TEA PARTY IN MYRTLE BEACH SC A PATRIOTIC SUCCESS
Nearly 3000 Americans fed up with government, out of control spending, bailouts, and the socialistic agenda of the Obama administration gathered in Chapin Park in central Myrtle Beach, SC beginning at noon and lasting until 2:30 to tell Washington that we are taking our country back !
The day was overcast, in fact rain was coming down as late as 11:45 prior to the beginning of the Myrtle Beach Tea Party but as the party began the sun broke through the clouds and the rest of the afternoon was sunshine and patriotism. American flags and ,"Don't Tread On Me Flags, " flew in the breeze as speakers proclaimed that, "we the people," are tired of government control it is time for our voices to be heard.
Singing the National Anthem, God Bless America, God Bless The USA and The Battle Hymn Of The Republic the revolution has begun through this and 925 confirmed Tea Parties taking place throughout the United States today. Today was the 2009 version of Lexington and Concord, "the shot heard round the world!"
The Liberal Lie was represented, in fact I had opportunity to speak to the gathered crowd during the program and it was a thrill to stand before so many like minded patriots who understand that we have a Constitutional responsibility as citizens to hold those in Washington accountable and that the true power of the Nation is not found at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue nor the Halls of Congress but in the people. At gatherings of Americans. In our living rooms and kitchens and it is we who tell Washington what to do not the other way around.
Reports are coming in from all over the country of thousands gathering all across the Nation letting Washington know that we will no longer just sit back and let them decide how we are to live and they can no longer abuse or threaten our freedom and liberties. This is just the beginning of the revolution to take back our government and force Washington to uphold their Constitutional responsibility to obey the will of the people.
If you were not able to attend a Tea Party today, you can still participate in the revolution by contacting every ,"Representative," in Washington and flooding their phone lines and e-mails with your disgust and anger at government take over, the march to socialism, excessive spending, bailouts and apologizing for the greatness of America.
Let them know it is time to return to the Constitutional principles that made our country free and the greatest Nation on the Earth. Let you voice be heard. Today was just the beginning of the revolution. We still have a fight ahead of us but together as Americans who understand that we the people are the lawful power in the Nation, we can and we will prevail in taking our country back!
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 12:50 AM
30 Comments:
Wow! Nearly 3000. That's great. You got almost as many people to show up as the number that shows up at the Baltimore farmer's market every week in spring and summer.
FYI, in DC and Baltimore about 1000 people showed up (and that is being generous).
Lansing had 5000 (another generous estimate).
The end result is about as I thought - the whole event was pretty weak and fizzled.
Rob, Baltimore has a population of what, a million or so. Myrtle Beach has a population of about 30,000. Ten pecent is a pretty good turn out.
Also there were over 900 nationwide with hundreds of thousands attending a grass roots event. Organized by citizens not organizations.
You would not admit it was a success if ten million or more had shown up because of who and what the protest is about because you have changed from objective to a kool aid drinker.
BTW Rob more than 20,000 showed up in Atlanta, 10,000 in Columbia, SC and a like number at the Alamo and similar numbers in NYC at the city hall.
For a change look somewhere else than the alphabet networks and MSNBC for a chnage to find out what is really happening.
Fox covered it not to promote it but becuase the fact that Americans stood up to be heard in great numbers is big news.
FYI Rob, crowds of 10, 20 and 30 thousand were also in Sacramento,CA, Indianapolis, Houston, Boston, Austin, Louisville and Tampa. -900 cities!
This was not a fizzle but the beginning of a movement that is growing and telling Obama and the rest of Washington that we are fed up. It is time for them to listen to the people because the people are speaking loud!
No Ken, if 10 million people protested it would have meant something.
The State newspaper estimated the Columbia protest at 3000 (looking at the pictures that looks generous). The Columbia metro area has 700,000 people. That puts the protest at 0.4 percent of the population (1.4 percent using your estimate).
The Atlanta metro area has 5 million folks. Using your estimate of 20,000 (which I think is generous), that means that 0.4% of the population showed up. About the same number of folks in Atlanta watched the Braves lose to the Marlins this evening.
The protests really didn't amount to a whole lot. It would probably be a stretch to say that 100,000 people nationwide participated. If that was true, more people attend home Michigan football games than protested across the country. That is just the reality.
Your crowd estimates are way off. Sacramento had 5000, Indy had 2500, Houston had 2000, Boston had 1000, etc.
Just look at the papers - liberal and conservative - in these cities and you can see that the reported numbers (and pictures) are not all that impressive.
In Sacramento - where unemployment runs at 10 percent - 17,000 plus when to watch the miserable (17 wins - 65 losses) Kings play the almost as miserable (24-58) Minnesota Timberwolves play in an NBA game.
