What was once extreme is now mainstream to the mainstream media

There’s one piece of advice I’ve given my kids that I hope sticks with them throughout their lives.  Don’t let anyone else define you.  That may sound like odd advice given all the other pearls of wisdom a father can give his children but if people are allowed to define you then they’re allowed to control you.

That’s basically what’s happened to the tea party movement.  The mainstream media have defined the tea party as some extremist movement along the lines of the KKK.  In fact, the hopelessly leftist Southern Poverty Law Center has designated Tea Party Nation as a hate group.  You see, anyone or anything that opposes the socialist/leftist agenda is considered a hate group.  Yours truly was, at one point, designated a “hate speaker” by the Southern Poverty Law Center for my opposition to amnesty for illegal aliens.  I, of course, don’t allow anyone to define me, least of all a bunch of pathetic liberals like the SPLC.

So, what is so hateful about the tea party?  Understand that the tea party is not a party, it’s a movement.  It’s a movement like civil rights was a movement.  The civil rights movement had some obvious goals; among them equal public access for blacks and elimination of discrimination in hiring and admissions to universities, not to mention desegregation of public schools.

The tea party movement has goals, too.  Among them are fiscal responsibility, a constitutionally limited government and free market economics unencumbered by government over-regulation.  In fact, if you’ll read the founding documents you’ll understand

exactly what the tea party movement is all about.  Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and Ben Franklin, were they alive today, would be part of the tea party movement.  They were the original tea partiers but somehow that’s too radical for today’s political landscape.

That’s because the political landscape has been warped into something our founding fathers would scarcely recognize.  The amount of debt we’ve accumulated as a country would, no doubt, frighten our founders.  The bounds to which our constitutionally limited government have been stretched would probably infuriate the founders to the point they would insist we dissolve this republic experiment.  In fact, they fought a war over far less intrusive and restrictive government.

And the free market is now anything but.  Wall Street, like a heroine addict, is now dependent on the slow drip of smack coming from the federal reserve in the way of quantitative easing.  People assume that what’s best for Wall Street is best for the country forgetting that Wall Street is a whore and doesn’t really care if the infusion of cash is coming from a Twitter IPO, the fed chairman or the federal government.  That doesn’t mean that capitalism has failed.  It simply means the free market is no longer free.  The “free” part means free from outside manipulation.  

So, when the government is controlling the market it’s no longer capitalism but socialism or worse.  Many folks, including our current president, don’t like our country as currently constituted.  They feel if they can just change it - i.e.: do something about this pesky capitalism - it’ll be a great place.

These people need to understand one thing.  Capitalism and the United States are joined at the hip.  If you are anti-capitalist you are, by definition, anti-American.  To say that America would be a great place if we could only do away with the free market system is to miss what this country is all about.

When someone says they despise the tea party that should tell you all you need to know about them.

Phil Valentine is the host of the award-winning, nationally syndicated talk radio show, The Phil Valentine Show.

What is a statesman?

What is a statesman?  It’s a rather subjective question.  It depends on who you ask.  I’ve seen lists.  Some are compiled by historians, some are gathered from polls.  Here are some names that seem to pop up over and over.  Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Winston Churchill, even Al Gore.  What is the one thing that threads all of these names together?  They were all deeply divisive and partisan.

The John McCain’s of the world today seem to think that statesmen are molded through compromise and bipartisanship.  The fact is a true statesman stands for something, whether it’s popular at the time or not.  A true statesman sticks to his or her guns.  They are unwavering in their dedication to their cause.  They are unapologetic for their stand.  Whether you agree with them or not you always – and I mean always – know where they stand.  There’s no shifting sand under their feet.  There’s no hint of compromise on basic, bedrock principles.  They stand for something and they stand firm.

Today’s politicians believe if they can just get invited to the next cocktail party held by a prominent member of the other party they’ll be regarded as a statesman.  What they don’t realize is no one at the

party thinks better of them just because they’ve extended a hand across the aisle.  Moving to the middle is behavior of someone who wants to be liked, not someone who wants to be right.  There’s nothing in the middle of the road but road kill.  No one respects a capitulator, least of all the one to whom he has capitulated. 

The tea party movement is full of uncompromising people who long for a country that hasn’t forgotten its roots.  They read the Constitution as almost a sacred text, an inspired agreement between our original states that lays out the boundaries of government.  These boundaries were long ago breached by those who deemed the population too simple-minded to possibly take care of itself.

People like John McCain hold the tea party movement in contempt.  He believes the “rancor,” a word McCain is so fond of using, is destructive to our nation.  He believes that those who will not go along to get along are obstructionists who stand in the way of duly elected majorities.  He fails to understand the role of the loyal opposition to constantly push back against things with which they disagree.  Nor does he realize that the very reason he was invited to the White House to talk compromise with the president was because of the tea party, not in spite of it.  Had people like Ted Cruz – a true statesman – not fought back against the establishment the rubber stamp RINO Republicans like McCain would’ve have stepped aside to allow the Democrat steamroller to do its thing.

John Boehner in the House is hardly any better.  Sure, he has surprised some by his steadfast position in the sequester fight and later the budget fight but Boehner has been operating from a position of fear.  He doesn’t consider himself part of the tea party movement.  Any chance given to talk about it he refers to it as “them” and “they.”  He simply found himself in a position where the more conservative factions of his caucus could possibly drum him out as speaker had he not listened to reason.

At the end of the day there is nothing noble in foisting more debt and socialized medicine on the American people nor is it any nobler to have put up a good fight only to cave in the end.

Phil Valentine is the host of the award-winning, nationally syndicated talk radio show, The Phil Valentine Show.