Studying for The Bar: Will Be Back Soon!

I'm studying for the California Bar exam! I'll be back in August!

Comedy Central: Some Religious Bashing Is More Equal Than Others

Comedy Central likes to brag about how edgy and hip their network is. After all they have two of the most watched tv "news-entertainment" programs in the country (Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert) and one of the most popular animated shows ever (South Park). Comedy Central loves to show how good they are by having most of their shows insult normal Americans, religion and scream out curse words repeatedly. South Park ironically is the exception not because it doesn't do any of the first three but that it targets everyone equally.

Well clearly Comedy Central is showing some groups are just not cool to target.

Back in 2007 South Park decided to make fun of the Mohammad Cartoons violence, Comedy central decided that's just not acceptable, and censored it last minute. They then came out with a statement which at least was honest; they were afraid of the death threats and violence and censored the show under the noses of Trey Parker and Matt Stone.

In 2010 South Park decided to include Mohammad in a show to celebrate South Park's 200th episode. The main characters did very well in showing just how ridiculous the hysteria was about showing Mohammad by having him in a bear suit throughout the first part. And then the hammer dropped from Comedy Central; in the second part Comedy Central decided not only to censor the image of Mohammad but to censor every single reference to Mohammad, including a last speech by Kyle where Mohammad's name wasn't mentioned but was instead a speech about standing up for free speech. The delicious irony in that notwithstanding, Comedy Central showed that their commitment to free speech wasn't even skin deep. Any threat or any group labeled "protected" (which was ironically the point of the Mohammad part of the show), especially ones with members who have shown a constant desire to kill anyone who suggests they are not peaceful. Simply put, Comedy Central has shown that they lost their balls at the first sign of violence or threats.

But hey man, Comedy Central is hip, it's edgy, it believes in free speech man!

In a vague attempt to show that not only do they believe in free speech and that there are no sacred cows, Comedy Central is creating a show dedicated to......making fun of Jesus Christ. They already had Sarah Silverman on for years making fun of Jews in insulting ways, so making fun of Jesus, which is how cowardly free speech advocates show that they believe in free speech, seems like no big deal.

And then there's this.

Is this supposed to be funny? A Jew producer opponent, a shadowy hooked nosed main boss, and a robot named Israel killing characters off - I'm sorry did Comedy Central run out of Jewish money lenders to make fun of? From what I've reviewed, the show Drawn together has a character entitled "Jew Producer" who has a JAP wife (see link for explanation) and runs/controls the show. This I guess is supposed to be funny because it's Jews making fun of Jews - I think it's a pathetic stereotype. But hey man its Jews making fun of Jews, that makes it kosher right?

But then to have a robot called ISRAEL run by a guy who clearly looks like something out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion attack the characters of the show, what is the impression your supposed to get if your just playing the game? That Jews and ISRAEL are out there to harm people and ruin things. If the whole point is that the ISRAEL robot is killing off the characters of the show the person likes, is someone supposed to believe that ISRAEL is a good thing then? And the guy pulling "Jew Producers" string looks like an amalgamation of Jewish stereotypes dating back hundreds of years (powerful, hooked nose, in the shadows, sends people off to do his dirty work, all that's missing is the kippah).

Comedy Central has decided that while it can't make fun of a group of people who will go out and kill those who offend them, it can make fun of two groups that won't come after them with a bomb or a knife. How brave of them. I don't know what would possess them to do this other then a pathetic attempt to prove that they are still hip and believe in free speech after they showed the world that they have no guts or spine of any kind. That entire network should be ashamed of itself not only for this but the pathetic double standard it has created.

How Mike Huckabee Operates: Passive-Aggressive Politician

How Mike Huckabee operates is very easy to identify. 

He is a politician who employs a passive aggressive strategy against anyone he opposes and is very aggressive rather than passive in his strategy. I wrote in a previous blog how he used this strategy to attack Mitt Romney's religion in the 2008 Presidential election.

I feel vindicated in my analysis of Mike Huckabee.

