The Real Tea Party, Not Today’s Tea Party Fakes

Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger

Today I came across this fascinating exposition on a facet of American History often overlooked in our educational syllabus. The Boston Tea Party, from which today’s Tea Party takes its’ name, was actually a revolt against the dominance of the largest Multi-national Corporation of its’ time and its’ monopoly of the ubiquitous tea trade. The power of this entity came through its political dominance of the British Monarchy and with its’ compliance and enforcement of this Corporation’s needs. Contrast the actual positions of today’s “Tea Partier’s” with those whose names they usurp. I think you will find this a fascinating video and I will comment after the fold.

Even if you didn’t watch this whole video, I’m sure you got enough information to understand that the Boston Tea Party was about fighting the bestowal of government privileges, including tax cuts, to a large, influential corporation. Today’s “Tea Party” is a movement created by wealthy corporate interests, guided by a powerful lobbyist, Dick Armey, and is committed to ensuring that corporations have no regulations whatsoever. I had previously documented that here:

 This is a fact that it seems none dare mention in the Mainstream Broadcast Media, excepting MSNBC. The average viewer is led to believe, by the bloviating pundits, that this is a “grass roots” movement of average folk, fed up by too much government involvement in their lives. The “Tea Party” has been invested by the same punditry, with the mantle of being a “populist” movement. In fact, the only resemblance to them and certain “populists” of the past is that there is a racialist percentage among them.

Today’s TP’ers are essentially anti-constitutionalists, in league with those who would be theocrats, working in the service of corporate interests. They bandy about epithets for the rest of American’s, the majority of Americans I must say, that call their opponents socialists, communists and fascists. Although all of these epithets could hardly characterize either the Democratic Party, or the President they revile, they gain currency through the repetition of the corporate “Big Lie” and are given equal treatment by the media.

The only way for real American’s to battle these anti-constitutionalists is by constantly exposing the lies and the memes they use to give themselves legitimacy, such as taking on the mantle of an historic American move towards independence. Admittedly, these are harsh words and do not necessarily represent the views of this blog or its proprietor.

Enough, however, is enough. I cannot abide the hypocrisy being displayed here, nor can I abide watching a field of Republican candidates, kowtowing to this movement, who are themselves made up of clowns, knaves and even much worse. Oh, do I long for the days of Richard Nixon and Dwight Eisenhower before him. The current crop of Presidential hopefuls in the GOP isn’t fit to step into the shoes of their Republican forebears, who were demonstrable realists with no small intelligence.

The worst part of it is that although the whole contingent of Republican Presidential hopefuls pretend to represent themselves as the people’s protectors, their history strongly suggests quite the opposite. Their greatest weapon thus far has been to seize the political initiative and attain power through erecting a Potemkin Wall of popular support. They have done this by redefining American History, the Constitution and given new meanings to words. The TP’ers have successfully infiltrated our Congress  with preachers of cant and no-nothingness and because of this, we must perforce expose and oppose them, or watch the very heart of our government, our Constitution, shredded by the hypocrisy by which they justify their actions.

62 thoughts on “The Real Tea Party, Not Today’s Tea Party Fakes”

  1. Rico,
    We have to worry about the environment. Global warming is already adversely impacting the weather due to human activity and you want to destroy the environment in order to fatten the pocketbook of the corporate masters.

  2. rafflaw:

    what environmentally sensitive lands? The North Slope?

    Screw the environment [to a point], when we have 100% unemployment and people are prosperous we can worry about the environment. After all we are part of the environment to, we are just animals. So we spoil the other animals nests a little bit, screw em. We rule not some numb nutted caribou or arctic fox. I guess they just dont know they didnt hit the evolutionary jack pot we did.

    You want to preserve them? Caribou are mighty tasty dried with some good rubbing spice.

  3. Puzzling,
    The resources in Alaska won’t end the petro wars. There is not enough there and most of it is in environmentally sensitive lands.

  4. puzzling:

    thank you for that correction, it is an important point. Why does the federal government own almost all of Alaska? Why cant the people by it for the pennies per acre the government paid for it?

  5. I did not say to everyone, just people who work, kind of a reimbursement for the taxes they have paid.

    Now that is the rub, why do you think you have a right to harm your neighbor?

    And what is wrong with parceling out federal and state lands to the public? The rich get to graze their cattle on those lands, why shouldn’t they have to pay the going rate for pasturing?

    It all comes down to who is for rich people and who is for the rest of us. I am for everyone, neither rich nor poor. we all ought to have the same opportunities. You guys on the left want to help the poor at the expense of the rich but it ends up helping the rich.

    Case in point is the federal insurance rich people who have coastal homes use to pay for the damage hurricanes do to their homes, it was initially meant for people in the inner cities to promote business after the 68 riots, if I remember correctly.

    Why cant you just let it be? Why do want to exert control that cannot control?

  6. Roco wrote

    But then I also dont think the Federal government should own the majority of the state of Alaska.

