Tea Party Command Center


Today's Poll Question


Members: 161
Latest Activity: Apr 15

Today's Poll Question

Are the Democrats tyrants?

2016 filmaker D'Souza has been indicted by Holder's DOJ, Cuomo's Department of Labor has issued a subpoena for "Acorn destroyer" James O'Keefe's financial records, TSA abuses passengers, DHS violates your rights, NSA violates rights to privacy, Obamacare mandates dictate your insurance, EPA is after wood stoves, DOE demands Common Core be taught in schools and the IRS is changing the rules to attack conservative groups.

TeaParty.org, one of America's leading websites and top online news sources is conducting a poll about an important issue.

The results of these polls will be published online and are shared with major news networks and policymakers.

Don't miss this opportunity to let your voice be heard!

Vote Today!


Comment Wall


You need to be a member of Today's Poll Question to add comments!

Comment by Jeff Noncent on April 15, 2014 at 1:23am

I am with you CaptainAmerica

Comment by CaptAmerica on April 14, 2014 at 6:01pm

No Not Democrats nor Republicans, both are equally at fault. I am an American who loves my country, not these guys.

Comment by Jeff Noncent on April 13, 2014 at 6:29am

the only way we can overcome this government is through Jesus Christ that's it

Comment by Roberto Benitez on April 12, 2014 at 4:59pm


I'm in particular agreement with your statement that, "Now the political parties want to run the country and the elections are secondary to that." It's a manifestation of our fallen condition.

That's what we have to overcome, the stranglehold under the color of law the Republican and Democrat Parties have on governments from cities to the "CENTRAL" government.

What I oppose is the demagogic partisan banning of one party or another. I realize most partisans on both sides of the issue won't agree. Since political parties first gained prominence, they have behaved like corporations. No corporation once well established truly favors free enterprise. Since the beginning of the Republic parties have been trying to crush and eliminate opposition parties, literally.

Is there an easy answer? I doubt it. But what is the cost of freedom?


Comment by Ralph Baker on April 12, 2014 at 4:34pm

to Roberto Benitez

What you talking about is what Madison refereed to as factions.

Political parties were formed as a means to organize campaign elections for their members. 

Now the political parties want to run the country and the elections are secondary to that.

Each state was organized around the idea of precincts, though they may not have been called that, but, the idea was the same.  Somehow a consensus had to be reached.  Whether it was by township, colony or Church group, people had an organized means by which they reached a consensus.

They made decisions as to what had to be done, then they looked to who was most able to do it.  So Political Parties didn't have the kind of force they have today.

Copyright © by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
The Federalist,
Paper Number 10
James Madison


The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. . . . But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property.  Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors and those who are debtors fall under a like  discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests,  grow up of necessity in civilized nations and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government. . . .

It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests and render them all subservient to the public good.  Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.
The inference to which we are brought is that the causes of faction cannot be removed and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.

Comment by Jeff Noncent on April 12, 2014 at 2:44pm
Well we will what's going to happen within the next few days
Comment by Roberto Benitez on April 12, 2014 at 2:23pm


part 1 of 2

I agree with you that the Republic wasn't founded on political parties. As a matter of fact, many of the Founding Fathers said they opposed parties, factions as they called them. Yet many of the very same Founding Fathers established political parties. So from the beginning we had political parties even if Washington ran unopposed for the presidency.

Throughout our history we've had numerous different political parties, at times with more than  just two viable parties. Today we have dozens of political parties although only two are truly viable due to their use of constitutionally suspect laws and policies along with the use of corrupt financing to suppress the representation of the minor parties.

That said, you ignore a very important and critical point. Douglas Wenzel wrote that, "We must abolish the democrat party." He's calling for a one-party system that would adhere to a narrow set of political beliefs, likely a real TEA Party. Simply put, he wants to use the force of the state to abolish a party he dislikes and distrusts. There's no way to explain that away. While I admit he has good reason for disdain of the socialist Democrat Party; what he's calling for is a dictatorial one-party system. He's not the first "super patriot" here to advocate such nor will he be the last.

I'm also compelled to mention that along that line some here would restrict participation not only to one "political" party, but also to one racial/ethnic/religious group. Surely you've noticed how some "super Americans" want to deport all Muslims, Liberals, Democrats, Hispanics, and Blacks no matter their citizenship status, beliefs, or conduct. I could tragically envision such happening under a one-party system and developing into an egregious tyranny.

Comment by Roberto Benitez on April 12, 2014 at 2:21pm

part 2,

As it is, we're facing the very real possibility of a one-party fascist/socialist Democrat Party system with a socialist welfare nanny state. That many on other sites and even in the MSM have strongly hinted that they favor establishing psykhushkas, gulag, and killing fields for us the loyal opposition should come as no surprise. It's my desire to not see constitutional conservatives adopt such animus. That's why I'm often critical of some posters here (not you mind you - I mildly disagree with you but am also intrigued by your desire for truly grass [PRECINCTS] roots action).

Frankly, I'd love to see a real viable competitive TEA Party. I strongly favor allowing 3rd parties and oppose the current situation where the two major parties have essentially blocked minor parties from real participation in the public square. I understand the allure of a no party system, but it goes against human nature. It's important we understand that kin/clan selection and reciprocal altruism are the basic natural modes behind human sociability. We don't really learn those behaviors; rather they're genetic to our mental and emotional makeup. Due to that makeup we tend to group together by certain bonds to advance our agendas, for better or worse, often the latter. It's progressives who believe that such bonds can be broken and replaced, often by loyalty to the state as all encompassing and all "legitimate." Hence the culture war designed to break down our basic Western Civilization institutions, particularly the family through governmental connivance.

Thus I like Douglas' belief in the use of nullification. While it's not mentioned in the Constitution, Jefferson spoke of it. In essence, if something the government did was not permitted it in the Constitution it shouldn't be obeyed. The act was null and void. The state isn't always "legitimate."

While I believe political activism at the precinct level is vital (the old Mayor Daley Chicago Mob style Democrat Party Political Machine is excellent at it), I contend that this country was founded on the idea of States. It wasn't the precincts that created the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution, rather it was the colonies and later the States. So as a true AMERICAN I support the United STATES of America, not some imaginary united precincts of America.


Comment by Ralph Baker on April 12, 2014 at 11:13am

to Roberto Benitez

Our country wasn't founded on parties, it was founded on the idea of precincts.

It doesn't have to be one party if we get back to what was created in the beginning.

The last link is to a web site dedicated to uniting all three thousand precincts across the country.  It is a tool that we could learn to use and is what we need to break the strangle hold the Parties have on the country.

The first two links are a discussion of the precincts and their importance, give them a listen.

The "True Business of the Precincts" Part 1

The "True Business of the Precincts" Part 2

Welcome to United Precincts of America!
Are you ready to accept the challenge and be American?
The U.S. Constitution is irrelevant without the means of enforcement. The means of enforcement is the Precinct Strategy... the True Business of the Precincts. The Enforcer..? We the People! ― Phil Glass

Comment by Jeff Noncent on April 12, 2014 at 1:36am

Americans please wake up because its going to get ugly soon


Members (161)




© 2014   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service