In his April 17 column Steinberg insists that tax protesters are in reality "speaking out against our military and our vets." Ridiculously, he also tries to make it seem like our founding fathers would be unhappy with the tea party movement because he thinks the founders were big government folks. The backflips, illogic, and the obviously illiterate historical analysis by which he arrives at these absurd notions is an act of liberal pretzel logic that is a wonder to behold.
In an effort to call the tax protesters stupid, Steinberg breaks every bone in his body to twist himself into the claim that the tea party goers are against our military:
Of course, they didn't think they were speaking out against our military and our vets -- they hadn't really thought it through at all. They were under the impression they were condemning federal taxes.
Gee, Neil. How'd ya get to that eyerolling conclusion?
But where do federal tax dollars go? By far the largest chunk -- more than a quarter -- supports our military and takes care of aging vets.
Steinberg is purposefully misleading, here. "More than a quarter" of our budget does not go to taking care of aging vets. According to numbers supplied by the U.S. government, the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs took up just 9% of the 2008 budget. If you add that to the 16.6% that the Department of Defense got, then we see that "more than a quarter" in question. But Steinberg deliberately invoked "aging vets" as if to say that all tax protesters want to see our elderly military veterans harmed.
Of course, it simply does not follow that tax protesters want taxes lowered to hurt our veterans. In fact, no one at any tea party mentioned a thing about lowering military spending. Chances are most tea party goers want to see military spending raised and spending on about everything else cut! Steinberg's mistake here is to assume that falling taxes must mean less spending on the military. In other words, Steinberg is the one suggesting that the military be starved of funds because of falling tax revenue, not the protesters.
Steinberg sums up his nonsense saying that "it is a little surprising, however, to hear them denounce their own nation and seek to withdraw their support from its brave soldiers and honorable vets."
Yes, Neil Steinberg wants us to know he cares about people more than others. I wonder what his wife thinks of that sentiment? After all, Steinberg was arrested for domestic battery for striking his wife in October of 2005, so she might not think he's as caring as he wants us to think he is.
Steinberg didn't only twist himself into a pretzel to accuse tax protesters of hating the military.
I know reason is useless against righteous anger, but I can't help myself. How accurate is it to say that the founding fathers were for "limited government"?
But if you look at what they actually did -- create a federal government where none existed before -- then they were for an enormous expansion of central control.
Apparently Steinberg has no clue about what the words "limited government" means because even as he raises the question he never really defines the phrase. He leaps from asking what "limited government" is, to the fact that the founders wanted "no taxation without representation," then to that they created a new national government where there was none previously, and then says that we should all be quite fine with Obama's wild spending because he won the election. There. Problem solved, the founders love Barack's big government. You'd be excused if you wanted to charge Steinberg with a hit-and-run there!
Of course, any informed student of the founding can see a lot wrong with Steinberg's facile analysis. Steinberg's main mistake is to assume that just any stampede for big government meets with the founder's approval. Notice Steinberg skips over defining what "limited government" even means for to define the concept defeats his empty pontificating.
One other thing makes a farce of his ill-informed rumination. He starts out scolding the tea party goers as being against the military and then uses the founder's supposed love of big government to prove his point. Yet the founders themselves were "against" the military to a large extent. The founders refused to create a permanent standing army and forced the military to constantly return to Congress for a new budget instead of having its budget included as an automatic expense. In fact, many of the founders openly feared a strong military force.
So, Steinberg uses men that were openly hostile to a large, permanent military as an excuse to scold people for "standing against the military." The irony is rich.... and Steinberg's logic is poor by comparison as is his knowledge of American history.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Stuck on Stupid
April 18, 2009 - 05:32 ET by kilrodWhoever coined the phrase "stuck on stupid" must of new this prick.
(GRINS) kilrod
Remember, only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier
What in the wide wide world
April 18, 2009 - 05:40 ET by Andrew H.What in the wide wide world of sports is he talking about? I was at a tea party and so were many vets--we made up much of the crowd (In Hoover, Alabama, estimated to be 7,000)... and words were expressed thanking us--we had a soldier in Iraq text the orgainzers and he was applauded loudly--Steinberg is lying.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
Great article. Cognitive
April 18, 2009 - 06:01 ET by EdhenryGreat article. Cognitive dissonance for libs: "High taxes, yeah!!" but "Oh taxes support military?... Nooo!!!!"
