra's version, the good guys were always the poor Democrats and the bad guys were always rich Republicans. Roosevelt's Depression was in full swing (notice I said Roosevelt and not Hoover). Meet John Doe depicts FDR social progressivism, but it also depicts Barack Obama social progressivism. In the Barbara Stanwyck-Gary Cooper movie, the people band together against a Depression-era uncaring government.

In the Obama version, the Social Progressives are raping the American people. Between one to two million disgruntled Americans marched on Washington, DC on Sept. 12, 2009 to protest the $3 trillion in new debt that was used to bailout America's largest banks—not because they needed the money, but because they needed to bail out the banks in the emerging nations who are building the infrastructure of the new 21st century economy in the third world. But even more important, those same people oppose Obamacare and the Death Board they found hidden in HR-1, the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 that will decide who is, and who is not, eligible for healthcare based on several factors, most of which is your age. Once you reach retirement age you become a "double dipper." You get Social Security benefits and your medical bills are paid by the taxpayers. The government and, most of all, the Obama Death Board, can't afford you. When the nurse comes to hook you up on a morphine drip to ease your pain, jump out of bed, get dressed and go home—even if ever nerve in your body aches. If you don't, you'll be leaving the hospital a day or two later in a hearse and Uncle Sam will recycle your Social Security number to some happy adolescent looking for their first part time job in a nation where jobs no longer exist..

It didn't take long for the average Joes of America to realize how government planned to solve the Social Security and Medicare shortfalls. By denying the elderly critical, lifesaving medical procedures when they get sick, and making sure they sign living wills that will allows them to be euthanized when the doctor determines their conditions are terminal (old age is the number one terminal illness since you cannot recover from it), the social progressive bureaucrats are killing two birds with one stick—or should I say, with one morphine drip: they will [a] save the Social Security payments they would otherwise have to continue paying that individual, and [b] will end the need to cover the medical costs of this person. Instead, the family will receive a death benefit check for $250 and that person's SS#file will be closed.

Like the Gary Cooper character in Meet John Doe, hundreds of thousands of angry, frightened Americans, unhappy with a government that no longer listens to them, said: "I'm just a little punk. I don't count. What can I do? In the final analysis, the character of a country is made up of the sum total of the character of its little punks." Then the Cooper character, Long John Willoughby (John Doe), said: "We can't win the ball game if you don't have teamwork, and that's where every John Doe comes in."

Willoughby, or Doe, then said, "[We're] asking for a miracle. [We're] expecting people to change all of a sudden." And, on Sept. 12, 2009, that miracle happened. Close to two million people (which the liberal media tried hard to minimize by photographing sparsely populated areas around the Mall and claiming that's all the people that showed up) demanded that its government stop.

Two very bad pieces of legislation had already been rammed through Congress by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Presidential Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. A new, unified powerful voting group was born. The healthcare bill, enacted by both Houses of Congress was siting in Joint Conference waiting to be sent to the White House for Obama's signature. It stopped. Cap & Trade also stopped dead in its tracks. Like the John Does in Meet John Doe, the voters in liberal New Jersey dumped social progressive Gov. Jon Corzine who, three months earlier, had a safe election ahead of him, and elected Republican Chris Christie. In Virginia Republican Bob McDowell beat Democrat Creigh Deeds for the governorship. In what should have been a triple win, in New York, the PAC group, Club of Growth split the conservative vote after Obama appointed 9th term Republican John McHugh as Secretary of the Navy in order to open his seat. Seven Republicans ran for the seat: 23rd District was State Assemblywoman Dierdre Scozzafava, businessman Doug Hoffman; Dr. Ronald Uva, an OB-Gyn and four others ran for the nomination. Scozzafava won the nomination. Because she is pro-abortion, the Club for Growth put up a million dollars and backed Tea Party candidate Hoffman, splitting the conservative vote and handing the victory to the Democrat—Plattsburgh, NY attorney, Bill Owens.

In Massachusetts, the conservatives came together once again and cast their votes in unison for the Republican candidate, State Senator Scott Phillip Brown who took Teddy Kennedy's seat from liberal Massachusetts Attorney General. The US Senate seat Brown won had been held by a Kennedy or a Kennedy caretaker since 1952. In the most liberal State in the country, this was a powerful win for the people of the United States.