He is now starting to play the same game against a potential 2012 competitor; Sarah Palin. Vanity Fair wrote a short little piece about Huckabee's support for Chuck DeVore and correctly called the endorsement for what it is: "Mike Huckabee Takes “Passive-Aggressive” Swipe at Sarah Palin."

Last week, Sarah Palin’s constituents (her Facebook friends) were very upset that Palin endorsed Carly Fiorina over Tea Party favorite Chuck DeVore in the California senate race. Level-headed comments of rational dissent followed. “Mrs. Palin, While I have been a fan, supporter, reader, and defender of yours, you could not be MORE WRONG about Fiorina! She is 100% RHINO! She put an R by her name for this race, Period! Chuck DeVore is the ONLY REAGAN CONSERVATIVE IN THE RACE. I live here and I know! If you chose her because she's a women, and based on your book I doubt it, then that was a mistake!” for example.

Mike Huckabee, who’s well poised to run (possibly against Palin) for president in 2012, responded to the ensuing controversy by supporting Chuck DeVore in as conspicuously garish a fashion as possible. First, Huckabee changed his Facebook status to say something about how much he loves DeVore, and now Huckabee’s Twitter background is a picture of DeVore and some winning blurbs about why DeVore is just the best. (Ben Smith calls this “passive-aggressive”!) Huckabee will need to use his Twitter in this way if he’s going to convince a bunch of disorganized anti-government protesters to elect him to said government, in 2012.

This isn't the first time Mike Huckabee went after Sarah Palin in a passive aggressive way. In fact, that's how he goes after everybody he doesn't like.

Exit Question:Will voters tolerate this kind of behavior in 2012?

Morgan Hill and the Failure of Cultural Assimilation

The issue at hand is not the flying of Mexican flags on Cinco de Mayo, at least its not to me. Pride in your cultural heritage can be displayed by waiving a flag of another country without issue. I've seen it happen lots of times during St. Patricks day marches and even on Columbus days or (if you've ever been to New York) on numerous Italian Saints days. I've seen Maori celebrations that waive either New Zealand flags or Maori symbols on flags, I've seen Indian cultural days where the banner of India is flown proudly. Even on Israeli Independence day you'll find American Jews (many of whom are not Israeli) waiving Israeli flags. Flags by themselves are not a sign of a lack of assimilation or respect for one's home country.

The issue is the affect the American Flag has on the cultural celebrators. Back again to the Israeli Independence Day celebration - if I wore an American flag t-shirt to that celebration, no one would care. In fact I saw American flags at those celebrations and even heard the Star Spangled Banner played to open the festivities. The celebration was devoted to Israeli culture but those who attended did not forget who they were and where was their home. I saw plenty of American flags during St. Patricks day parades, some during the Italian saints festivals and during all the other cultural festivals. The message was the same; we honor our heritage but we don't forget who we are and where we live. That's what is called Assimilation - not forgetting your heritage but also integrating yourself into the country you live.

Now take the brats at Morgan Hill (please); it can be rightly assumed that many of these kids are born in the United States and are therefore American citizens. These children are blessed with something their families desperately wanted, the chance to live and work here without being deported to Mexico. Just by their being born they are given benefits that thousands of people have strove for years to get and something their parents risked life and limb to achieve (please no immigration debate now). But as second generation Americans they should be allowed to be proud of their heritage, no different then many of the first wave of Irish, Italian, German, Chinese, etc immigrants who came here.

But their school's response to other boys wearing American flags was to be outraged and then, after being made to feel like victims by their moronic principal, to go out and scream that they were offended. It got to the point that prior to the boys being reinstated in school that the principal demanded that the American flag wearing boys be made to apologize to the Mexican students for offending them. The principal also stated that "Cinco de Mayo is not the day to show Patriotism". Ignoring the idiocy of that statement, please return to the previous celebrations I mentioned above - American flags are either part of the celebration themselves or shown without incident (at minimum). Why? Because pride in cultural heritage can be shown at the same time as pride in your national identity. To these brats and their moronic principal, such can't be allowed. Why? Because many of these brats don't have an American identity to begin with. It goes to such a point that not only are they offended by American flags but are repulsed by them to the point of trying to strike them down.