For the reasonable rest of us its: you have got to be kidding
The TEA Parties are all
April 18, 2009 - 11:58 ET by Ten7sThe TEA Parties are all about keeping America good and strong. Liberals (cultural-Marxists more properly) want to see America weakened and remade into a quasi-socialist state (a facist state, more properly). Obama's their leader, and he's proved it again and again (see Obama's Bow & Grovel Tour).
cutting
April 18, 2009 - 06:04 ET by AgnosticActually this makes perfect sense. The only large budget item that has been cut in my memory has been defense spending under Democrats and as we know the Republicans have been too weak willed to make any more than reductions in increased spending since welfare reform. It is only natural then for someone to assume that a cut in spending would apply to the military. However, asserting that this is what is being called for at the tea parties is fallacious. Defense, supposed to be the number one item on a short list of federal responsibilities should not be cut; more efficiently spent, yes.
BTW, the cheap shot about the domestic battery was beneath you and appears to be retaliatory for the author publishing his silly opinion; just my opinion.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
Fear and Foreshadowing
April 18, 2009 - 06:16 ET by DustBunny01The continuing attacks by MSM against the Tea Parties demonstrates more than anything else the fear held by the Obama Administration. The Obama Administration can not openly oppose the Tea Parties as such action would give weight to the core statements of the Tea Party: Uncontroled spending, debt and growth of government with its intrusion into the lives of the citizens is anathama to a free republic.
So, the Obama Administration attacks on the flanks with "leaked" documents combined with the running dogs in the media.
However, this latest missile foreshadows something already raised by Representative Barney Frank, in that the Military must be cut to bring spending under control. We may see in the coming week the foundation being laid by the MSM that any cuts in the military are due to the "necessity" brought on by the Tea Party philosophy. Representatives such as Barney can then claim to be doing the work of the "people" in their attempts to slash the military.
This is a smoke screen from
April 18, 2009 - 06:17 ET by jgarciaThis is a smoke screen from Obama's Court Reporters.... Off the top of my head, I think we can find a few sitting Democrat’s who openly hate the Military and I am guessing here, our current Congress has more convicted criminals than our current Military comparably!
Big fat stupids with their big fat stupid signs.
April 18, 2009 - 06:43 ET by JWFDon't they realize that they are also against butter and puppies?
We get butter from Wisconsin via HIGHWAYS which are built using tax money.
Where do puppies come from? mommy dogs. Where do mommy dogs come from? How the hell do I know, kid. Go away you bother me. I got a column to write for the Chicago Sun Times.
Did you know that the protesters were all hatin' on the elderly and disabled and firemen and policemen? That is right. They were out there beating up on senior citizens and knocking people in wheelchairs over. I saw them from my cushy office in the Sun Times tower. And when the policemen came to stop them, they shot them and set them on fire. And when the firemen came to... Oh I could go on all day but I need to commence to the drinkin'. Now PAY ME Sun Times. I pooped out my column for this week.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
JWF, What's really sad is
April 18, 2009 - 07:10 ET by bretzysdudeJWF,
What's really sad is that there were anti-Prop 8 people who probably DID these things... and probably a whole lot worse that even WE don't even know about.
Navy Vet here
April 18, 2009 - 06:43 ET by chaosmongerI am a Navy Vet and I went to a Tea Party that actually applauded the vets.
The media is now trying ANYTHING to make the Tea Parties look bad. Next thing you know, they will try to tell us that we were stupid for go to the Tea Parties becuase our states could get so many billions of dallars in stimulus money.
The Onion does a better job of covering the news.
I speak as one Navy Vet to another Navy Vet.
April 18, 2009 - 06:58 ET by JWFWe love butter and puppies.
You know why? We pay our taxes, yes military pay is taxed and that money goes to pay for butter and puppies.
So to sum up. We love our country and butter and puppies.
Silly people with silly sings. Don't they realize how big our hearts are when it comes to butter and puppies?
Somebody ought to write about this. I am calling the Sun Times right now.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
thank you both for your service...
April 18, 2009 - 08:10 ET by clinging to my guns and my religion...and all other nb vets reading this!!! i could type all day and still not include enough exclamation points to express how much i mean that!
i have always felt that one of the only things the government should actually be responsible for is the national defense. all of these social programs just drain the resources we need to guarantee that. (now lest you think i am heartless, i do feel that it is our duty as capable americans to care for any americans who are genuinely not able to care for themselves, but a large portion of that is already provided through family, church, and philanthropic efforts. additionally, i think our God-given urge to be charitable is certainly quelled somewhat by the disgust we feel at the waste of our tax dollars on those who are just as able-bodied as ourselves, coupled with the fear that our charitable gifts will be mis-directed.)
thing is though, there are those who will read steinberg's column and not even consider that the social programs are the problem, not the military. they'll think, "yeah, bet those tea party idiots didn't think about all that wasteful military spending that needs to be cut! ha, ha!!"
they will not get it until there is no one there to protect them!
"i believe he will not stop until we are all jobless, homeless, hungry, and cold!"
Navy Vet, as well, here. 86-92 Never stationed on a ship : )
April 18, 2009 - 11:54 ET by pahuberCTM ~ rating now defunct along w/ the CTR's merged them into a CTN.
RM
April 19, 2009 - 02:36 ET by chaosmongerI was an RM, also now defunct. Looking back on it, I should have went CTI. Anchors Aweigh!
NAVFAC Adak, Alaska
USS Bunker Hill (CG-52) - Desert Storm the first go round
Oh and another thing....
April 18, 2009 - 06:58 ET by chaosmongerI once read that some of the founding fathers believed that a responsible citizen should revolt if they pay more than 3% of all their wealth in taxes. Just 3%. I can't fully verify that, but I thought that is was interesting for it always stuck with me.
What libtards don't
April 18, 2009 - 07:09 ET by eaglewingz08What libtards don't understand is that the TEA partyers believe in funding CONSTITUTIONAL government. So for common defense, which is mentioned in the CONSTITUTION, as a PROPER federal government activity, we have no problem paying nor for any other strictly constitutional activities as long as it is not wastful and inefficient or doesn't violate federalist principles of proper delineations between local, state, federal responsibilities. However for SOCIALISM and porkulus bills that are in violation of limited government and will bankrupt the country, we will not accept such programs. We are not racist as many African Americans and Latinos were present throughout the country and would welcome many more.
Now, that's a fair tax.
April 19, 2009 - 02:37 ET by soulpileNow, that's a fair tax.
Hate the soldiers?
April 18, 2009 - 07:16 ET by Two DogsThe irony of that "hate the soldiers" statement is that I had just left the MEPS building in Jackson, Mississippi, where my son had just sworn into the Navy at 3:30pm on Wednesday. The Jackson Tea Party started at 4:00pm.
Check it.
Hey swab, you are gonna have to lose that beard.
April 18, 2009 - 07:42 ET by JWFAnd put that hat on right. The YVAN is supposed to be spelled NAVY.
Best of luck to you and your son sir. <hand salute>
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
There are several forces at work here...
April 18, 2009 - 07:51 ET by BKeyser... at least in my opinion. First, the administration believes it has a mandate. I don't know when administrations first starting using this term "mandate" to describe steamrolling 48% of the electorate, but any clear thinker would not qualify any recent election as a "mandate"; except maybe that of Kim Jung Il. Even Chavez didn't get a "mandate." That being said, Obama thought he can push his policies through with the blessing of the American people. However, after testing the waters with a few Presidential signings, he quickly felt a backlash by more than a handful. As a result, his administration is trying to rush progressivism into law before the 2010 elections when he could potentially lose quite a bit of his support in Congress.
The press, largely on orders from the White House and diseminated through Kool-Aid fountains in newsrooms across the country, are trying desparately to stave off the descent and buy the administration more time. They're indignant to "regressives" to begin with, and their snobbery is legendary. Denegrating their opposition comes natural, but with dwindling blind faith from their readership, and decreased advertisting revenue, they are feeling the pinch from all sides- except from above. This is causing them to (gleefully) inch closer to their only support source, playing perfectly into the hands of Rahm Emanuel and his band of miscreants.