Former Bush-43 chief strategist Karl Rove wisely told USA Today that the "...Tea Party movement could have lasting influence in the nation's politics if it remains decentralized. But it will hurt Republicans if it backs third party candidates who siphon votes from the GOP candidates. There's a danger, particularly if [the Tea Party candidates] are used by political operatives to hijack elections." In Nevada, Jon Scott Ashjian—whom all of the Tea Party members queried by local media said they never heard in connection with any Tea Party group—formed a Tea Party coalition and is now running as a Tea Party third party candidate against Sen. Harry Reid.

Although he denies it, Ashjian appears to have been funded by agents of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to siphon votes from whichever GOP candidate gets the nomination. What is interesting is that the primaries have not run yet, and Ashjian could just as easily have registered as either a Republican or a Democrat. Clearly, if he wanted to unseat Reid, the best place to do it was during the primary when only a small percentage of voters come out to pick which candidate they want on the November ballot. When he was called by Mike Riggs of the Daily Caller, Ashjian said, "there is absolutely no truth to the rumor that Harry Reid is behind my campaign. I've never met Harry Reid, don't support Harry Reid. I run the opposite of Harry Reid." Riggs spoke with scores of Tea Party activists in Nevada. None of them have ever heard of Ashjian before he announced his candidacy. But, the IRS knows who he is.

Ashjian, a small business owner, owes the IRS more than $200 thousand in back taxes. In fact, the IRS has filed a lien on Ashjian's assets. Wonder if those taxes vanish if Reid wins reelection? Ashjian also has one bad check complaint against him. One of his companies, A&A Asphalt Paving Co. bounced a $981.00 bad check. Ashjian closed the company a month later. The contractors' board is about to revoke his paving license.

Removing Ashjian from the equation, Sue Lowden beats Reid hands down. Reid, however, is now telling the Nevada newspapers that he is confident that the voters of Nevada will return him to the US Senate since they approve of the job he is doing. When asked by the media about Ashjian, Lowden, the front runner in the race, said: "I am a Tea Party supporter, absolutely," adding that she found it a little strange that Ashjian is emerging now. "I don't know who this person is. He's never been involved with anything that I'm aware of in this State." A recent poll of likely Nevada voters shows that if the election was held today, Lowden wins with 42% of the vote, Reid takes 37% of the vote and Ashjian takes 9%. Twelve percent are undecided.. Before Ashjian announced his candidacy, Lowden had 59% of the vote locked.

In the New York election, the Republican would have won, taking one more seat from control of the Democrats had the Club of Growth kept its nose out of that election. Right now, the battle is a simple one. The political issue today is no more complicated than unseating Democrats of every stripe and replacing them with Republicans. Before we can fix Congress, we have to get control of it. We can't get control if we allow agendized PAC groups to back third party candidates who simply can't get elected. How do you stop them? When they ask you for money, throw their requests in the trash can.

If you recall, in New York, Doug Hoffman, the candidate Club for Growth backed, was one of seven candidates who sought the GOP nomination. He lost. Clearly, if he couldn't pull enough GOP votes in the primary, and only about 35% of the voters are GOP, he wouldn't have won if the Club of Growth threw $10 million into race. Even with a solid conservative resume, third party candidates simply can't be elected in a two-party system.

The chasm between the Obama Administration and the rest of America is wider than the deepest trough in the Mariana Trench and twice as deep. Sadly, Obama told America what he planned to do with their wealth if—or arrogantly, rather, when—he was elected (the bankers on both sides of the great divide, free enterprise and statist, were backing him, so he had no doubt he would win because as a non-US citizen, Obama had no ethical dilemma about destroying the United States economically, and surrendering the sovereignty of this nation to the UN as 185 countries dissolve into subservient states in a United World controlled by a Socialist parliament in the Hague that will represent the illicit marriage between the Old and New World Orders. The best man and maid of honor of the marriage of whores will be the Islamic world and China, who will be guests at the wedding feast but not partners in the marriage.

We, as voters in 2010, have one job: taking back Congress with enough of a GOP majority to impeach and remove Barack Ohama, impeach and remove about 100 social progressive judges, impeach and remove a whole big bunch of crooked politicians and, most of all, make the giving and taking of political contributions not only to candidates but to their national organizations a federal crime with mandatory prison sentences not only for those who give and take political contributions, but the corporate heads or special interest group board members who are putting up the money. Politicial contributions, in any amount, even $1, from any organization that will likely gain financially from the giving must be legally defined as a bribe. Since those bribes have the potential to impact 300 million people, the sentence for giving or receiving such a bribe must fit the crime. In my view, life in prison without hope of parole or presidentidal or gubernatoral pardon is an appropriate sentence.

 

 

 

 

Just Say No
Copyright 2009 Jon Christian Ryter.
All rights reserved
.