The piece opens with patriotic pabulum:
"America is an exceptional country with exceptional people; we are a determined and resourceful people who do not cower in the face of danger or back down when faced with..."
And that's where it veers into inflammatory (yet vague) posturing:
"...when faced with an over-reaching government that behaves more like tyrannical dictators than citizen representatives."
Whoa. The government "behaves more like tyrannical dictators"? That's a bit vague and demands at least one measly example to be persuasive. Have there been jackbooted thugs bearing government warrants tromping on porches out in Valle Crucis? Black helicopters landing in yards? People disappeared? Newspapers shut down for reporting too much truth?
I'm serious. What prompted this over-heated and totally unsubstantiated rhetoric? If you're talking about the mandate to buy health insurance, then you should say you're disturbed about a mandate to buy health insurance, and we can then judge your "tyrannical dictators" verbiage on the merits. But since health insurance isn't even mentioned once in the entire editorial, we have to assume that there's something else much more "tyrannical" and "over-reaching" that's poked you in the eye.
For example, perhaps it's tyrannical over-reach for the government to regulate where an asphalt plant can be sited. Some people certainly think so, though Watauga County regulates asphalt plants (to a small degree). Is it tyrannical over-reach for Watauga County to mandate no billboards on the Doc & Merle Watson Memorial highway? Just be specific so that we can evaluate your argument and assess your values.
Oh, it's probably taxes she's talking about, yes? But taxes are never mentioned in the editorial either. Watauga County has one of the lowest property tax rates among the 100 NC counties, and our sales taxes are lower than many other states. If the editorialist wants to defend the millionaires' tax break, I wish she'd just come out and say so.
She does talk about revering the Constitution but does not mention that in fact the ability of the government to collect taxes from its citizens, as part of a social contract, is included in the Constitution.
Here's the main passage where this Tea Partier comes closest to saying what she wants:
"We share the common values of re-establishing limited government, free market/fiscally conservative principles, reassertion of states rights, equitable application of the law and individual rights."
That's a mouthful, granted, but again, exceedingly vague. "Free market principles"? Would that include the free market principles that repealed the Wall Street rules that in turn allowed the big banks to bring us to the brink? Would that include the free market principles that would tell the oil companies they can drill whenever, wherever they want, and we'll trust them to do it right? Would that include the free market principles that would allow, say, sweat shops and child labor?
"States rights" used to be code language for suggesting that Southern states, particularly, might be okay to disenfranchise black voters. Is that what this writer is hinting at, or does she not know that history? And we're just naturally curious how far this writer would take "states rights"? As far as "nullification" of law or even secession?
She'll get no quarrel from us over "equitable application of the law and individual rights," but what does she mean exactly by "individual rights"? The right of any couple to get married? A woman's right to an abortion? Specifics are left entirely to your imagination.
Which, when you think about it, is kind of the Tea Party's modus operandi -- imaginary goals, vaguely arrived at.
At the time this was first posted, the editorial certainly was not available on-line, but now it is. Here. Scroll down.