The tea party movement sprung from plain old disenchantment, disappointment, and outright anger at being fleeced by a government who mistook their primary job as being 'spend cash mon-nay' rather than execute the Constitution.

In this quote, Dana Loesch explains the origins of the tea party movement, attributing it to feelings of disenchantment, disappointment, and anger. The movement emerged as a response to what many felt was the government's misuse of taxpayer money. The phrase "fleeced by a government" emphasizes how citizens believed they were being unfairly burdened with excessive spending and poor financial decisions. According to Loesch, this anger was fueled by a sense that the government had lost sight of its true purpose, which should be to execute the Constitution and protect the interests of the people, rather than focusing on spending money.

Loesch further criticizes the government's approach by highlighting the perceived prioritization of unchecked financial expenditures over constitutional principles. She points out that the government’s actions were seen as a departure from the founding ideals of the nation, where the focus was meant to be on governance that upheld the law and served the public good, rather than indulging in unsustainable financial policies. The tea party movement sought to correct this perceived imbalance, rallying around the idea of returning to constitutional values and more responsible fiscal policies.

The origin of this quote comes from Loesch’s commentary on the tea party movement, a political movement that gained momentum in the early 2000s, largely in response to growing frustration with federal government spending and policies. The movement was characterized by its advocacy for smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and a return to constitutional principles. Loesch captures the essence of why so many people felt compelled to take action—because they believed the government had strayed too far from its constitutional duties.

In essence, the quote reveals the tea party movement's roots in frustration over government spending and a perceived failure to adhere to constitutional duties. Loesch’s commentary suggests that the movement was a reaction not only to economic policies but also to a sense of betrayal by a government that was seen as abandoning its core responsibilities in favor of financial excess.