There have already been Tea Parties, and there are several that will happen between now and April 15. The advantage of the early ones is that many don't want to wait. They have also gained media attention for the movement, which is how more learned about them. The ones happening between now and April 15 will gain momentum, cause others to look for ones, and give them time to prepare to attend.

Momentum is critical. Having a one day event is like the G-20 protesters... "oh yeah, just a bunch of nuts who hate capitalism". But when the American people, and the world, see this as a growing movement, it is more "Hmm, what's going on here? This thing is growing, and these people are organized, have a clear agenda, and apparently willing to act."

Whether they agree with us or not, the progressive exposure to the progressives will make them take us more serious. Give Dean and Obama credit for one thing, they know how to mobilize people online, and they did it with a small minority of Americans. Now we're showing them what happens when the majority mobilizes.

And, by the way, why stop on April 15, I say we keep going. They may not be "Tea Parties", but the more we stand up, the more that will be encouraged to stand up with us.

I will be attending Indianapolis Tea Party on 4/15.

Cybersecurity Act of 2009

Bill introduced in Senate this week would give president power over private networks. NIST would have administrative power over "security standards" of "critical infrastructure industries".

More importantly, it would give the president direct intervention authority in security matters both public and private, including the power to declare security emergencies and shut down internet traffic to networks. It would enable the government to order private sector networks disconnected from the Internet for reasons of "national security".

It gives the president the power to declare what corporate networks classify as "critical infrastructure".

It has been called by critics "a sweeping federal takeover of cybersecurity", Yes, that would even include shutting down sites like the912project.com if they are deemed by the president to threaten national security.

- source NetworkWorld.com

As anyone with any experience will tell you, the smartest protesters are the ones who don't approach the public, don't yell, don't argue with the police, don't encourage people to honk horns, etc... all of which can get you arrested for various reasons. This is why signs are so important. Chanting in unison is also ok. Provocation of people not in the protest is not.

And yes, never, ever, ever, sign anything for anyone at a protest. Don't provide your name or any other information to anyone other than a police officer. If you have fliers, and you know your protest is covered by its permit to pass them out or has been otherwised ok'd by the local authorities, then hand them a flier.

It's like when you get pulled over for speeding. Anything you do will only serve to get you into more trouble. Do what you came to do, and no more. Be smart, don't get baited!

PS - Your organisers may forget to tell you, but don't hold your sign up until you reach the designated protest area. Failure to do so could get you detained by the police for causing a disturbance or other local ordinance violation. Read up on your group's rules BEFORE you arrive.

I plan on attending my local tea party on April 15. My number 1 sign idea right now is:

Stop spending
MY
(children's, grand-children's, great-grand-children's...)
money!

Does anyone have a site where people are doing sign ideas? Maybe easy print out templates? *hint hint*

Yeah, watch out Mexico and China, we have a new cheap labor market in the works, and like China, we can overlook their worker standards so we can get our socks another 25 cents cheaper at Wal-Mart. Capitalism works on a level playing field. Some fields are just more level than others. But as Hillary said with China, no reason that human rights should interfere with trade discussions.

We can make all the changes in congress we want, but as long as we have activist judges, they will keep dictating to us from the bench. A prime example is Iowa's decision, like California, to wildly re-interpret the law to overturn the will of the people.

One of our goals has to be to reign in judges. I think judges, state and federal should also have term limits, including Supreme Court judges. To keep them from being politically swayed, they have lifetime limits, so they don't have to worry about reappointment or re-election. Well, that is similarly accomplished if we set them to no more than 8-10 years on the bench. By excluding further reappointment or re-election, they can keep mostly out of politics, but they can also do more limitted damage. Iowa now must wait until 2012, allowing 4 years of gay marriage before anyone anywhere has any power to say otherwise because of activist judges.

As it is almost impossible to "throw the bums out", because most judges outside the local level are not voted into office, I say we set a time limit and throw them out that way. If you haven't been approved by the Senate, the governor, or the voters in 10 years, it is quite clear you answer to no one. That's a dictatorship, and that's unamerican.