NAACP Disingenously Attacks the Tea Party

The NAACP recently repudiated certain "racist" elements within the Tea Party, and called on Tea Party leaders to disassociate themselves from those same elements.

"Leaders of the country's largest civil rights organization accused tea party activists on Tuesday of tolerating bigotry and approved a resolution condemning racism within the political movement.

The resolution was adopted during the annual convention in Kansas City of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, spokesman Chris Fleming said. Local tea party organizers disputed claims of racism and called on the NAACP to withdraw the resolution."

Not satisfied with with making those baseless allegations, the NAACP then follows with the bromide that the Tea Party apparently "welcomes" white supremacists into their midst.

"We felt the time had come to stand up and say, 'It's time for the tea party to be responsible members of this democracy and make sure they don't tolerate bigots or bigotry among their members,'" NAACP President Ben Jealous said ahead of the debate. "We don't have a problem with the tea party's existence. We have an issue with their acceptance and welcoming of white supremacists into their organizations."

These straw man allegations are, of course, completely unfounded and the NAACP never bothers to offer any type of support or evidence to back up these wild and outrageous claims.

In fact, their latest attempt at rabble-rousing was so poorly conceived that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are actually distancing themselves from it!

The NAACP's attack should be seen as a pitiful and desperate attempt by an increasingly irrelevant organization to stem the tide of limited government that the Tea Party advocates. The NAACP and its members are on the receiving end of a lot of government largess, and any threat to that gravy train is taken seriously by them.

The NAACP's efforts would be better used sticking to its original purpose of trying to make a positive difference in the lives of their members and the black community, rather than seeking to undermine the desire for freedom and liberty demanded by an increasing percentage of the American people.

Senator Kerry: Tea Partiers are Hypocrites

In a nonesensical statement by a man who has made a career out of the same, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) recently remarked that Americans that are angry at Washington are being hypocritical.

"But he said that the D.C.-directed attacks are hypocritical, since many of those attacking Washington spending presumably want to keep their Social Security and Medicare and want Washington to play a big role in the Gulf Oil cleanup. "There's a huge contradiction on a daily basis," he said."

So because Tea Partiers believe that politicians in Washington are overspending in a multitude of areas, it's hypocritical for some of them to support any type of spending that is undertaken from Washington?

I think the essential issue here is that Mr. Kerry does not understand the Tea Party, does not understand why it has sprung into existence and does not understand the issues that its supporters believe are important.

Many Tea Partiers (myself included) would support making Social Security and Medicare contributions voluntary and not mandatory (of course, that would mean we were not able to receive those benefits either, to the extent we did not "contribute"). Any many Tea Partiers believe that regulators in Washington or at the state level in Louisiana should oversee the clean-up efforts being undertaken by BP (which at least has access to cutting edge technology, and is not bogged down in red tape like government bureaucrats would be) but not play a "big role" (which in his definition presumably means taking over the clean-up process).

The fact is, Senator Kerry and the Democrats ignore and mock the Tea Party at their own peril, and risk a devastating defeat in November.

As for why the Tea Party has just now come to life, it was one thing for the overspending to be approved by previous Administrations (i.e., Reagan, Bush 2) that were pro-growth and kept taxes somewhat low, which created the hope that once we got spending under control we could grow our way out of the mess. It's quite another for the Obama Administration to overspend, have no pro-growth policies and talk of massive tax hikes (e.g., repeal of Bush tax cuts, European-style VAT, etc.) as a means to fulfill their statist agenda.

The Rand Paul Non-Story

Rand Paul's (R-KY) victory in the Senate primary last week is a testament to the people in Kentucky who showed themselves willing to take a chance on a relative newcomer to politics, a man who made many promises about ending the way business is currently done in Washington.

However, there is no ignoring the fact that Paul is now a marked man to the mainstream media and those in power in Washington.

To wit, in a post-election interview on MSNBC, interviewer Rachel Maddow employed a bit of "gotcha" journalism in fishing on-camera for Paul's views on the 1964 Civil Right Act legislation.

In a very refreshing bit of candor, Paul suggested that the Act had possibly outlived its usefulness, and in securing rights for one party (African Americans) had potentially ridden roughshod over the rights of others (property-owning Americans).

"Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant?" Paul remarked during his interview with Maddow. He went on to say that, had he been in office when the Civil Rights Act came under debate, he would have tried to change it because it undermines the first amendment rights of property owners. He also compared the federal government ordering business owners not to racially discriminate to the government telling business owners not to refuse service to patrons armed with guns."

It is certainly arguable that the Civil Rights Act was necessary back in 1964. However, have people changed, have the opportunities for those who wish to show their disdain against those who seek to discriminate been significantly multiplied since 1964 with the advent of the internet?

In today's world, the racists among us (whether individuals, whole cities or even states) would be subjected to economic boycotts and public scorn from the rest of us, and their policies and goals would be justly vilified until they were reversed, without the need for any state intervention.

Apparently, those on the Left are still stuck in 1960's and believe that not only should business-owners be hauled off to jail for failing to promptly serve a cheeseburger, but anyone who even remotely questions the wisdom of that kind of thinking should be publicly drawn and quartered.

Much to their surprise I'm sure, the views of Rand Paul much better fit the views of most Americans than Rachel Maddow and those of similar ilk on the Left.

America can not be turned around until more people like Rand Paul are elected to public office. We need more legislators like Mr. Paul, people that believe that ordinary, hard-working, entrepreneurial Americans are what make this country great, and who actively strive to make Big Government a much less intrusive presence in people's lives.

Let's hope and pray that the people of Kentucky don't fall for the demonization of Rand Paul and give him a resounding win in November, a win that would rally and encourage freedom-loving Americans.

Anti-Incumbent Fever Spreading

Yesterday's primary win for Senate candidate Rand Paul in Kentucky, Arlen Specter's defeat in the Pennsylvania Senate primary and Bob Bennett's recent defeat in the Utah Republican primary all signal the same thing - voters are tired of politicians in Washington foolishly spending their money.

Rand Paul's victory is a 'feather in the cap' for the Tea Party and their efforts in propelling him to this win, particularly since his primary opponent was backed by Republican heavyweights:

"Paul's victory represented a defeat for Kentucky's Republican hierarchy, which solidly backed Grayson. Powerful Kentucky senior senator and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell put his weight behind Grayson as did former Vice President Dick Cheney , who called Grayson the real conservative in the race."

A post-election statement made by Robert Menendez, head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, should give Rand Paul and Tea Party folks some additional cheer, as Menendez has now gone on record in saying that he believes Paul is actually better for Democrats to face in the general election.

"Rand Paul would abolish the Department of Education, would disband the Federal Reserve, and would end farm subsidies for Kentucky's farmers," Menendez said in a statement. "Rand Paul may love the national media spotlight but he has shown no interest in growing Kentucky's economy or creating new jobs."

Robert Menendez has shown how empty and meaningless Democratic rhetoric is. In effect, because Rand Paul is opposed to excessive taxes and excessive interference by politicians in our lives and in the economy, this should somehow be interpreted as him having no interest in growing the economy or creating new jobs?

With talk like this helping people increasingly take notice that the entrenched political class is nothing more than a bunch of lying, stealing empty suits, I'm increasingly optimistic that shills like Menendez and the people he supports will be out of office in November.

Charlie Crist's Act of Desperation

Florida Senate candidate Charlie Crist has taken the unusual step of abandoning the GOP's nod for his bid for the U.S. in favor of a run as an independent.

The mainstream media seems to suggest this poses a potentially troubling sort of groundshift for Republicans.

" But Crist's move does pose some tougher long-term questions for today's GOP. Can Republican moderates withstand the pressure of similar challenges from activists on the insurgent tea-party right? And if that answer is "no," how will Republicans fare in general-election ballots, where centrists and independents often supply the margin of victory in hard-fought battles between the major parties?"

In reality, this is nothing more than an act of desperation by a big-government favoring candidate who knows he is in for a rude awakening in the general election come November, and potentially signals that the GOP is starting to truly embrace fiscally conservative candidates over their more traditional, 'mainstream' and 'electable' country club Republican challengers.

Tea Partiers from all states should celebrate this latest development in Florida, as it means we're that much closer to getting one of our own in the U.S. Senate.

Original Tea Party not about Taxation?

Historian T.H. Breen recently penned an article attempting to dispel some myths about the original Tea Party members.

Among several questionable theories, Mr. Breen offered up the following:

"Second, the colonists did not protest taxation. To be clear: They protested against taxation without representation, an entirely different matter. During the summer of 1774, when Parliament punished the city of Boston for the destruction of the East India Company's tea, people throughout Massachusetts Bay continued to pay taxes to the colonial government. At this chaotic moment, rather than keep their money, colonists voted in town after town to no longer transfer tax revenue to Harrison Gray, a treasurer of loyalist sympathies, but instead to send "moneys which they then had, or in future might have in their hands, belonging to the Province" to one Henry Gardner. Anyone who misses this point risks missing the fact that ordinary American patriots accepted the legitimate burdens of supporting a government in which they enjoyed genuine representation."

Despite Mr. Breen's disingenuous protest that somehow an argument about "taxation without representation" has nothing to do with taxation in general, it's obvious to any observer that the original Tea Party protest was in fact about taxation in general, with no need for any qualifiers.

The reality is, the colonists were plenty annoyed with sending their personal treasure to a far-off government that spent it in ways that the colonists believed was improper.

There are plenty of parallels between the feelings of the colonists and many Americans today, what with the cash we send to Washington DC spent on unnecessary foreign wars, on bailouts of well-connected financial firms and industrial companies and on sustaining a welfare state that is beyond repair.

Attempts by Mr. Breen and others to cloak the original Tea Party in terms of other than an out-and-out tax protest betray a certain level of desperation and suggest that he and others are increasingly nervous that latter-day Tea Partiers are making significant inroads to attracting more and more Americans to their cause, at the expense of the established political parties.

Captain America Declares War on the Tea Party

Well, perhaps not quite outright war, but a recent comic strip from Marvel Comics depicts the Tea Party movement in less than complimentary fashion.

"Issue 602 of the comic features Captain America investigating a right-wing anti-government militia group called "the Watchdogs". Hoping to infiltrate the group, Captain America and his African-American sidekick The Falcon observe an anti-tax protest from a rooftop. The protestors depicted are all white and carry signs adorned with slogans almost identical to those seen today in Tea Party rallies like "tea bag libs before they tea bag you" and "stop the socialists."

The comic strip has prompted shouts of outrage from Tea Party officials.

But really, who cares what the illustrator of Captain America thinks?

For one thing, keep in mind what PT Barnum supposedly said - "Any publicity is good publicity".

In complaining too loudly about this perceived slight, the Tea Party movement loses an opportunity to differentiate itself from the whiny, PC-oriented political left.

A better response would be to draw up a competing cartoon that shows Captain America being in the employ of a socialist, tyrannical, overarching central government and, in need of rescue himself, being saved by 2nd Amendment-loving private individuals. Or something like that.