Thanks to the mainstream media, and their ridiculous uproar over, and mocking of, the recent tea parties, we've got a new meaning for an old phrase. "Tea bagging" is a term for a dirty sexual act. I won't define it here, if you really need to know what it is, use google. Now however, tea bagging also apparently means someone who believes in the constitution. It refers to someone who believes in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Tea baggers, or people who have attended the tea parties, are people who feel government is too big, is spending too much money and has far overstepped it's bounds. We're people who care too damn much about this country to sit back and watch it fall to pieces. As citizens, we have the first amendment right to free speech and peaceable assembly, and we chose and will continue to choose, to exercise those rights, as well as the rest guaranteed to us by the constitution.
I realize that the concept of peaceable assembly, where large groups of people come together to make their views known, seems like a foreign concept. For far too long, the silent majority has sat back and watched as extremists and talking heads have encouraged the spewing of hate and fear mongering. Finally, we have reached the threshold of what we can and will tolerate. Tea parties across the country, most organized by small groups of citizens looking to make a difference, were seemingly more than some could comprehend. There was no violence, just citizens united, each wanting to make their voices heard. In that regard, it was a success. The very fact that certain tasteless, tactless people have felt the need to attach what they view as a rude and obscene gesture to the movement tells me it had an impact. I urge you to not let them discourage you, as we continue to take a stand in rectifying the grave issues with which our country is faced. Our work is not done, but together, we can make a difference. I plan to continue the job started by the tea parties... I guess that makes me a proud tea bagger. Are you?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
"The pursuit of happiness" implies the right to own property and wealth and be a tax payer. I suppose people could just lead less productive lives and give enough to tax deductible charities as to not actually being paying taxes, but the end effect is the same.
"The pursuit of happiness" implies the right to make decisions that allow you to pursue happiness. People should be allowed to live productive lives without fear of government intervention. They should also be allowed to choose where they "donate" their money. Many of the "charitable endeavors" the government supports are not things that I, or many others support. We shouldn't be paying taxes to support charities, we should be allowed to choose where we wish to donate our money (and time). If certain people decide to donate to charities strictly for a tax write-off, then good for the charities! The end effect is not the same, because we are controlling what happens with our money, rather than having it dictated to us how it will be spent.
Pursuit of happiness is being a tax payer...Huh, did I miss something???
Yes, some taxation is needed for the essential needs of the Government, but not the "spreading around of wealth", which is what it has become...
It is time to start punishing laziness and not achievement.
Call me what you will, I will still stand for the Constitution as it is written.
The left's vulgarity is simply their way of confessing their intellectual bankruptcy. I get a good laugh out of folks like Janeane Garofalo and David Letterman displaying their vile ignorance for all to see.
When "the pursuit of happiness" was written, only rich white men could own property and only property owners had rights, including voting and paying taxes. The Constitution "as it is written" didn't acknowledge women or non-whites as "people" for two hundred years.
Donate enough to a charity of your choice to manipulate your taxable income so you're only paying an individual's share for the essentials you approve of.
America, love it or leave it.
Obviously a lot was different with the world when the declaration and constitution were written. That doesn't make them obsolete. There is no reason, and nothing in either document as they currently stand to prevent any citizen of this great land to pursue happiness.
I guess my definition of pursuing happiness just doesn't involve the government redistributing wealth.
Two points I'd like to add:
1. the pursuit of happiness was a compromise phrase by the Founders. Originally Jefferson wrote "property". But others in the convention thought a change to pursuit of happiness would have a wider context to include the ideas of religious freedom, the free will of individuals as well as the ability to gain property without government (read "the King's Royal) consent. Reading Jefferson's autobiography may provide for a little more insight in the phrasing of the Declaration.....
2. Don't worry about the ad hominem responses from the left, or even the members of the right that just don't get it. I recall hearing Ann Coulter being asked why she didn't get upset by the many personal attacks she receives. Her response was along the lines of: when they attack me, I've won the argument. They have nothing left to say and are only revealing the weakness of their argument.
I wish I could find the exact quote, but I recall seeing it on one of the talking head programs a few years back. Anyway, it has stuck with me and I find it to be very useful in tempering my own frustration over the nonsense responses we read and hear from the left.
Thanks Bugsdaddy, I'll have to find a copy of Jefferson's autobiography and read it soon. Also, thanks for the perspective. That is something I try to keep in mind, although it's not always easy!
Post a Comment