And I blame this crap directly on the principal and the school system. We have been such a multi-culturalist society that we have forgotten to teach children that they are Americans and they should take pride in such. But when kids are taught constantly in their schools about how America is an evil imperialist hate filled society formed by rich evil white slave owners and are taught that as minorities they have a right to feel aggrieved at every turn, is anyone surprised they don't think of themselves as Americans? Is anyone surprised as well that they think they have a right not to have themselves "offended"? Even when forced to apologize for his mistakes, the principal has the gaul to state that this was mostly the doing of bloggers and sensationalist media who mis-interpreted the situation.

This is made worse when you consider that many of them are not taught the history of the Mexican-American War which lets them think this is nothing but stolen territory when in fact it was acquired and then paid for when the American Army invaded and captured....Mexico City. Surprise, not only did we give the Mexican government most of its country back but we paid them $10 million for the territory we won in battle. What was to have stopped us back them from saying "Screw you all, we captured Mexico City, we're adding a dozen or so new states to the American flag"? Nothing. And then we paid Mexico for another strip of land that now makes up the borders of Mexico with Arizona and New Mexico (Gasden Purchase, wikipedia it).

This isn't limited to these brats, look back at most May Day immigration protests from 2007, 2008 and now. The majority of American flags are held by those counter demonstrating the illegal immigrant protesters, many of whom are waiving not American flags but Mexican, Guatemalan, El Salvadorian, etc flags. While some illegal immigrant protesters do indeed waive American flags, its a small number. How many members of groups like La Raza and MECHa speak of this land as stolen land or the creation of a new nation of Aztlan within the south-western United States? Assuming many of them are actual US Citizens, do they bother to read their own history, instead content with a bastardized version to fit their sensibilities, or do they not care in the first place?

Without getting into too much of the immigration debate what Morgan Hill shows, besides the stupidity of some of our youth, is that we have as much of an assimilation problem as we do an immigration problem. One is tied into the other because with the increase in illegal immigration, we have a bigger group of individuals who do not assimilate to American customs, who have produced children who feel no attachment to the country their families strove to come to. This is compared to hundreds of LEGAL immigrants who come here to live and work and who become assimilated into our melting pot. When combined with a school system that feeds their grievances and specifically targets against forming any sort of American identity, we are quickly on the way to losing what makes a nation a nation (borders, language and culture). And if this doesn't stop soon, within a few generations, we could be in for a major problem.

Bill Bennett Ousted. What Happened In Utah!?

The handwriting was on the wall for Senator Bob Bennett of Utah. His loss at the Utah GOP convention was not a surprise for anyone who was keeping track of the Utah Senate race. The Salt Lake Tribune released a poll on April 27, 2010 that showed that the Senator was in real danger of losing his seat: 

A new Salt Lake Tribune poll of Republican delegates shows Bennett running in third, behind GOP challengers Mike Lee and Tim Bridgewater. Lee logged 37 percent support in the survey, while Bridgewater came in at 20 percent, and Bennett lagged at 16 percent.

Bill Bennett was tossed out by angry conservatives and TEA party members who felt that he wasn't conservative enough to remain in office and that they are fiercely anti-incumbent. Thus, the Senator's voting record and his18 years of representing the state of Utah just painted a big target on his back. There was no way for him to avoid defeat despite spending $2.8 million and getting Mitt Romney's endorsement. 

It was a futile attempt to get reelected.   

Interestingly enough, while the people of Utah may be angry with Bill Bennett, they still like Mitt Romney. Not surprisingly, a recent poll shows Mitt Romney would crush Obama in 2012 in Utah by a huge margin: Romney 73% vs. Obama 22%.

The Truth Behind The Costs Of RomneyCare

In the national discussion on health care, the issue of cost is bound to come up. The idea of an individual mandate  has always been a controversial issue among conservatives and liberals. It is even controversial among conservatives as well.