Rob, keep drinking the kool aid from news sources that have attacked these before they even took place as only fringe gatherings.
The spin has started and that spin will never admit that American are ticked at Obama and the massive government that started years ago and grown since.
BTW the State is a McClatchey paper, a company I used to work for and it is a paper that is about as far left as they come and will always take the lame route.
The Columbia numbers I gave came from a Columbia TV station that is balanced.
In fact Columbia had two rallies. One at the State house with about 10K and another on the other side of downtown with about 12K
If these same numbers had come out supporting an anti war cause or code pink or even in support of Obama all of the MSm would be stmbling over themselves to brag about the huge crowds that came out.
can we keep non humans like rob from posting on this site. These types are blocking the way for progress and must be brushed aside> just throw some porn mags and pot at them to distract. Would like to see a pic of this Rob. Sure he is disfigured our just really ugly like most Democrats. Anger from childhoodd--- boo hoo hoo
Weak. Wrong. Democrat. Rob!
We can disagree on the numbers - I just have not seen any widespread support. I was at the Inauguration concert on the Sunday before his swearing in - there were hundreds of thousands of people. There were several anti-war rallies that were enormous. In New York several years agao, there were 500,000 people. Those are significant rallies - tens of thousands doesn't amount to much.
Among the vocal (small) minority of "tea baggers," I don't know what alternative you are pushing for. Without a clearly articulated plan, there is no "movement." It is just a bunch of angry people getting together.
See Ken, on a more broad level, folks like Anon are the people who are on your side. Name calling in lieu of discussion is the norm. Obama has a 60+ percent approval and won handiliy by winning over the majority of Independents.
The Republican Party has gotten trounced in the last two elections. Anon - do you really think name calling will win over moderates and conservative Dems - which is what you need to do to win elections?
The Republican Party won't win ANYTHING until they offer something more than "We are anti-Obama."
Nearly 30,000 showed up at the Alamo, Ken. :)
Rob's in denial because he's scared. The MSM is in denial because it's scared. This is only going to get bigger, so they may as well face reality. Nah... nevermind. The far left doesn't know what to do with reality. History means nothing to them. It's deny, deny, deny. Man, they're going to spit hairballs when we take back Congress in 2010. LOL!
By the way, it wasn't just about Obama. People are mad, very mad, at Congress. So far Obama hasn't really been in charge. Queen Pelosi is, dontcha know!
What do you think I am scared about Gayle?
The Obama economic plan is showing signs of stabilizing the economy. We've had five straight weeks of gains on Wall Street and tomorrow may make it six straight weeks. The Fed's "Beige Book" results look fairly promising. Inflation is under control and the banking sector is firming up. Even real estate is improving.
As the stimulus dollars start to make their way into the economy over the second half of the year and schools, bridges, roads, and energy infrastructure are rebuilt we will see the benefits as well as see economic growth. Obama will have turned the economic recession back into an expansion.
Next year, Obama and the Dems will be able to claim victory as the economy further recovers and rank-and-file Republicans will be trying to figure out how they explain why they were the anti-Obama party. But in the end, the American people will deliver them another thrashing.
Then, perhaps there will be real change in the Republican leadership and some actual ideas will emerge.
Gayle, even if your number of 30,000 for San Antonio is correct, it only represents 1.5% of the San Antonio metro area.
So 98.5% of people weren't there. Come on, you must realize the numbers are small - even the propped up numbers you want to claim are correct.
Rob, wake up man. The corrections taking place on Wall Street are happening because that is the way it recovers anytime a bubble like the mortgage collapse bursts.
99% of the Obama ridiculous sending that has noting to do with stimulus has not even hit the street yet.
The only money that is out there comes fromf the original TARP money and most want to return it after seeing what Obama did with GM by firing a CEO, (show me that authority in Article II), and the take over. So banks and other entities are wanting out before he has a chance to rule them as he does GM and Chrysler.
When the ,"stimulus," actually hits watch the inflow of control cash to states and other entities who will have to bow to frederal control for the money, watch this recovery slow down and either reverse or stagnate at a level which produces no growth and no progress.
We'll see Ken. I am far more confident in my understanding of economic policies and principles, than yours.
I have commented for the last several weeks on my blog about how Wall Street was going to react to things like the Obama/Geithner toxic assets auction plan and the change in mark-to-market rules. I have been dead on with my predictions.
What I find funny is that a few weeks ago you (and many anti-Obama folks) were claiming that Obama's policies were the reason that the market was collapsing. But now you are saying it is just normal market fluctuations. You cannot have it both ways.
I'll close by saying this - I have made a lot of money over the last five weeks with the bull market runup on Wall Street. It is not just luck, it is obvious that Wall Street loves Obama's economic policies. You can just shrug your shoulders and say it is all dumb luck until you are blue in the face - but it defies basic reality. As the economy continues to improve I cannot wait to hear your explanations.
By the way, now that Rick Wagoner is gone from GM, there is some hope for GM. The guy was an utter disaster for the firm as CEO and Chairman of the Board.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - Bush is the only one who nationalized any firms. Taxpayers now own AIG, Freddie, and Fannie because Bush took them over. He replaced their top management teams - I don't seem to remember you complaining then.
Rob, check your memory. When Bush used bailouts I not only disagreed but I came out against it in several posts. When Bus spent like adrunken sailor I did the same. When he proposed amnesty I was against it also.
It is you my friend who tries to have it both ways. When Bush spend you griped. Obama's spending pales to that of Bush's but because he does it , it is the right thisng to do.
You came out against amnesty but Obama is proposing the same thing and if he does it you agree.
Obama has bailed out and nationaized companies at an alarming rate. When Bush bailed out you complained, but Obama does far more and much worse and it is OK because he is your guy.
I thought Wagoner failed as a CEO and needed to go, but it was up to the Board of Directors to make that decision NOT the POTUS.
It is up to the Board to also get GM on its feet or declare bankruptcy or break up the company NOT Obama or the government taking it over.
I came out when Bush bailed out GM and am against Obama firing a CEO, which is not in line with his Constitutional authority.
You complained about Bush sending money in loans to GM, but Obama takes over the company and fires the CEO and you defend it.
It is you who wants it both ways Rob. If Bush did it it was wrong but if Obama does it, it is a great thing.
Show me where you accused Bush of being a socialist for nationalizing Freddie, Fannie, and AIG. Show me where you accused him of being a socialist for firing their top executives and dissolving their corporate boards. I don't seem to recall that.
Obama has not proposed any amnesty program as President. I have been against it from the start and continue to be.
Wagoner was Chairman of the Board. He CONTROLLED THE BOARD. The Board would have never fired him. Wagoner left because no more federal money was going to be invested in GM as long as he was CEO. You can say Obama fired him - but it was inevitable if GM was going to be an ongoing concern. Finally, GM is going to end up in bankruptcy and solve its problem. This day of reckoning was extended only because Bush threw billions of dollars at GM on his way out the door. Obama's Administration has not continued the blank check policy with no strings that Bush served up.
Ken, if Obama wanted to do so he could have nationalized major banks and he could control the financial sector - he has not done that. He has not nationalized anything. Tell me - what specific firm has he nationalized?
I complained about Bush's economic policies and it turns out I was correct - he created one heck of a mess. I understand what Obama is doing to fix the problems and I agree with his policies. Next year we will see if things are improving and the mid-term elections will be the first opportunity for the American people to decide. Then in three years we'll see how things are and we'll see if he is re-elected. My guess is yes, but I have said multiple times that if things are not improved and/or improving, then he will be out.
Rob, I agree that Bush's deficit spending was wrong and you claim that it left Obama with a huge mess to contend with. Please explain how Obama's spending which will result in $ 1 trillion average annual deficits over the next 10 years (CBO projection)is beneficial economically when it blows any Bush deficits out of the water.Those deficits will result in high inflation within a few years. Also, there's no consensus among economists that the recent stock market rally is anything more than another bear market rally. When I responded to one of your posts on your forum pointing out that March retail sales plunged 1.1% as evidence that Obama's stimulus isn't working, you chastized me for "pulling out one number".You do the same thing when you crow about short term stock market advances as evidence that Obama's policies are working.
Oh that Rob is sooooo predictable.
It's clear the Tea Parties are having an impact. Why else would Rob and friends go out of his way to denigrate them?
Yes, 3,000 in Myrtle Beach IS a good turnout. Too bad sour old Rob can't just let it go at that.
Dennis, I have explained it plenty of times to you on my site. The short response is that when you have severe economic contraction the Keynesian approach is for the government to pump in money to get turn the economy from contraction to expansion. Once that is done, the deficits as a percentage of GDP go down. It is really quite simple.
There are precious few economists who believe the government should cut spending or even freeze spending. That is what Herbert Hoover did and we turned a recession into the Great Depression.
I believe in the current economic policies given our current economic situation. There is reason for optimism with the 6 week bull market and this weeks release of the Fed's beige book results.
I've said it many times - in about 19-20 months we'll see where we are. I say the economy will be back on track and the Republicans will look like idiots for being the "Party of No." If things are worsening then the mid-terms should be good for Republicans.