As for taxes- I think it's only in name that the Parties really refer to them, as to this point taxes have not significantly been effected. To the contrary, the demonstrations were meant to voice concern and opposition to the direction progressives are driving the bus. Of course we all know that the spending being jammed down our throats cannot be sustained, and huge tax increases, to everyone, are on the horizon. They'll show up before the left loses its majority and either just after Obama is re-elected, or just before it is apparent that he won't be re-elected. I'm sure the bill has already been drafted and shown to all the major democrat players in the Senate and Congress. The only question is on what late Friday evening will they pass it.
As for the military- Democrats in power ALWAYS cut military spending. (One of the reasons I left the Marine Corps in November, 1992.) It is part of the initiation to the Democratic Party- I think. There's no secret that Obama is planning to cut military spending- he said it during the campaign. Specifically, he said that he would go "line-by-line through the budget and eliminate programs that no longer work." The only "programs" that a progressive would consider eliminating are faith-based and military. Not recognizing that was simply not understanding the platform of the progressive movement- something Obama has been groomed to represent from his birth.
The media is just doing it's mandate- the one put forth by their last bastion of support- the office of the president. It is impossible (just ask them) to organize so many people purely from a grassroots level, without a major (community) organizer. Hence, these blasted "TEA Parties" must be put down as the (insert Rahm Emanuel-directed-talking-point here) they are.
Sorry for the lengthy rant this fine Saturday morning. -Bob
We seem to
April 18, 2009 - 08:46 ET by general companyForget sometimes that Emanuel and Obama are now directing what the media is publishing. We must always be aware just where this info comes from. It is all sounding very predictable, and obvious to me.
Levin has been having some great shows lately, he has threaten to use their own legislation aganst them.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
it's their new schtick
April 18, 2009 - 07:57 ET by SickofLibsRemember last May when Olbermann accused Levin and Ingraham of "hating the troops"?
Damn, I bet Steinberg does
April 18, 2009 - 08:14 ET by BDDamn, I bet Steinberg does not even KNOW any soldiers, sailors, airmen or marines.
One thing is for certain, more veterans attended the Tea Parties than attended Obama Rally's.
Wow! What a surprise. I hate America and veterans too
April 18, 2009 - 08:01 ET by The Smokin FrogWow! What a surprise. I hate America and veterans too I guess. Apparently Steinberg has never read Thomas Jefferson and his disdain for big government.
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
"I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."
"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government."
From Recovering Constitutional Jefferson Republicanism
This is so Orwellian. These people have no regard for the military and yet they wish to be seen as so caring. These people have no idea what it means to give your life for another as our military does. Our Founders knew this too.
How Low Can Go They Go
April 18, 2009 - 08:13 ET by WorriedAt the Tea Party I attended there were old and new vets. I was standing by an old man who was on a ventilator who wear wearing a U.S. Marine ball cap and another older vet came by, shook his hand and thanked him for his service. I got a tear in my eye upon witnessing it.
That's why Americans gathered on April 15th upon other things. We saluted our military, which has been responsible for our freedom. We gathered because we know we have the greatest country on earth and don't want a bunch of sleazebag politicians to make it equal with a 3rd world country. Hope it's not too late with everything that's on Obama's agenda.
Humm....
April 18, 2009 - 08:28 ET by macvilleAt the Knoxville, TN Tea Party when asked who were veterans, I'd say close to half the people stood up (including a surprising amount of 30-50 year olds). Veterans understand that lower taxes are good because the military is about the only thing the federal government is supposed to be spending money on.
Apparently Steinberg ...........
April 18, 2009 - 08:30 ET by DanoApparently Steinberg survived the frontal lobotomy operation..................too bad
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
– Thomas Jefferson
This is a perfect example of how
April 18, 2009 - 08:33 ET by general companyStupid most of old media think the public is.
But if you look at what they actually did -- create a federal
government where none existed before -- then they were for an enormous
expansion of central control.
So let me see if I have this correct Neil Steinberg, you are suggesting that since our Founding Fathers created a Federal Gov.that they were for big "wipe you ass momma" Government?
Have any of these fools ever read the Constitution, or any early writings of our Founders, obviously not. But yet they feel compelled to do the preaching.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Question of fact
April 18, 2009 - 08:41 ET by jed58Why is it always the "left" whom during elections attempts to get the votes of military members thrown out to not be counted?