The History of Individual Mandates 

In order to understand the current debate on the cost of individual mandates,  one has to understand that some conservatives supported that idea as an alternative to Hilliary Clinton's health care plan for the United States. It was the conservative think tank, Heritage Foundation who came up with the idea. Not all conservatives at the time liked it. The Cato Institute wasn't thrilled with the idea of individual mandates.

Yet, when Obama presented incorporated individual mandates into plan, it brought on universal opposition from conservatives. This has lead some people to believe that conservatives are flip flopping on the issue of individual mandates since they supported it in their opposition to HilliaryCare and are now opposed to RomneyCare, despite the fact that it was based on ideas presented by the Heritage Institute, in order to appear consistent in their opposition to ObamaCare.

While some conservatives are flip flopping on the issue of individual mandates, Mitt Romney opposed HillaryCare for the same reasons he opposed ObamaCare and encouraged the President not to rush the plan into law. Its the same reason Romney is calling for its repeal; each state should have the ability to craft a health care based on the circumstances that are unique to each state. This idea is known as federalism. Thus, the former Governor of Massachusetts has been consistent on his position of health care and individual mandates.

It should be noted that Mitt Romney has never, ever, supported the idea federal mandates. Just because Obama borrowed the idea from the conservative play book during their opposition to HilliaryCare or used  RomneyCare as a template for ObamaCare doesn't mean Obama ever had Romney's blessing or support. Here is Mitt Romney explaining that Obama had never reached out to him for advice: 

"He never gave me a call. Neither he nor any of his colleagues [gave me] a call to ask what worked and did not work, and how would they improve upon it and so forth. If what was done at the state level, they applied at the federal level, they made a mistake. It was not designed for the nation."  (Source)

Furthermore, just because a former employee of Mitt Romney's administration has been hired by the Obama Administration does not mean that it is evidence that Romney supports ObamaCare or that his plan is similar to Obama's. Moreover, it is not proof that Romney even approves of this man's decision to work for the Obama administration. Mitt has no control over how his former employees choose to peruse their careers. He is free to find whatever employment he likes. 

The Current Debate Over The Cost RomneyCare

In the current debate over national health care, many people think that we cannot afford ObamaCare and will point to RomneyCare as evidence of their claim.Those who argue against ObamaCare are partially right about what has happened in Massachusetts. America cannot afford nationalized health care.

Yet they are accusing the wrong man for why Massachusetts why is in financial trouble. Mitt Romney is not responsible for the rising cost of health care in Massachusetts.

A Brief Financial History of The Romney Administration (2003-2007): 

Before Romney unveiled RomneyCare to Massachusetts, he first had to make sure that the state was financially stable enough launch his ambitious health care plan. Getting the state in financial shape was a priority for him because when Mitt entered into office in 2003, he was a left with a massive deficit of approximately $3 billion.

However, Mitt Romney was able to balance the state budget for each year of his administration and got the state out of debt by implementing a mixture of aggressive reduction in the size and cost of government along with bold strategies to spur economic growth.

By 2005, Mitt Romney had a budget surplus of $1 billion and by the time he left office in 2007, he left the state had a $ 2 billion surplus.(Source) In contrast, President Obama did not work to make sure that America was in good financial shape before enacting ObamaCare. He simple went full spead ahead with his health care plan.

Having a budget surplus of $1 billion in 2005 allowed Mitt Romney to confidently to unveil his health care plan in 2006.When Mitt Romney introduced his health care plan on Beacon Hill, he made sure that his proposal wouldn't undermine all his hard work of whipping the state into financial shape. Thus, when his plan was presented, it was estimated to cost less than 1.5% of the state budget. (Source)

RomneyCare could not pass through the democratically controlled state legislature untouched. The democrats inserted eight additional items that made the health care proposal more expensive than Mitt Romney wanted. For example: 

Massachusetts mandates which medical coverage must be included in each insurance policy, including such things as an unlimited number of in vitro fertilization treatments. That inflates costs for everyone. And Massachusetts applies a $295 annual fee on employers for each uninsured employee, which has hurt the business climate in our state. Then-Gov. Mitt Romney's objection to both these measures was overridden by Democrats in the legislature. (Source.)