Rob, I know that you've offered an explanation several times but you still haven't answered my question. If deficit spending is stimulative and beneficial economically as you claim, how is it possible that deficit spending by Bush was not conducive to growth yet even larger Obama deficits will lead to growth? There seems to be a contradiction there. The CBO projects that Obama's spending will lead to unprecedented deficits. How can that be beneficial long term? If deficit spending is beneficial, why not have $ 10 trillion budgets and really blow the recession to bits?
I'm in favor of cutting government spending by reducing waste. I don't see how that can be harmful.
It all comes down to what you spend the deficits on. Bush chose to spend it rebuilding Iraq. Even worse, he borrowed money from China so he could rebuild Iraq when the U.S. economy was fairly good.
Obama has shifted priorities toward domestic infrastructure (schools, roads, bridges, energy grid, etc.). We all benefit from that and will do so for decades.
The former created jobs in Iraq. The latter creates jobs in the U.S.
Don't worry about 10 year projections. Those change from year to year. If the economy is better next year, the 10 year projection will be much better. Bush came to office with a projected $6 trillion 10 year surplus (thanks to the economy Clinton left him). He destroyed that in short order.
Dennis, read about what Herbert Hoover did. If we cut government spending in a deep recession, we will turn it into a second Great Depression. Just look up Hoover's policies. I'm telling you the majority of conservative and liberal economists all agree that cutting spending would be a disaster.
Dennis, let me give you a little more up-to-date example. When Reagan came to office he inherited a weak economy and stagflation. What did he do? He exploded government spending and increased the national debt from under $1 trillion to almost $3 trillion during his eight years.
The economy benefitted from those policies and was set on course for growth. Clinton continued the growth but also turned the annual deficits into surpluses through fiscal discipline. We were even paying down the national debt when Clinton left office. At that point the national debt was about $5.7 trillion (about $1.5 trillion came under Clinton). When Bush left office it was almost $11 trillion. What did we get for all of that spending? Not much; and he left the mess that has be be cleaned up.
FYI, Reagan would be considered a socialist by the standards used today. When Reagan came to office the FICA (payroll) tax individuals paid was 6.13% When he left it was 7.51%. The last time it was increased was under Bush Sr. - to the current 7.65%. So it is not a stretch to say that Reagan is responsible for the largest FICA (payroll) tax increase we have seen ever. Look and read about how he worked with Congress and allowed the increases that hit us every paycheck to go forward. Not only was he not against them - he openly spoke about them as "good government."
I can't believe Rob is STILL at it.
And to say Reagan would be considered a socialist?
Only by idiots like ????
The contrast between Reagan and Obama could not be more clear. Rob is a revisionist who doesn't know the difference and doesn't care.
Rob, infrastructure spending is a lousy way to stimulate the economy short term. These projects run at a snail's pace and the construction jobs are temporary. Bush's spending on Iraqi reconstruction was done by many US companies and employed many US workers. Its greatest benefit though wasn't economic stimulus. The reconstruction has helped pave the way for Iraq to become a stable democracy and that will pay huge dividends in increased US national security. It was also a great humanitarian effort.
I'm very worried about the CBO's 10 year deficit projections. What data do you have to support your opinion that economic conditions will be better than CBO estimates? What if the CBO projections are overly optimistic?
Reagan inherited two crises from Carter, an economic catastrophe and diminished military spending as a % of GDP, so his options were limited. He managed to rescue the economy through income tax cuts with the top rate dropping from 70 to 28%. His increased military spending won the Cold War, but that wasn't the cause of the economic recovery. Supply side economics did the trick. His increase in the FICA tax was needed for Social Security's continued solvency. Reagan inherited this program, of course, and his FICA tax increase was responsible policy. In short, Reagan's deficits were necessary becasue of the mess he inherited. They were also well worth it.
I would much rather have budget deficits with lower income taxes than balanced budgets achieved through increased income taxes. The knee jerk reaction of government in troubled economic times has to be lowering of taxes, not increased spending. Government needs to adjust to the reality of lower taxes, the people shouldn't have to make sacrifices as the government wastes their money.
To address a couple of other points you raised, the balanced budgets and welfare reform during the Clinton years were the work of a Republican Congress, not the Clinton Administration.
The length of the Depression resulted from FDR's policies. The Depression was still in full swing years after FDR came to power. I don't see how you can blame Hoover for that.
3,000 was great but we can't even fill a bus leaving MB for DC 9/11--9/13 shameful
Where have you'all been for the last 6 years during an illegal, immoral, and illogical war that cost American taxpayers almost a trillion dollars?
[url=http://www.ile-maurice.com/forum/members/wetter-vorhersage.html][b]in diesem wetter[/b][/url]
[url=http://www.ile-maurice.com/forum/members/wetter-vorhersage.html][b]wetter 2004[b][/url]
Post a Comment
<< Home