Question: How do you rid yourself an obnoxious blogger?
Answer: Tell the truth.
I mentioned States Rights the other day and how the tea party movement while stating they are for States Rights are actually against them. You can argue back and forth if they truly want smaller government but it's easy to show they want a central government and that is because it is easy for the elite to control. The article below shows that our Congressmen and Senators are no longer accountable to their state backers and constituents but to the corporate entities and elite that are funding the Superpacs.
Tea Party super PAC pours funds into congressional races
Callum Borchers
A super PAC that spent more than $5 million to help elect Tea Partiers to Congress in 2010 has already surpassed that fund-raising total this election year. But while there is a bigger prize at stake in 2012 - the White House - Club for Growth Action has not touched the presidential race, and its major donors have contributed little to presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney.
Instead, the super PAC has worked to purge the GOP of what it calls RINOs - Republicans in name only - in congressional primaries.
“Our members are excited to defeat President Obama, but our focus is on electing progrowth candidates to Congress,’’ said Barney Keller, spokesman for Club for Growth Action. “We’d like to endorse a presidential candidate in a future election, but we were unable to do that this cycle.’’
Club for Growth Action is an arm of the conservative Club for Growth, a 75,000-member group that for more than a decade has endorsed free-market candidates and bundled donations for them.
The Club for Growth was among the first to take advantage of a landmark Supreme Court ruling that permitted unlimited political spending by super PACs. It formed Club for Growth Action in August 2010, and the new super PAC raised millions in three months before that fall’s election.
Most of its expenditures were devoted to aiding Pat Toomey, former Club for Growth president and Tea Party movement favorite, in his bid to replace Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Club for Growth Action walloped Toomey’s Democratic opponent, Joe Sestak, with $2.7 million of negative advertising, helping Toomey win by the narrowest of margins, 51 percent to 49 percent.
“If there’d been no outside spending, it’s hard to say that Joe would not be in the United States Senate,’’ said J.J. Balaban, Sestak’s media strategist in the campaign.
The successful spree offered a glimpse of the super PAC influence that has shaded this year’s presidential race in unprecedented fashion.
Yet Club for Growth Action, which has collected $6.6 million in the current election cycle, has spent nothing to support or oppose any candidate for president, according to Federal Election Commission filings. Its attention has remained on congressional races, and after directing all of its opposition spending at Democrats in 2010, the super PAC has aimed 100 percent of its 2012 negative expenditures - some $4.2 million - at Republicans it considers too liberal.
The shift does not reflect a philosophical change, Keller said.
“It’s just that by the time we formed the super PAC in August [2010], all the primaries were over,’’ Keller said. “This year, we’ve focused on some important primary races, but there’s really no trend.’’
