The Tea Party is extremist.

My opponent refers to the modern movement in America known as the "Tea Party." Wikipedia defines this movement sufficiently: "The Tea Party movement is an American political movement that advocates strict adherence to the United States Constitution, reducing U.S. government spending and taxes, and reduction of the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit. The movement is generally considered to be partly conservative, partly libertarian, and partly populist. The movement has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009." [1] "Extremist" is defined as: "a person who holds extreme political or religious views, especially one who advocates illegal, violent, or other extreme action." [2] United States Constitution: "The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. The first three Articles of the Constitution establish the rules and separate powers of the three branches of the federal government: a legislature, the bicameral Congress; an executive branch led by the President; and a federal judiciary headed by the Supreme Court. The last four Articles frame the principle of federalism. The Tenth Amendment confirms its federal characteristics." [3] 1. The aim of the Tea Party is not extremePro wants us to believe that adhering to the US constitution, supporting reduction of tax rates, spending, and the size of the government, cutting the national debt and deficit, is something that should be considered extreme. This is ridiculous. I am sure Pro would enjoy working only to have the government taking a large portion of his money, regardless of what he has to save up for, and what his daily needs are. Maybe he would be satisfied with that. How about his children and grandchildren bearing the burden of paying for the horrid financial burdens put forth by the current administration? Since Obama took office, the unemployment rate has, for the vast majority of time, remained flat, i.e., above 8 percent. No good president, regardless of the economy he inherits, will be so incompetent as to not make a single good change for people who are in need of jobs."An unprecedented number of U.S. households were going hungry as they struggled to feed their families in the past year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported last week. Nearly 18 million families in 2011, 700,000 more than in 2010, didn’t always have enough food to feed themselves on a regular basis. That’s more than 50 million people, or about 1 in 6." Additionally: "Household income is down significantly in the past three years. From June 2009 to June 2012, the nation’s median household income dropped 4.8 percent to $50,964, according to an independent study by Sentier Research. Median income means that 50 percent earn more than that and 50 percent earn less. The current median income level is 7.2 percent below where it stood in 2007." [4] The Tea Party is not extremist in attacking the vicious policies of the left. Obama is wrecking the economy, and the extreme position is to support him in applying his socialist agenda. To oppose him is the morally correct choice. 2. The Constitution must be respectedThe US Constitution is the most important document in the history of the country. Without that document, there would be no guarantee of freedom, neither positive nor negative freedom. There would be unrestricted democracy, i.e., anything could be up to vote. Minorities could be oppressed. The president could function as a dictator. And the list goes on. So, how is supporting the constitution an extremist position? Promotion of adherence to the constitution is, after all, one of the key goals of the Tea Party. The Obama administration does not mind going against the constitution. It seems to me that Pro, with his obvious support for Obama, does not mind suppressing religious freedom. That's one prime example of Obama spitting on the constitution. What is the extreme position: Rallying for the support of the validity of the constitution, which is the sole source of guarantee for all freedom in the country, or imposing policies upon institutions and people to do and buy things that they have no moral obligation for doing so?"Mr. Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services ignored the First Amendment by issuing a Soviet-style order to Catholic and other faith-based institutions to violate their beliefs and provide insurance covering abortifacients, contraceptives and sterilizations." [5] "The policies of the Obama administration represent the greatest government-directed assault on religious freedom in American history. In the 2007 campaign, candidate Obama promised a 'transformative' presidency; as president, he has delivered one. Through stealth and sophistry, he is gradually transforming America into a secularist and socialist dystopia along modern Western European lines." [6]The Tea party favors religious freedom through the unbreakable support for the constitution. Their criticism of Obama and the left is sound. It is not extreme to support someone's right to exercise his religious beliefs; it is extreme to deny him such crucial rights. Nor is it extreme to support the individual's choice of health insurance; the contrary is.3. The Tea Party favors a free and prosperous economyObama does not. He holds the extreme socialist view that wealth should be scattered in a society, and that those who are more fortunate should pay for the lack of success of other people. Is the Tea Party extreme in opposing such catastrophic political views? If Obama's agenda were successful, the economy would have taken a positive shift by the time his first term has come to pass. It almost has, and the economy has improved insignificantly. In fact, it has worsened. The unemployment rate has remained unchanged until very recently. No president should be proud of reducing high unemployment by less than 0.5 percent in four years, especially if he promised to reduce it by a much higher amount. What kind of an economic record does Obama have thus far? A non-changed unemployment rate in four years. George Bush inherited a recession, too, but was largely successful in maintaining a great economy. [7] A deficit unmatched by all other presidents. "In Bush's first seven years, the deficit averaged $476 billion, while Obama averaged $1,588 billion over just his first three years, more than three times what Bush spent." [8] This is only a fragment of what can be said about his record. Why is Obama relevant to this debate? First, because the Pro directly brought Obama into the debate as one of the key figures. Second, because the Tea Party gained its momentum during the Obama candidacy and presidency, and many of its political statements and goals go directly against Obama and his policies. It is crucial to compare the Tea Party and its opposition in order to find out which side is the extreme one. I have no doubt as to who it is. Maybe Pro will continue with his support for an incompetent, arrogant, unsuccessful president who holds insanely extreme views and enforces horrid policies. Supporting Obama is supporting a guaranteed failure of the greatest country on earth. The Tea Party aims at preventing such a disaster. Only extremists would call that goal extreme.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://www.washingtontimes.com...[5] http://townhall.com...[6] No Higher Power: Obama's War on Religious Freedom, p.1 http://www.amazon.com... [7] http://www.indexmundi.com... [8] http://www.heathenrepublican.blogspot.com...