A Second Look Rotating Header Image

Tea Party Movement

Oklahoma Tea Baggers are Fighting Mad at Their Cash Cow

Tea Party Protestor/Terrorist

Re: Oklahoma Tea Party Plans To Form Armed Militia, Sean Murphy and Tim Talley | 04/12/10 09:30 PM | Associated Press

OKLAHOMA CITY — Frustrated by recent political setbacks, tea party leaders and some conservative members of the Oklahoma Legislature say they would like to create a new volunteer militia to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty.

They want to form a state sponsored separatist Christian cult like the Hutaree group recently arrested in Michigan. The first question that comes to mind is why. Why, or for what purpose, create an armed militia outside the National Guard? The stated purpose for the militia is to confront the Federal Government for perceived wrongs to the State of Oklahoma. 

Tea party movement leaders say they’ve discussed the idea with several supportive lawmakers and hope to get legislation next year to recognize a new volunteer force. They say the unit would not resemble militia groups that have been raided for allegedly plotting attacks on law enforcement officers.

So, who’s face is going to be on their targets during weapons training?

Even after all the denials the Tea Party really is made up of radical right wing separatists. The Tea Baggers continue to define themselves this way. They want to form an armed militia that has the full support of the state.

“Is it scary? It sure is,” said tea party leader Al Gerhart of Oklahoma City, who heads an umbrella group of tea party factions called the Oklahoma Constitutional Alliance. “But when do the states stop rolling over for the federal government?”

Wait a minute! Doesn’t Oklahoma take in more federal dollars than they pay? In accordance with data released in 2005 (latest I could find) the citizens of Oklahoma receive $1.38 for every $1.00 they send to the federal government. This is true of most “red” states. It seems to to me that this militia wants to cut off its nose to spite its face, as they say. On the other hand, the larger populated “blue” states pay in more than they receive thereby distributing their wealth to the red states. Of the 31 states in this category, 24 are solid red. This means that the federal government is redistributing wealth from people that have higher incomes in blue states to those that have lower incomes in red states.

But Mr. Gerhart is pissed off that Oklahoma and other states are being “rolled over” by the federal government. The problem with this anger is that it is a mystery as to where it is aimed. The tea baggers seem to pick and choose which part of the federal government they hate. They don’t like the health care mandate, but they take federal dollars for highways and unemployment with a smile. This from Digital Journal:

Bloomberg gives a bit more detail in its more current analysis and observes more than 90 percent of Tea Party backers say the U.S. is moving more toward socialism than capitalism, while 70% want more government involvement in job creation. In other words, they don’t want the government interfering except in certain designated areas, as they also were found by majorities to want Social Security to remain under government control and didn’t see the Veterans Administration as socialism.

This particular group says they want the State of Oklahoma to defy the federal government over the health care mandate. Other “Astroturf” or fake grassroots, groups are frustrated with the mandate:

But the militia talks reflect the frustration of some grass roots groups seeking new ways of fighting recent federal initiatives, such as the health reform plan, which requires all citizens to have health insurance.

If they would read the law, they would find an interesting amendment that allows states to opt-out of not only the mandate, but the whole program as long as the state meets certain rules. From the Huffington Post article, Wyden: Health Care Lawsuits Moot, States Can Opt Out Of Mandate:

But states that found the mandate objectionable could simply create and insert a new system in its place. All it would require is applying for a waiver from the Department of Health and Human Services, which has a 180-day window to confirm or deny such a waiver.

That language has been inserted, almost verbatim, into the bill Obama signed into law on Tuesday. And if there is any confusion about how much leverage it gives states to drop the mandate, Wyden cleared it up months ago during a hearing at the Senate Finance Committee.

Since the Tea Baggers can’t get it straight which way they want it, and since they are ignorant of the law, it leads me to the conclusion that this anger and frustration, and broad-brushing the government as the enemy, is less about the mandates and more about the President who signed it into law.

The demographics of the tea party is overwhelmingly white, male, older, and with higher than normal incomes. This is also the demographic that voted heavily for Senator John McCain for President. I know it is hard for the right wing fringe to loose an election after having so many years of  ideological candy land with George Bush, but elections have consequences. The right wing lost. It still stings, I know, but they are being dishonest in their anger.

Not only should they be forthright about who they are really angry with, but the tea baggers should also use their anger constructively, like they should rally to get out the votes for their candidates instead of creating armed militias to shoot at …who? The Democrats? Obama? Who’s next, blacks and Jews?

____________________________________________________________________

Share

Scott Brown Hates the Tea Baggers

Tea Bagger

Re: Scott Brown To Skip Tea Party Rally In Boston With Sarah Palin, HuffPo, First Posted: 04-12-10 11:50 AM | Updated: 04-12-10 11:53 AM

Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), who snatched the late Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat with an improbable special election victory in January, has turned down an invitation to attend a Sarah Palin-headlined tea party rally this week, the Boston Herald reports.

Some suspect that Brown may be seeking to distance himself from the enthusiastic — and at times unrestrained — Tea Party members who helped secure his Senate win.

“He wants to mainstream himself before the election,” Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia political scientist, told the Herald.

