From an article on the Reason website (link: http://reason.com/news/show/133177.html)

Within a week, the storyline went from cries of “AstroTurf” to Senior White House adviser David Axelrod—Obama’s very own Karl Rove—declaring the tea parties too real for his comfort. So real that he actually pronounced them “unhealthy.” When questioned on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Axelrod said: “I think any time you have severe economic conditions there is always an element of disaffection that can mutate into something that’s unhealthy.” Unhealthy? “Well, this is a country where we value our liberties and our ability to express ourselves, and so far these are expressions.”

Call me old school, but I still live in a country where the citizens more than “value” their liberties and their ability to express opposition to government policy. These liberties define us; they bind us as a nation. They are explicitly defined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. So make fun of me. Call me a “teabagger” if you must. But now a senior White House official is suggesting that my freedom of speech and my right to peaceably assemble are “unhealthy” and are only acceptable “so far.” Will the White House grow tired of our “unhealthy” expressions and send the First Amendment packing, much like it did to former GM CEO Rick Wagoner?

Wednesday, during his “town hall” meeting at Fox High School, in honor of his first 100 Days in office, he had this to say about the Tea Party protestors who were outside the venue:

Those of you who are watching certain news channels on which I’m not very popular, and you see folks waving tea bags around, let me just remind them that I am happy to have a serious conversation about how we are going to cut our health care costs down over the long term, how we’re going to stabilize Social Security — Claire and I are working dilligently to do a thorough audit of Federal spending — but let’s not play games and pretend that the reason is because of the Recovery Act.

Okay, let’s be clear about something: we’re going to see a huge increase in people eligible to collect Social Security, thanks to the aging of the baby boomer population.  There are very limited ways of facing this situation: we can put off the retirement age from 67 to 70 or 72.  That will, at least, give us some time to set aside some funds to pay their benefits when they do retire.  Or we can raise revenue (i.e. taxes) somehow.  Those are the only options, given that we’ve exhausted our credit with foreign countries like China and Japan.

Of course, we could also encourage those who don’t actally need the money (like Joe Biden, for instance) to forego taking the money.  Given his stellar example of “I’m entitled to take it, therefore I am taking it,” I don’t hold out much hope of the administration leading by example.  Then again, that really isn’t their strong suit, is it? 

I’m pretty sure the Tea Partiers aren’t all that concerned with the healthcare “crisis” or any other crisis the administration has manufactured this week (like the Swine Flu crisis, for instance).   What we’re worried about is the profligate spending Obama’s administration is currently engaged in, at the expense of future generations.  It’s a message so simple that even the president, with his Harvard-educated, certified “big-brain” should be able to comprehend.

But personally, I have another concernm which is the implication in David Axelrod’s comments that they’ll suffer the tea party protests, for now.

But what about later? Is there going to be a point at which they decide they’ve had enough with Americans disagreeing with the Potentate-in-Chief? Will there come a day when we’re told to not congregate? Oh, I’m sure it’ll be for our own good, like so that we don’t fall down dead from Swine Flu, or somesuch.

Mr. Obama can’t accept that anyone could possibly disagree with him on anything, or that they have anything relevant or reasonable to say on the matter. Does anyone believe him when he says he’s willing to sit down with the protestors and talk about ANYTHING? I mean, first off, who does he allow to the meeting? Especially since there’s no one currently in charge of the movement. Second, given his behavior when he “sat down to talk” to Republicans regarding the Porkulous Bill or members of the financial sector about the continuing crisis, it’s pretty clear that Obama’s definition of sit down to talk really comes down to: agree to be locked in a room with me so I can browbeat you, coerce you, and tell you you won’t get your way, no matter what.

Yeah, it’s nothing more than mob-inspired strong-arm tactics, but is anyone really surprised this is how the man deals with his detractors?

I, for one, am not.

There’s no talking to Obama; there’s no hope of having a meaningful dialogue with him regarding our concerns. He’s already decided we personally don’t like him (and that’s the real reason for our displeasure, in his opinion — it hasn’t anything to with real concerns about the direction this nation is heading). As far as he’s concerned, we’re a roadblock to be pushed aside or through. And make no mistake: he will make his move soon. We won’t be allowed to continue to act against him for long…