As explained in a previous post, these two amendments, along with the other six were vetoed by Mitt Romney. Yet the democrats overrode these vetoes. Romney tried to prevent from having extraneous costs inserted to his plan but he lost. That's how legislatives battles go. After unsuccessfully attempting to keep the democrats from modifying his original health care plan, he signed the health legislation on April 12, 2006. As explained before, when Governor Mitt Romney left office in 2007, the state had a $2 billion surplus.

If you just look at RomneyCare on its own, its was doing well. In 2009, Mitt Romney explained that

"When our bill passed three years ago, the legislature projected that our program would cost $725 million in 2009. At $723 million, next year's forecast is pretty much on target. When you calculate all the savings, including that from the free hospital care we eliminated, the net cost to the state is approximately $350 million." (Source)

 Discord Among Conservatives On Cost Of RomneyCare

Despite the impressive record of pulling Massachusetts out of a $3 billion debt, leaving the state with a $2 billion surplus while creating a state health care plan at the same time that was and still is financially stable, not all conservatives are united in their support for RomneyCare when it comes to the issue of cost.

For example, the Cato Insitute is not a fan of it. 

The Club for Growth has flipped flopped in their support for RomneyCare. They used to support it: 

"Governor Romney Deserves Credit For Proposing A Plan That Encourages Individually-Owned Health Insurance..." "Given these limitations, Governor Romney deserves credit for proposing (and to a lesser extent, enacting) a plan that encourages individually-owned health insurance and circumvents some of the inequities carved into the federal tax code." (The Club For Growth, "Mitt Romney's Record On Economic Issues," Press Release, 8/21/2007)

Now Club for Growth is against it. 

Yet, The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation likes it and published a report titled the "Massachusetts Health Reform: The Myth of Uncontrollable Costs." There are several fan over at the Heritage Institute such as Robert Moffit, Ph.D., and Edmund Haislmaier. 

Thus, individual mandates gets conservative support depending on who you ask. The same was true when conservatives were debating the merits of individual mandates during the national debates over HilliaryCare.

What do Massachusetts Think of RomneyCare?

Whether conservative think tanks support or oppose RomneyCare isn't important. What is important is whether or not the citizens themselves like RomneyCare. A poll in 2008 found this: 

Two years after the implementation of a health care reform law aimed at providing health coverage for nearly all Massachusetts residents, public support for the law remains high.

According to a new poll by the Harvard School of Public Health and the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation, over two-thirds (69%) of Massachusetts residents support the law. Just over one in five (22%) oppose the law and approximately one in ten (9%) say they do not know enough about it to give an opinion. Since the law's passage in 2006, public support has increased slightly (69% in 2008 compared to 67% in 2007 and 61% in 2006)

Other signs of public support for the law include the following:

• 77% support providing subsidized coverage
• 58% support requiring individuals to have insurance
• 71% say the law has been successful at reducing the number of uninsured in Massachusetts  

Source.

Two years later in 2010, another independent poll found that the people of Massachusetts continue to like Romney's health care plan:

A poll conducted this week by The Washington Post of 880 Massachusetts residents who said they voted in the special election found that 68 percent support the Massachusetts plan. Even among Brown voters, slightly more than half backed the 2006 law. (Source.)

The Truth About The Cost Of RomneyCare

If Mitt Romney's leadership or his health Care plan is not the cause for the current financial crisis in Massachusetts, what is the cause then? It boils down to two things: 

1) The down turn in the economy is hurting the state's ability to collect taxes:

Massachusetts, like other states, has grappled with more than two years of declining revenue as a result of the global economic downturn, which prompted Governor Deval Patrick to make midyear budget cuts four times last fiscal year and once already this year, in October.

2) The Democrats have mismanaged the Commonwealth:

Republican gubernatorial candidate Charles D. Baker Jr., who served as budget chief in the Weld and Cellucci administrations, released a statement yesterday calling the shortfall “just another example of Deval Patrick and Tim Cahill’s fundamental incompetence when it comes to the Commonwealth’s budget.’’

Cahill, the state treasurer, is an independent candidate for governor.

“In the face of the worst economic times since Governor Dukakis, their failure is intolerable,’’ Baker said. “Our state’s budget should be the top priority for the governor and the treasurer, yet time and time again unanticipated spending and rising costs catch both of them off guard.

“Their lack of leadership on the budgetary process is unacceptable, and the taxpayers and business owners of Massachusetts deserve better,’’ he said

3) Another  Health Care Program Unrelated to RomneyCare Is The Problem

Steven C. Panagiotakos, a Lowell Democrat and Senate chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, agreed with Gonzalez that the cost of the state’s universal health care law is unrelated to the latest budget crisis.

He said the latest shortfall is being driven by between $150 million and $200 million in rising costs for MassHealth, a program that predates the universal health care law.

The huge MassHealth program, 60 percent of which is paid for by the federal government, costs the state about $10 billion out of its $27 billion annual budget.

“For us to really control our budget, we have to be able to stabilize MassHealth expenditures,’’ Panagiotakos said. “It’s a huge chunk of our state revenues.’’

Source for #1-3.

It clear that RomneyCare is unrelated to the state’s budgetary problems. The source of the problem appears to be a program called MassHealth which was created long before RomneyCare was ever invented. 

Michael J. Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation confirms this fact. He explains that RomneyCare has nothing to do with Massachusetts current financial crisis:

According to the administration, tax revenues have fallen $2 billion below the amounts the fiscal 2009 budget was built upon. And the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, a left-leaning budget think tank, says the problem has been compounded by permanent tax cuts put in place during the late 1990s.

Adding to these financial woes is an increase in the number of people relying on unemployment benefits as the result of losing their jobs, said Alan Sager, a professor of health policy and management at Boston University.  "The state would be facing a deficit no matter what," Sager said.

So, while the state may be broke, it has little to do with the health care program Mitt Romney put in place over three years ago. Instead, tax revenue shortfalls and a growing reliance on unemployment benefits due to layoffs have put a massive budget burden on the state

(Source.)

Conclusion

The facts are unalterable. Romney was a fiscial conservative who was able to balance the state budgets for every year of his single term as governor. He cut taxes, reduced spending and was able to create a financially sound health care plan in one of the most liberal states in America.

If Massachusetts is having  financial problems four years after Romney left them with a rainy day fund surplus of $2 billion, then facts lead us to conclude that it has something to do with the democratic leadership that is there currently. But we don't need to make any inferences about what has happened in that state. The evidence clearly demonstrate that the current problems in Massachusetts are due to the fact that the Democrats are not managing Mitt Romney's health care plan the way it was originally intended. 

Therefore, we can hardly blame Mitt Rommey or RomneyCare for the current problems. The problems lies completely with the Democrats who squandered the $2 billion surplus.

What Is The Future of The T.E.A. Party Movement?

A lot of attention has been given to the T.E.A. party recently in the media as a result of the current debate over health care reform, the 2010 midterm elections and the influence this group has on politics today as well as in the future.

Who Are The T.E.A. Partiers? 

One would think that this group of people are easy to understand. People are angry with our government because it is creating debt at an unprecedented rate while ushering in a new era of unprecedented government expansion into the daily lives of Americans. And who is financing all of this? The American taxpayer. And who will be forced to suffer the consequences of the poor decisions made by our elected representatives? The American taxpayer.

Yet, despite all the media coverage about the T.E.A party movement, it is still an enigma to members of the general public. As CNN points out, "the Tea Party movement, now in its 14th month, is not well-known to nearly half the country. Forty five percent of all Americans say they do not know enough about the Tea Party to say whether they support it or oppose it. Those who are familiar with the movement are divided right down the middle - 27 percent support the Tea Party movement, and 27 percent oppose it." (Source.)

