Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Phillips Judson Phillips Would Restrict Voting to Property Owners
Posted by Betsy Phillips on Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 5:05 AM
I don't think I'm any relation to Tea Party leader Judson Phillips. My Phillipses appeared practically out of nowhere in Michigan in 1828, where we promptly established a tradition of being cantankerous trouble-causers who couldn't get along with anyone — a tradition I proudly carry on to this day. I haven't found any Judsons in the family tree.
Anyway, this other Phillips would rather we return to some of the ways of voting our Founding Fathers had in mind:
"The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasn't you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you're a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you're not a property owner, you know, I'm sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners."
I am trying to decide if I feel more vested in Nashville now that I own a house here (well, technically, the bank owns it and I am slowly paying them for it). And the truth is that I don't think so. I loved Nashville so much I bought a home here, yes. But obviously, I loved Nashville so much before I bought a home here that it led me to buy a home here.
I mean, I know this is a frivolous proposal designed to stoke intergenerational antagonism — as if the people who are older and can afford a home are somehow better citizens than the 18-year-olds who are going off to war to die for our country.
But it just seems like one of those knee-jerk things that, if you even think about it for two seconds, falls apart. I guess you're not supposed to think about it at all — just hear it and cheer it or boo, depending on your side.
Well, I'll just take solace that, until he manages to strip the right to vote from women, this Phillips's vote cancels that Phillips's vote out.
Comments (49)
Showing 1-49 of 49
The "Founding Fathers" as property owners - who, to Judson Phillips, apparently could do no wrong - also considered African Americans (and to a lesser extent, poor white indentured servants) as their properties...
like
dislike
I consider myself mostly independent, but I lean more towards a conservative viewpoint than and liberal one in areas of government intervention. I have had some correspondence with Judson Phillips that I would be more than happy to reveal to the right people. Even as I WAS a member of this Tea Party organization, I quickly learned what type of person he really is after responses to inquiries I made.
Short and simple, he is, in my humble opinion, nothing more that an opportunist of the times. He speaks out of one side of his mouth about positions that some Tea Party people have, but behind closed doors, he's nothing more than a local political junky striving for money and power. Again, I would be more than happy to provide some correspondence between he and I which would really bring to light who this fellow really is.
Good day.
"The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasn't you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner"
I'd say the idea was to avoid the very situation the country is in today. Half the population pays little or no federal income taxes and they have an economic incentive to vote for handouts for themeselves to be paid for by the other half who do pay the taxes.
A better way to handle it is the same way corporate proxy votes are done. In a corporate takeover or to elect boards of directors, the investor gets one vote for each share of stock he has purchased.
Let everyone get one vote for each dollar of taxes they pay. As it is now, people who pay no federal income taxes (or get "refunds" of taxes they never paid) get an equal vote on the disposition of taxes collected as do those who paid thousands or tens of thousands in taxes.
Some day soon, Judson will join me and Joe Kirkpatrick. We will be one. We have room for you, too, Gilbert.
And then we'll make sure only white men can vote - just as the Founding Fathers intended.
Everyone already pays property taxes, anyway. Actually, renters pay a higher rate. You see, lessors prorate the property tax levied upon them among the lessees, add a % to cover profit/overhead, and then include the final pro-rated amounts into the rental rates. Even though the lessor writes the annual check to the government, he has already collected the taxes from his renters.
Another consideration for the right to vote would be basic literacy. This might be abused, but the left could handle that much in the same way they handled the Black Panther with the billy club recently. That little episode did not seem to overly worry them. You would have to read a few lines of the Declaration on Independence.
Gilbert, you're welcome to live in a corporation, if that's your taste. I prefer to live in a democratic republic.
or how about this: you must own your property outright in order to vote. Some of us would be ok... but I wonder how many dim bulb tea partiers living in whitey-ville McMcansions would be precluded from the democratic process? My guess would be "a lot." Maybe we should give this some thought...
"but the left could handle that much in the same way they handled the Black Panther with the billy club recently. That little episode did not seem to overly worry them."
Apparently it did not overly worry the Bush appointed members serving the DOJ when the incident occured.
