As for some of the myths from some of the usual suspects, here is one example from a well-known ex-president and perjurer, Bill Clinton:
"What we learned from Oklahoma City is not that we should gag each other or that we should reduce our passion for the positions we hold - but that the words we use really do matter, because there's this vast echo chamber, and they go across space and they fall on the serious and the delirious alike. They fall on the connected and the unhinged alike," he said.
"One of the things that the conservatives have always brought to the table in America is a reminder that no law can replace personal responsibility. And the more power you have and the more influence you have, the more responsibility you have."
So let me see if I can get this straight. He who has power also has influence, right? If that is the case, I guess it means he has some element of responsibility to pick and choose his words wisely. So far so good, right? But what about those on the left who aren't picking and choosing their words very well?
Here is a bright shining example. This time, it comes from some young unknown upstart hack:
The Tea Partiers aren’t too fond of racial underdogs either. They’re more likely than other Americans to believe that the Obama administration favors blacks over whites, and that black people’s hardships have been exaggerated. America does have a history of right-wing, often racist, populism. Segregationist Alabama Governor George Wallace called his party the Populists in 1968. But at least Wallace’s economic views were reasonably progressive. The Tea Partiers favor the economically and racially privileged.
How anyone could tie Tea Partiers to George Wallace and keep a straight face, is way beyond me. The Tea Party gathering I just attended in Indianapolis (on the Capital grounds) had black people speaking to an energized, but civil, crowd. No one engaged in racist speech at all. No one advocated anything like Wallace did, there were no calls to deny black people anything.
If there had been, you could bet that no black person would have stuck around until then very end.
No, these were merely people who are concerned about the state of their country and do not support what has been going on. Some of them just happened to be black. Not as many as I would have liked to have seen, but I understand the pressure that is being put on blacks by the radical left.
Even at that, this is not the best myth to come out of this weak and faulty piece of journalism. Let's look at this one:
The Tea Partiers aren’t standing up for the little guy; they’re standing up to the little guy.
Makes me laugh, how about you?
This is how it is. The Tea Partiers stick up for the WORKING people, those who pay their bills and taxes. These are the ones who get up everyday, drag their asses to work and put in long hours. It is they who earn the money necessary, so the government can tax it.
Elected officials could not spend like they do, if it weren't for the bill payer and the tax payer. In fact, we now know that almost half of the people in this country pay no taxes at all, which makes them recipients of collected money, after the government has taken their cut for their own self-serving purposes.
So, if you want to paint the Tea Partiers as being in the upper echelons of wage earners, I find nothing wrong with it. Where these myth-makers go astray is to suggest that we are the upper crust of society who are loaded with money. They screw up even worse, when they believe that our opinions are not valid.
Do we not have rights? Do we not have the right to demand those rights be respected? Do we not have the right to speak out when we feel those rights are being violated?
Why should we be required to keep paying more of our hard-earned money to lazy bums who are capable of working, but won't? I know not all recipients are in this category, but a good many are.
They won't work because the government will pay them to sit at home, deal drugs, work under the table like an illegal immigrant, and basically contribute nothing of any value to the country. And they honestly think it is alright to do so.
How can any progressive reconcile this mentality, with any sense of true justice?
If that isn't clear enough, let me be plain. Let's break it down in idiot's terms and examine it closer, shall we?
Myth #1 - Tea Partiers are tied to domestic terrorists.
Q. What did Tim McVeigh's agenda have to do with over-spending and high taxes?
By his own admission, it had everything to do with an overzealous government who chose to go into a situation with guns blazing, when there was no need to do so.
Myth #2 - Tea Partiers are racist.
Q. If you believe this, why are there blacks at almost every large Tea Party gathering?
A. Because a lot of them are bill/tax payers and do not like the way the government is handling their tax dollars. These are they who do NOT factor race into their ideology, in any way whatsoever. I suspect there are more who would attend if they could. but many may have had to work and many may have felt intimidated by the radical left.
Myth #3 - Tea Partiers are greedy people who want to keep the little people down.
Some may be greedy to a fault. I don't know every last one of them, so I cannot say for sure who is and who isn't.
But I saw no one pulling up in limos, there was no preferential seating for large donors. Everything at Tea Party rallies is first come, first serve. I saw a lot of retired people who have paid their dues and are now living on fixed incomes. I saw a lot working stiffs like me who were tired after a long day, and yet made it anyway. I saw young, old, and middle aged. The one thing that united all of the people was a genuine concern about the direction the nation is being driven, by deceitful and manipulative leaders.
After all of these queries I have posed here today, there only remains one intelligent question left to ask.
If the Tea Party Movement is not a relevant force, why are so many progressives scared of them and seek to demonize them -- in place of a debate about the issues? What could they possibly be afraid of, that they would stoop to such a low level of behavior?