Why? Why does Scott Brown want to “mainstream himself” and separate himself from those who got him elected. For one, he both embraced and distanced himself from the Tea-baggers simultaneously during the election. From the looks of this, the GOP would love to parade Scott Brown around this summer when the campaigns heat up raising money and stumping for GOP House members. It would be difficult for them if Scott Brown was a tea-bagger. Why? This is the heart of the matter.

The answer is that the tea-baggers have painted themselves as violent racists who carry guns to rallies. This behavior is acceptable to the right wing radical fringe, but it will not win the hearts and minds of the independents, without which they don’t win. Why does Scott Brown distance himself from the fringe? The answer is money. The big players won’t throw money into the fringe blood-sucking mosh pit.

_____________________________________________________________________

Share

Tea Party = Angry White People

Re:  White Racial Resentment Bubbles Under the Surface of the Tea Party Movement | News & Politics | AlterNet, AlterNet / By Rich Benjamin

Dale Robertson, who calls himself the “president and founder of the Tea Party,”

February 5, 2010  | Editor’s Note: Rich Benjamin’s commentary on the underlying “white grievance” currents in the Tea Party movement were buttressed Thursday by the statements of Republican Tom Tancredo, the opening speaker at the Tea Party convention. Tancredo told attendees that President Barack Obama was elected because “we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country,” an allusion to how Southern states used literacy tests as part of an effort to deny suffrage to African American voters before the civil rights era.

I need to add that suffrage was forced upon southern states after the “civil rights era” because of foot dragging or outright refusal to accept the Civil Rights Act by the state of Mississippi and others. Many districts in the south fought the black vote well into the 1970’s through various means like misinformation on where and when to vote, crowding the precinct voting place with angry white men and other methods of intimidation, and even resorting to redistricting predominately black neighborhoods by splitting them in pieces to be part of larger white districts and in doing so, weakening the black vote to the point of nonexistence. The force of suffrage came from the federal authorities, such as the FBI, investigating voting irregularities.

It is very easy to see the underlying racism in the Tea Party movement. They tote signs that are “dog whistles” showing our first black president as a world-wide hated figure like Stalin or Hitler, suggesting that Obama is on the same level although he has done nothing to deserve it other than to be black.

And speaking of signs, most of the tea party crowds I’ve seen sported messages of anti-taxation, claiming that they refuse to bear the burden of Obama’s tax hikes, as untrue as that is, to pay for illegal immigrants’ food stamps, or anything else for that matter. Haven’t taxes always been a convenient target of whoever was out of favor of the American voter? Anyway, most of the southern and mid-western states, the “red” states, actually receive more money from the federal government than they pay into it. What we see at these tea party gatherings are middle class white people who have just received a tax cut from their hated Obama, protesting that Obama is unfairly raising taxes. Giving these folks some credit for having half a brain seems appropriate, so the public must infer that “taxes” as a rallying cry is false and the Tea Partiers message must convey underlying racism.

This has been going on a long time, long before the Tea Baggers came into existence last summer.

All of this is not to say that any given rank-and-file member of the movement personally despises racial minorities. Rather, the Tea Party ethos is a direct descendant of the anti-tax segregationist politics that swept the South in the 1950s and ’60s.

Before the Tea Party’s debut, a whole generation of powerful southern Republicans propelled their careers through a conservative tax-cutting, privatizing, “free-enterprise” politics that remains wildly popular in America’s white outer suburbs and exurbs: Lee Atwater (GA), Newt Gingrich (GA), Dick Armey (GA), Tom DeLay (TX), Karl Rove (AL, TX), and George W. Bush. These suburban and exurban Republicans intimately understood their constituents’ disdain for court-ordered desegregation. They fueled the rising mania for “individual freedom,” “privatization,” “states’ rights” and social homogeneity that once defined their Southern home turf and now defines the Tea Party.

To me, this movement is all about white supremacy while its members taking pains not to say it out loud. When Sarah Palin speaks of “the real America” she is actually talking about rural white America.

At a Tea Party rally in Boone County, Kentucky (roughly 92 percent non-Hispanic white), Congressman Geoff Davis called cap-and-trade legislation “economic colonization of the hardworking states that produce the energy, the food, and the manufactured goods of the heartland, to take that and pay for social programs in the large coastal states.” In Tea Party-speak, “heartland” often means “white” — what Palin calls “the real America” — while “coastal state” means the urbanized communities that teem with racial minorities, doubling as “gateway states” for Latino immigrants.

What’s the verdict here? I think common sense will win out. I think that sooner or later these folks who vehemently hate immigrants, the xenophobes, and the racists, will eventually realize that the federal income tax and social security tax that they pay allows the government to do things for us as a nation that we cannot do for ourselves as a family or small community. These taxes provide health care to more poor white families than ethnic minorities, and Social Security taxes allow many elderly white folks to retire with some dignity. Medicare benefits allow the same white elderly white folks a chance to live a few years longer by providing health care that they could not get elsewhere. The tea partiers are all going to draw Social Security and Medicare when they are eligible.

If they were true to their cause then they should refuse to apply for these benefits, but they are not true and they will not refuse them. The only other conclusion is that the tax protest is just a dog whistle for segregation.

_____________________________________________________________________

Share
You are protected by wp-dephorm: