The great foe of the “Tea Party” is not and has never been people of color; rather it is socialism and the welfare state that the left and collectivist groups such as the National Association of Colored People) support.
The movement that sparked in the waning days of President George W. Bush’s administration, ignited and took flame during the current push for socialized medicine, “cap-and-trade,” and amnesty to illegal immigrants – under current President Barack Obama’s direction – is what the “Tea Party” movement supporters are opposed to.
The “Tea Party” is not a monolithic political party. It is, in fact, not an official party at all. It is a diverse group of Americans who believe in individual rights over the state, not the other way around.
The progressive left, and even left-leaning Republicans, believe in the inherent “good” of a centralized government when it comes to the safety net of government programs and regulations. The increase in legislative intrusion – as is necessary – increases the command of the state over the individual.
Our form of government was never intended to create an over-reaching nanny state. The Founding Fathers set up this representative republic to make sure that the individual holds power over their elected representatives – not the other way around.
Under the guise of looking out for our best interests, our federal government has increased its role to a point that our nation has established a caste system of sorts. Legislators look at their positions of power and influence as an unending source of financial windfalls. The benefits that our legislators receive both while in office, and upon leaving office, are beyond most of the “proles” wildest dreams.
To say that the political caste increases its influence with every addition, or increase in safety net spending, is nothing new; however, the overt progressive march that the current administration has led us on has stirred up in the average American. Americans who believe in the individual liberties over state control are not hateful; they are just worried.
They are concerned that the government will stifle their right to free speech through reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine over the air as well as the Internet. They are concerned that the healthcare law will put the government in control of physicians and control available treatment options, not only as direct guidelines, but through the apportionment of funding. They realize that this will harm their small businesses with unreasonable costs and regulations.
People sympathetic to the Tea Party movement know that they can spend their hard-earned income more efficiently than “voluntarily” contributing it to the political caste for redistribution.
This week the leadership of the NAACP decided to deride and slander the people who believe in the individual rights by labeling them with the “racist” tag. They have voluntarily become slaves to the Democrat Party. They have sold themselves to the philosophy of the progressive left.
Once a proud organization, the NAACP led the charge to make certain that the tone of one’s skin didn’t keep an individual from attaining their American dream. It has evolved into a far left mouthpiece for the progressive cause that values the collective over the individual.
In fact, the NAACP and Ben Jealous, its president and chief executive officer, have become so blind in their allegiance to the left that they actually praised the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D. WV) as a champion of the Civil Rights Movement even though he led the opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights legislation by leading an 83 day filibuster against it!
Sadly, the NAACP has castigated those who speak out against the president’s policies not by challenging the merit of their arguments, but rather portrayed them as racists, Uncle Toms or sell-outs. Prior to the Civil Rights legislation passing, the NAACP led the debate by winning arguments based on both constitutional and moral grounds.
This once proud organization needs to get back to leading the debate of judging on based on their character, not in demonizing those fighting for the same rights that led to passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.