Here's Abigail Thernstrom writing for the National Review Online (one of the most conservative URLs on the WWW):
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/243…
"The incident involved only two Panthers at a single majority-black precinct in Philadelphia. So far — after months of hearings, testimony and investigation — no one has produced actual evidence that any voters were too scared to cast their ballots. Too much overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges has been devoted to this case."
I suspect people who are still complaining about this are just scaremongering to score political points. It kind of makes you look like a wimp.
"Gilbert, you're welcome to live in a corporation, if that's your taste. I prefer to live in a democratic republic."
I prefer to live in a Constitutional republic. That is what we are supposed to be - not a "democratic" republic.
My mom’s pet theory is this: people in rural areas and the suburbs tend to be homeowners, and thus conservative. People that live in cities tend to be renters, and therefore liberal.
My suggestion was that maybe those who live in cities encounter people who differ from them in a fundamental way (religion, race, sexuality, etc) far more regularly than our country-living brethren, so are more likely to favor socially liberal polices because there’s a daily affirmation of the fact that people are pretty much the same, and therefore equally deserving of politics that respect them.
"Let everyone get one vote for each dollar of taxes they pay. As it is now, people who pay no federal income taxes (or get "refunds" of taxes they never paid) get an equal vote on the disposition of taxes collected as do those who paid thousands or tens of thousands in taxes."
you do realize that you're essentially advocating a plutocracy, right?
"Let everyone get one vote for each dollar of taxes they pay. As it is now, people who pay no federal income taxes (or get "refunds" of taxes they never paid) get an equal vote on the disposition of taxes collected as do those who paid thousands or tens of thousands in taxes." - Posted by Gilbert Martin on November 30, 2010 at 7:50 AM
"...People who pay no federal income taxes (or get "refunds" of taxes they never paid) get an equal vote on the disposition of taxes collected..." Gil, you must have forgotten that we live in a Constitutional republic (it is the Members of Congress who hold the "equal votes on the disposition of taxes".
"as if the people who are older and can afford a home are somehow better citizens than the 18-year-olds who are going off to war to die for our country."
I don't know if Betsy realizes it but she touches on Robert A. Heinlein's idea in 'Starship Troopers' that voting citizenship should be restricted to those who have served in the military or in some other way risked themselves for the society. If one wants a way to 'improve' the electorate, taking risks for society makes more sense than just paying taxes.
"Gil, you must have forgotten that we live in a Constitutional republic (it is the Members of Congress who hold the "equal votes on the disposition of taxes"."
No we are SUPPOSED to live in a Constitutional republic.
If the Constitution were actually being enforced, we wouldn't be having any problem of people who pay no taxes voting handouts for themselves. Because all those handout programs, being unconstitutional, would never have been allowed to exist in the first place.
"you do realize that you're essentially advocating a plutocracy, right?"
No, I am essentially advocating a shrinking of the size and scope of the federal government.
One way to do it to let those who are most on the hook for paying for government activites have the most say on what those activities will be.
Another way would be to charge out all government services on a user fee basis and eliminate income taxes, estate taxes, etc. Since all the transfer payment/subisdiy type programs could not fit into that model, they would automatically be eliminated.
@AshleyS - I'd say your Mom is spot on. "Modern" Democrats have virtually no stake in rural America anymore (see below NPR article)
http://www.npr.org/2010/11/12/131282448/ru…
As you're probably aware, not so long ago even White Southerners voted Democrat (Civil War hangover) and that was because that's what everyone else did, so contemporary rural White Southerns voting GOP or TeaRepublican makes sense because that's what their peers are doing. It doesn't matter that it's in direct conflict with their self-interest. They'd rather conform than think.
I, for one, am glad to be a person who grew up in rural Georgia and now live in an "urban" area with a (unfortunately ever decreasing) Democrat/Liberal voting base. So when I succumb to the conformity of my peers, it's one that I can agree to.
So the government should be like a cable company? If I pay the extra monthly fee, I get HBO/a military?
I believe in democracy, not plutocracy. All citizens deserve equal say in how the government is run. This is why campaign finance needs to be revisited ASAP.
@Mark - I think you may have missed the point of Starship Troopers. It should be seen as a cautionary tale, not a how to manual.