This movement, is only in its infancy. But its growing:

"the number of people who say they’re part of the Tea Party Movement nationally has grown to 24%. That’s up from 16% a month ago, but the movement still defies easy description."(Source.)

Facts About The T.E.A. Partiers 

The most important and easiest thing to understand is that pols show that the T.E.A. party movement is not some fringe group but made up of Americans of all walks of life:

The national breakdown of the Tea Party composition is 57 percent Republican, 28 percent Independent and 13 percent Democratic, according to three national polls by the Winston Group, a Republican-leaning firm that conducted the surveys on behalf of an education advocacy group. Two-thirds of the group call themselves conservative, 26 are moderate and 8 percent say they are liberal. (Source.) 

The Winston Group found, in three national surveys conducted from December through February and published April 1, that the Tea Party movement is composed of a broad cross-section of the American people -- 40 to 50 percent of its supporters are non-Republicans. Indeed, one-third of self-identified Democrats say they support the Tea Party movement.(Source.)

Tea Party supporters skew right politically; but demographically, they are generally representative of the public at large. That's the finding of a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted March 26-28, in which 28% of U.S. adults call themselves supporters of the Tea Party movement. (Source.)

Getting Involved In Politics Is Not A Wise Idea

Given that this movement is growing, what should the T.E.A. Party be doing right now?

First let us discuss what they should not be doing. 

Some people believe that this movement might form into an alternative third political party. It is not a political party. And neither should it form into one. Those who leave the two major parties are relegating themselves to political irrelevance. Ross Perot's Reform Party and  Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party have faded into political obscurity. 

Neither should the T.E.A Party be endorsing those who wish to get into political office. Politicians who rely only on the support of the Tea Party movement have yet to win an election. Debra Medina, Patrick Hughes, Adam Andrzejewski, Doug Hoffman, Larry Naritelli, and J.D. Hayworth are all T.E.A Party favorites who are or will fizzle into the footnotes of political history.

If this political movement cannot and should not be in the business of forming a political party or actively supporting candidates for political office, what should the T.E.A movement do? 

Trust And Credibility 

In order to answer that question, consider that a recent poll shows that the T.E.A. party has more credibility with the American party than politicians in Congress:  

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 52% of U.S. voters believe the average member of the Tea Party movement has a better understanding of the issues facing America today than the average member of Congress. Only 30% believe that those in Congress have a better understanding of the key issues facing the nation.

When it comes to those issues, 47% think that their own political views are closer to those of the average Tea Party member than to the views of the average member of Congress. On this point, 26% feel closer to Congress.

Finally, 46% of voters say that the average Tea Party member is more ethical than the average member of Congress. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say that the average member of Congress is more ethical.

(Source.)

I don't think the T.E.A party realizes the significance of what this means. It means that Americans are staring to trust one another. They are looking to their friends, neighbors, co-workers and fellow church goers for answers to the challenges of this country. They are starting to realize that they can no longer look to the federal or state government for answers. That is why the T.E.A. party movement is growing and getting more stronger everyday. That is why the general public is starting to believe this movement rather than the government when it comes to solving the financial issues that face our country.

Trust is the one thing that that the media, politicians and our public education system do not have.

This is what the founding fathers wanted. They set up a government whereby people were free to rely on one another and not to rely on the government. They wanted citizens to be the ones on the watchtower to warn of threats to our freedoms. They wanted Americans to teach each other about the Constitution and what our country is all about.

If we simply protest just to change the laws, endorse political candidates or form a third party, such actions will only bring a temporary halt to the growth of government. No meaningful or lasting change will come from it.

To make a permanent change in America and restore this country to what it was created to be, we need to change the hearts, mind and soul of every person in the United States. When that happens, society changes. And when society changes, the government is transformed because it will reflect the heart, mind and soul of the citizens.

Thus, the T.E.A. parties should just be doing what it is doing now. Organizing. Protesting. And most importantly, educating.