Asswipes like this guy make
April 18, 2009 - 08:50 ET by ricklailAsswipes like this guy make me sick. They have never served in the military, probalby don't have anyone in their family that does. I only served 2 years but that was duirng one of the most tuberulent times in the history of this country, Vietnam. At that time it was the few conservatives that stood behind us and our mission. Today it is still the same conservatives that stand behind our men and women in uniform. Liberals hate the phases like "Duty, Honor, Country" "This
We'll Defend"
This clown could care less about our vets or those on active duty. If he can turn a small precentage of Americans to his way of think then he has sucessed with his BS.
On May 1st my Reserve Naval Corpsman son-in-law reports to Camp Pendleton in prepartion to serve in the war on terror. I wish this nimord could be there next weekend when we have to tell him goodbye not knowing whether he is going to Iraq or Afganistan. It would be nice for this worthless piece of debris to be there and thank Billy for volunteering to protect his freedom to write BS such as this.
Semper suprene nitens
Typical Steinberg
April 18, 2009 - 09:58 ET by Indiana JoeWhile looking down his nose at all his "uninformed" readers, he undertakes to "educate" them with a biased and distorted version of history and cherry-picked "facts." This pompous pseudo-intellectual is so easy to shoot down, his nickname should be "Clay Pigeon." Were he a Native American, "Sitting Duck" would work as a moniker.
Reading this fool, you realize his total unfamiliarity with colonial times, and the debates around creating our Constitution. The question of how much power a Federal govenment should have was central to those debates. The Bill of Rights was adopted specifically to list what the government could NOT do with regard to it's citizens. "Checks and balances" was another way to limit absolute authority.
Finally is this little gem: "it is a little surprising, however, to hear them denounce their own nation and seek to withdraw their support from its brave soldiers and honorable vets." Now that opinion, uttered 40 years ago, would have referred to Vietnam War protesters, and would have been roundly denounced as a "right-wing reactionary" insult to those exercising their First Amendment rights. 180 degree total reversal, anyone? Seems the Left feels a little differently about "The Establishment" now that they ARE the establishment.
Steinberg is one of three reasons I stopped reading the Slum-Times, the other two being it's editorial page and Mary Mitchell. Sadly, she recently announced she has breast cancer. I wish her good luck with that, but it doesn't change the fact that she's even more of a jounalistic hack than Steinberg. And that's saying a lot.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."-John Adams
Neil Steinberg - Uber-Dolt
April 18, 2009 - 10:16 ET by Free StinkerApril 15, Morristwon, NJ, Tea Party on "The Green".
Several of the speakers were vets. Guess who got the most applause and lots of handshakes and hugs after speaking?
Note to liberals who don't get it: The vets got the most applause!
Arrogant left-wing cowards
April 18, 2009 - 10:33 ET by fitzfongArrogant left-wing cowards like the eco-parasites, the union thugs, the abortion-on-demand-at-any-cost crowd and the illegal alien traffickers will stab the military in the back with regularity...then hide behind them for protection when they think they can use their issues to prop up their own bankrupt agendas. Steinberg produces the most cynical, disgraceful, self-serving perversion of logic to advocate for the government's blatant theft of the fruits of the taxpayer's labor. Disgusting. Contemptible. Typical
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
and which party labeled
April 18, 2009 - 12:01 ET by GeronLand which party labeled them as possible domestic terrorists??
did it mention the DHS report at all??
people masquerading as reporters
April 18, 2009 - 12:31 ET by katainkentall pulling off their masks now that the dance is over and they believe they have their mandate.
I love to help the helpless but I'm not gonna help the clueless ~Dennis Miller
Honestly.
April 19, 2009 - 00:08 ET by AlanaWhat will they come up with next.
Oh Alana... They have
April 19, 2009 - 00:18 ET by bigtimerOh Alana...
They have more than enough time unfortunately before the next election and all that goes with it...just when you always think there isn't anyway to stoop any lower the filthy critters always slither a way to do so...with the majority of the msm leading the way.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
My family has fought for
April 20, 2009 - 13:17 ET by rbosqueMy family has fought for this country since Geo. Washington, we love
this country so much we have served in just about every war.
Many of those who participated in the demonstrations are loyal Americans with similar backgrounds, others have come recently. To suggest that we hate the military is just beyond reason. The left is truly insane.