@Gilbert - you have your head so far up your own ass I have no idea how to even start to provide counterpoints to the nonsense you spew.
Pseudonym,
It has been many many years since I read the book but my memory is that Heinlein used his books to tout theories that he found worth debating. I don't think he was strictly calling for that but raising the issue of the nature of citizenship.
But then that was long ago in a galaxy far away and I don't read much sci-fi or other fiction anymore except for certain lefty news outlets and Jeff Woods.
"@Gilbert - you have your head so far up your own ass I have no idea how to even start to provide counterpoints to the nonsense you spew."
Get back to me if you ever manage to scrape together enough brain cells to formulate something of substance to say.
maybe we could pay taxes a la carte. since 20 cents out of every dollar i pay in income tax goes to fund unconstitutional wars, ongoing occupations and military bases on foreign soil, I could just opt out. maybe have a list of budget spending by category, and i'll just tick the boxes i agree with. why should i be forced to pay for unconstitutional military endeavors?
why should my hard-earned $$$ go to fund faith-based slush funds that support proselytizing and discrimination against gays and non-Christians? I feel I'm that I'm essentially funding and establishment of religion and I think we all know that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
c'mon teabaggers!! raise some hell!
anybody? guys?
"funding and establishment of religion "
should read: funding an establishment of religion
Judson Phillips = originalism run amok. Indeed the Framers believed in certain restrictions for voting, property ownership among them. To them, democracy was a dirty word. But guess what? The Framers also created a system by which the people could amend the Constitution to reflect changing times and attitudes. And that is just what the people have done. In that sense, it no longer means diddlyzip what the Framers thought about property requirements for voting. Americans creating a living Constitution by amending it.
Well said, Betsy.
If Phillips is serious about original intent, why stop at property owners? Why don’t we fully restrict voting rights to white males who own property (and slaves)? Hell, why not just go full throttle and bring back literacy tests and poll taxes and the three-fifths compromise while we’re at it?
This is just another in a long line of half-baked Tea Party-endorsed ideas that will turn back the clock to times we’ve already successfully rallied past. There are elements of the Tea Party that stand for good and stand for a vision of America we can all get behind. But why are we actively campaigning against open-and-shut issues? Since when did we start thinking about the Civil Rights Act as a burden to freedom? Since when did we start thinking children of immigrants born on this soil shouldn’t be American citizens (as stated in the 14th Amendment)? Since when did we decide that separation of church and state couldn’t be found in the Constitution? Since when did we decide that ripping up our paved roads was a positive idea for the nation?
This isn’t “Taking America Back,” this is “Setting America Back.”
http://hypervocal.com/news/2010/taking-ame…
All Judson is saying is that only white men should be allowed to vote. That's exactly what the Founding Fathers intended.
Do you disagree, Judson?
wvfii,
Part of protecting freedom of religious expression is preventing government from taxing unpopular groups out of existence. Think of it as establishment by negation.
It is also worth noting that most churches contribute enormously to helping out in their communities and on a larger scale. I realize that the Scene favors covering the those few negative examples of religion over the much larger number of positive examples that are in every community.
Not taxing church property and parts of pastors' salaries seems a small price for the good done.
Let me be very clear: I'm not arguing for taxing churches (In THIS particular thread. Though I've certainly posited the idea elsewhere, particularly when we see egregious examples of high-profile churches and religiously based 501(c)(3) groups politicking from the pulpit).
No, this time I'm simply talking about the tax dollars funneled into "Faith-based initiatives", without any safeguards put into place for proselytizing (a clear abuse of the Establishment Clause) and discrimination in hiring based on religion, even though these programs being publicly funded.
I realize much good has been done by churches. But it doesn't change the fact that 1) they have done a lot of bad, in my not-so-humble opinion and 2) requiring me to fund their endeavors, regardless of merit, is unconstitutional - every bit as "unconstitutional" as one could ever deem Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Unemployment, etc.
