Vail Daily letter: Values that vets prefer
June 6, 2013
In his Memorial Day salute to the military, Mr. Van Ens expresses concern that "apathy and ignorance will blind us to the justice and liberty our military dead fought to preserve."
Mr. Van Ens accuses the tea party of forgetting that our war dead fought to preserve a robust federal government.
However, he differs from Mr. Webster, who defines robust as "strong, healthy, firm." The robust government that Van Ens envisions is a big government that will "promote a just society and individual liberties."
Because the tea party's views of a limited, fiscally responsible and accountable government are in opposition to Mr. Van Ens' view of a robust federal government, he attacks the tea party. He draws spurious inferences from the Articles of Confederation and writings from a professor in the 1920s in representing their beliefs as a causative foundation to the current views of the tea party.
However, the most reprehensible accusation Van Ens makes is that "the tea party dishonors our nations military dead by spreading biased national history." Does he also think that the liberal-supported Occupy Wall Street movement somehow shows honor and respect for our military?
Mr. Van Ens concurs with Michael Gerson, who "urged the tea party to accept the Constitution which sets the stage for a robust government." Once again his version of a robust government is a nanny state that provides everything from food, health care, education and cell phones to the people.
Recommended Stories For You
These policies don't empower people. They enslave them. The Constitution didn't set the stage for a robust government, as Van Ens envisions. Rather, it established the idea of a limited government with separate powers of three branches and a system of checks and balances that serve to limit the power of the government over the people.
I'm not a tea party member and don't speak on their behalf. However, it is worthwhile to investigate their mission statement and core beliefs so they are not misrepresented.
In summary, they believe in the following: the Constitution, a fiscally responsible government, free markets, a government that is as large as it must be and as small as it can be, eliminating excessive taxes and civic and personal responsibility. The tea party wants a federal government that represents the people's interests, not special interests. It wants a government of, by and for the people, not a government whose leaders act in their own self interest.
Van Ens concludes by asking if our veterans died to secure tea party values or because they believed in a robust government. A worthy question to ponder. I will add a few more. Did our veterans fight to secure a government so robust that it can:
Spy on the press while misleading Congress in the process?
Use the power of the IRS to intimidate and defeat those who disagree with it?
Create talking points that mislead the public and obfuscate the truth of Benghazi during an election campaign?
Choose not to prosecute the Black Panthers who intimidated white voters because voting rights legislation applies to black victims, not white?
Have the National Labor Review Board try to prevent Boeing from building a new plant in a right-to-work state?
Have the audacity to have the Department of Justice investigate itself regarding First Amendment violations?
Disregard its accountability to "we the people" by refusing to testify to Congress or testifying they "don't know" or "can't recall" their actions?
I believe our veterans would prefer the tea party government that is limited and accountable more than the robust government that Van Ens prefers.