    I’m with you, but it’s far more than a simple majority of the land as I wrote about here when I said:

    The federal government owns 60% of the land in Utah and 98% of the land in Alaska.

    Was that the long-term intention?

    Who knows better how to utilize and develop the natural resources in Utah? Washington DC, or the people of Utah?

    Why should this wealth remain frozen while ever higher taxes extract earnings from individuals and government debt forces future generations into a lifetime of debt slavery?

    Put frozen government assets (like Alaska’s energy resources) to use, end the petro-wars, radically reduce government, and stop the debt enslavement of our grandchildren

  7. Roco,

    I sincerely hope that you are joking. That’s about the worst idea I’ve ever heard from you. I can’t even begin to explain all the things that are wrong with it. Can you even find one desirable result of parceling out “equal” pieces of public land to everyone? If you want to do that, then I assume that you’re okay with me dumping arsenic (and worse) into your water table if I get lucky in the lottery?

  8. “By lIJl accidental concurrence of events, the author of
    the following pages has recently discovered, that the wasting
    influence of a hundred years had not yet subdued the spirit, nor
    unnerved the arm which sixty years age had been outstretched
    to arrest the progress of lawlcss power, and fix the inviolable
    seal of physical force to the great decree, that the people of the
    then British colonies, but now united independent states of
    Noi-th America, would not be taxed by the British Parliament,
    or any otlier power on earth, without their consent.”

    Sounds like the current Tea Party to me.

  9. Slarti:

    I have never liked Palin for that reason. But then I also dont think the Federal government should own the majority of the state of Alaska.

    How about we parcel out all public lands, except federal and state parks, to private individuals through a national lottery? break them up into small parcels and give them away to the working public.

    I would be for that kind of socialism.

  10. Roco,

    Where do you think the money for the profits that the Koch’s will earn will come from? Do you really think that efficiency savings will account for a significant piece of that profit as compared to costs passed on to the consumer who has no choice in the matter? Why should the Kochs be the only ones to profit on the state’s resources? (why shouldn’t every state have socialist programs like Caribou Barbie’s Alaska for sharing the profits off of our natural resources? Why shouldn’t the country as a whole have programs like that?) Do you really think that the Kochs (and others) need to violate the letter of the law in order to rape its spirit these days?

  11. Gene:

    as you well know I am against monopolies. But there are more requirements for a monopoly than just ownership. And anyway why are you worried about utilities? they already are a monopoly.

    If Koch industries gauges the power using public and are protected in that effort by the state, then that is clearly illegal. What should really happen is that competing power companies be allowed to do business in any state they can enter. If the infrastructure is paid for by government then they should be allowed to use it at the going rate, if not I guess they lose and will have to provide their own.

  12. A look at who will get a monopoly on power, coal and chemical production in Wisconsin under the Koch-puppet Governor Scott Walker belies that assertion, Roco. Monopolies are built in real life just like in the game: one piece at a time.

  13. “Actions like these, replete as they were with magnanimous
    valour, were not more than commensurate with the transcendent
    object of the American war of independenCE!’ Among the pro.
    minent causes which led to that great event, it will be recol.
    lected, was that of the claim of the British government to the
    right of taxing the people of their colonies in America, withol1t
    their consent. This right was denied by the citizens of Boston,
    encouraged by their friends throughout the country.; who, after all
    overtures to persuade thll parliament of Great Britain to relinquish
    this assumed right, had proved abortive, formed the fixed resolu.
    tion of resisting by physical force the collection of such taxes.
    The duty on the article of tea, it seems, was intended to be reo
    served as a standing claim, or exercise of the right of laying
    such duties.”

    This is going to be fun.

  14. good video. But the East India company was a government sponsored monopoly. It was not operating in a free market. It had protection from the King to sell its products.

    Wal Mart and Koch Industries do not have government protection to sell their products. GE and GM now that might be another story.

  15. Great article and video find, Mike. Educational, thought provoking and speaking truth to power in one fell swoop. It illustrates the adage that all the best puppeteers never let their puppets see the strings.

  16. Let’s get one thing straight about today’s Tea Party – they are the racist base that the GOP adds to its rich white voters to win elections. Period. Let’s not fool ourselves about these people. Recall that for his first major campaign speech in 1980, Ronald Reagan went to Philadelphia, Mississippi, where the civil rights workers were slaughtered. But did he talk about civil rights? No – he talked about states’ rights, and that’s dog whistle for “Democrats will give black people all your money so vote for me.” The GOP/Tea Party is composed largely of dangerous sociopaths, intent on driving the country into another ditch to prevent Obama’s re-election. They are anything but patriots.

  17. Jeebus Mike, I’m not even halfway done with a comment on your first post of the morning (which was fascinating) and you come out with another doozy.

    Today’s TP’ers are essentially anti-constitutionalists, in league with those who would be theocrats, working in the service of corporate interests.

    Well said! (all of it, but I thought the above quote is the best summary of the teahadi that I’ve seen…)

Comments are closed.