To wvfii: There are hypocrites and villains in all phases of life, not just religion. My thinking is, "Don't confuse the message with the messenger." We became the greatest nation ever as a Christian nation and now we're not and we're slowly getting fatter and stupider and more antagonistic and more hypocritical and more under attack from outside forces. I mean, we never lost a war until the Supreme Court told God we didn't need his help. Plus we're losing our business and manufacturing edge to outsourcing and are generally in a downward spiral with no end in sight. A final note and worth arguing about: The constitutional laws about citizenship (and the inscription on the Statue of Liberty) were written many years before the idea of welfare was even a glimmer and you can bet the wording would have been given more thought if they could have foreseen the present situation.
so. the constitution only matters when it fits your agenda? gotcha.
"I mean, we never lost a war until the Supreme Court told God we didn't need his help"
ok so when exactly did the Supreme Court tell God this? Maybe you could cite some specific case law? and if you're referring to Nam, I would suggest that maybe it was chalked up as an 'L' because the American public's threshold for the money wasted and the lives lost had worn thin. It's expensive playing global chess games with the Soviets and using Vietnam as a proxy. It's disgusting, immoral, unconstitutional and I seriously doubt God wanted any part of it.
If you happen to be of the opinion that God is angry w/ America because of gays and atheists, you might want to reconsider. I would wager God is probably more than a little put out that Americans (e.g. Bush) who could be so cavalier as to invoke his name when illegally attacking other countries without being provoked. We've all heard that God "told" Bush to attack Iraq. I wonder: did God tell the Office of the VP to strong arm the CIA into cooking intel docs so we could spend $800 Billion+ and sacrifice 4400 American troops for nothing? Maybe some people are listening to the wrong God? What then?
And it STILL does not change the fact that faith-based initiatives are clearly unconstitutional. you can't have it both ways. people who would otherwise be sympathetic to your concerns might conclude that you don't really care about limited government at all. you just want a government that looks, prays and whines exactly like you. where's the "liberty" and "freedom" in that?
look, there's a good chance our Constitution will be amended and reinterpreted as our nation grows older and we face new challenges. It's happened before, and almost always for the best. But if you're of the mind that only the Tea Party - or the far Right, or whatever set you happen to be claiming - are the only ones with the super-magical ouija board to commune with the Founders about the true meaning of the Constitution, well then I'm going to call you out every single time. Because a lot of what I'm hearing flat out ignores some very explicit language contained there.
To wivii: You never heard of Madelyn Murray O'Hair? Really? Immediately after her court victory our country become a spaced out drug haven and Vietnam is now a nation of 91,000,000 people enslaved in the freedoms of a people's republic and that's what we were there to stop. I wish I could get a group of war-protesters to tour the villages of Vietnam and tell the people about the good things that were done for them by American doves. Without a government escort they'd be ripped to pieces during the first stop. As far as your "illegal attack", I don't see anybody being indicted and maybe you think it would be a good thing if Saddam Hussein and Uday and Ousay were still around; viva le monsters! The foreign countries who were against our involvement were all doing illegal food for oil business with Iraq in violation of U.N. sanctions. On another note, why does no one remember that the British spy who supplied the information about the Niger uranium sale to Iraq committed suicide the day after we invaded? If any lies were told it was probably by him. And one final thing: God bless you.
wvfii,
"And it STILL does not change the fact that faith-based initiatives are clearly unconstitutional."
Like having 'In God We Trust' on our coins? Or the National Day of Prayer? Our a Declaration of Independence that holds we are endowed by God with our inalienable rights?
Your problem is that you are trying to claim a very narrow reading of the Establishment Clause that is actually of recent popularity as some sort of historic legal tradition. The first couple of hundred years of American constitutional history took a much less narrow view of the Establishment Clause. This recent fondness for regarding nativity scenes on public property as violations of the First Amendment is ahistorical and has made church / state relations into a disaster today.
"maybe we could pay taxes a la carte"
No - on a user fee basis.
You are using (i.e. benefitting from) military protection services that safeguard your life and property - regardless of whether you want to acknowledge that fact or not. You should therefore have to pay for your prorata share of it. And so should all those people who currently are not paying any federal income taxes. It doesn't cost the government any less to protect their lives than it does to protect the lives of those who ARE paying the taxes.
Entitlement programs, on the other hand are merely transfer payments - not services. They provide no benefit whatsoever to those on the paying end of the equation. And since they are not actual services, they could no longer exist in a user fee financinng system.
"I realize much good has been done by churches. But it doesn't change the fact that 1) they have done a lot of bad, in my not-so-humble opinion and 2) requiring me to fund their endeavors, regardless of merit, is unconstitutional - every bit as "unconstitutional" as one could ever deem Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Unemployment, etc."
The amount of federal tax money spent on such things is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the spending on all the entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, etc.
And yet you choose to harp on the former rather than the latter.
Quite strange.
"Your problem is that you are trying to claim a very narrow reading of the Establishment Clause that is actually of recent popularity as some sort of historic legal tradition. The first couple of hundred years of American constitutional history took a much less narrow view of the Establishment Clause"
Indeed.
The phrase "separation of church and state" that is claimed to be a "Constitutional principle" appears nowhere in the text of the First Amendment. It is in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists long after the Bill of Rights was ratified.
There were several states that had official state religions at the time the Bill of Rights was ratifed. They were not deemed to be unconstitutional after ratification and they continued to exist up until sometime in the 1820's when the states themselves voluntariily did away with them.
yes yes we all know that the phrase "separation of church and state" does not *literally* appear in the Constitution. I certainly have not claimed otherwise. But I will vehemently disagree that I'm taking a "narrow view"of the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses. Our founders were hardly fundamentalist Christians, and judging from their writings it's pretty obvious they were intent on insuring protections for people of all faiths, or people with no faith at all.
@ Gilbert Martin: I think one could easily make the argument that many entitlement programs DO benefit society at large, regardless if I use them directly (at the moment) or not. But that's another can of worms.
I am not here to criticize soldiers or discount the protections we enjoy and need, here. at home. My question: What recourse do we have when the military is used in an blatantly unconstitutional manner? Neocon nation building/ world policing and spreading our "values" by force is dangerous and expensive (and, strangely enough, used to be primarily the province of Democrats). I submit that if you shouldn't be forced to pay for Social Security, then I shouldn't be forced to pay for the portion of the military budget used to fund overseas occupations.
@gast: "Immediately after her court victory our country become a spaced out drug haven"
you can not be serious. If you feel like you need to live in a theocracy, please let me point you to Iran. And Viet Nam is doing pretty A-ok these days (really, look it up). We are friends with them and trade freely. So much for the Evil Empire. Also, the bogeyman isn't real, either.
"Saddam Hussein and Uday and Ousay were still around; viva le monsters!"
there are worse monsters all over the world right now. some of whom we set up in the first place (LIKE SADDAM, ha!); are you going to chase them all down? where does it end?
"I submit that if you shouldn't be forced to pay for Social Security, then I shouldn't be forced to pay for the portion of the military budget used to fund overseas occupations. "
Hey that's fine with me.
You get to have your tax bill reduced for overseas military operations and I get to have my bill reduced for ALL entitlement/welfare programs of any type - Social Security, Medicare, federal support for Medicaid, food stampts, etc. etc.
I guarantee you my percentage reduction in taxes paid will be significantly higher than yours - and will stay that way consistently over time. Wars don't last forever but entitlement programs do.
"@ Gilbert Martin: I think one could easily make the argument that many entitlement programs DO benefit society at large, regardless if I use them directly (at the moment) or not."
And I say that no one is capable of empirically proving any such thing. Such claims are mere speculation and supposition. Transfer payments are , by definiton, a zero sum game.
The founding fathers intended the new nation to serve the interests of merchants, property owners and other wealthy people who did not happen to be aristocracy and thus felt "oppressed" by the British. Restricting suffrage to white property-owning males was a consciously anti-democratic measure which has been repudiated by successive social changes bringing about more democracy (though flawed) over time. It's interesting that the Tea Party leader would entertain such a profoundly anti-democratic idea. Perhaps the Tea Party should be primarily characterized as an anti-democracy movement--apologists for oligarchy. They'd love that.
@Betsy, Pete W., et al.:
The so-called "tea parties" lack a central leadership and organizational structure. Judson Phillips is not a "Tea Party leader," as Betsy states; he is merely the founder of "Tea Party Nation" - the organizing entity of the so-titled "National Tea Party Convention" at Opryland. To refer to Mr. Phillips as a "leader" artificially inflates his worth toward the national tea party movement as a whole. Furthermore, I submit that referring to "Tea Party" this and that (using capital letters) without referring to a specific local group (such as Tea Party Express or Tea Party Patriots) gives the misleading insinuation that there is an "officially" organized national tea party hierarchy; there is not. Of course, I would love to see the media give the tea party movement less credit than it's worth, but then again, I'm a sucker for stupid news.
wvfii: "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion." A person could get the idea that the courts have perverted that little clause. Vietnam's economy is like the guy who's down to his last dime and finds another. Percentagewise it looks great, in real terms he's still poor. Monsters: Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hussein, Bin Laden, though if you admire them you can say they were just thinning the herd. You said you could name more, please do. (Please don't start with George Bush and Sarah Palin.) Oh, yeah, Idi Amin. He had some strange barbecues. When we were a Christian country we had strong family values. Now nearly half the kids don't have fathers at home. How is that better? You could blame it on LBJ's "Great Society." That started the trend of paying women to have babies and that will lead to the day when the cost will be so exorbitant there won,t be money for anything else. How is that good? Better yet, what's to be done about it? And back on track with voting rights: All those kids are going to grow up and vote for whoever promises Momma a bigger government check. Which means we're going to have to shoot the old folks as there won't be any money for them to live on. Of course, that's on down the road, probably about the time the activists of this generation are ready to retire.
wfii,
"But I will vehemently disagree that I'm taking a "narrow view"of the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses."
If that is true, then why is it that the Courts had to overturn existing practices at the state and federal level that had been previously considered constitutional since 1789? Historically speaking, you are advocating an extremist position that the Framers and most Americans over the years would consider as perverse and reading the 2nd Amendment to allow citizens to own flamethrowers.
America has has installed and/or supported "monsters" for decades. That's a fact.
(Gen. Augusto Pinochet, Gen. Jorge Rafael Videla, Suharto, The Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, Noriega (was US-supported for years), Papa Doc, Baby Doc, the list goes on and on...). Sometimes it has worked in our favor, but rarely does it work in favor of the tens of thousands of people slaughtered.
"I guarantee you my percentage reduction in taxes paid will be significantly higher than yours - and will stay that way consistently over time. Wars don't last forever but entitlement programs do."
just because we don't "declare" war doesn't mean we haven't had combat forces on the ground, in various degrees of engagement, spending TRILLIONS of dollars, more or less consistently since WWII.
"why is it that the Courts had to overturn existing practices at the state and federal level that had been previously considered constitutional since 1789? "
you maybe want to point to some specifics?
look, some people don't want to pay for Social Security. Others don't want to pay for faith-based initiatives. i'm saying their 'unconstitutionality' is equal. find me one constitutional law scholar (who doesn't work for Liberty University) who disagrees.
I hear a lot of talk about the framers of the Constitution. This can be double talk. Check these "gods". They did not agree on slavery, who can vote and a boat load of other things, Be specific when you speak of "framers." Ignorance can be based of shitty history. I for one will note that Hamilton pointed out when citizens were given rights, they should not be taken away, unless I assume they were being punished for criminal actions.
Didn't america do away with JimCrow over 40 years ago? One of the main tools JimCrow voting laws used to keep black people from voting was the requirement to own property, disenfrachising black americans as well as the immigrant community in its entirety. On a related point- I object to the "Tea Party" co-opting the Libertarian Party platform, I feel that it's an obvious ploy to undermine the credibility of an established political party by encouraging a bunch of loony-birds to espouse the same goals we in the Libertarian Party have championed for decades: states rights, end big government, do away with the IRS, close U.S. military bases and BRING THE TROOPS HOME! We are not the worlds policemen. Where were all the raging supporters of the LP's platform 20 years ago? I suppose the name chosen for our party didn't have the mass-market appeal of "The Tea Party"; which only goes to show that the majority of tea-partiers are really just cattle, blindly following the herd.
R.L.Taylor
