Since Eugene Robinson does not get the driving force behind the Tea Party movement, he decided that it must be racism—thus proving that he truly does not get it!

In an article for the Washington Post Writer’s Group published at RealClearPolitics.com 2 November 2010, Robinson attempted to demonstrate how the driving force behind the Tea Party movement must be latent racism.

Almost immediately after the inauguration of the first African-American president, Robinson writes, there arose an “overwhelmingly white and lavishly funded” national movement which targeted every initiative of that president, while breathing new life into “the discredited and moribund” Republican party—a series of events that he says is no mere coincidence. What Robinson seems oblivious to, ironically, is the racism in his very own article, which he injects from the very first paragraph. Take notice that he described both the president and the Tea Party movement in terms of race, as if that is somehow relevant. I guess to Robinson it is, which is fine albeit disappointing; but it is certainly irresponsible of him to project that onto others.

Tea Party activists and supporters are united in their cry for taking their government back, he rightly observes. But then he baits the reader by asking the question, “Take it back from whom?” This simply proves his confused ignorance, since it is not a ‘whom’ that they want to take government back from, but rather a ‘what’—namely, a titanic and ever-expanding centralized government, which many in the Tea Party movement described pejoratively as the Obama/Pelosi/Reid axis of fiscal evil. The problem is not a specific person but a political administration and its agenda, which occupied not just the White House but also both houses of Congress. That Robinson thinks it is a ‘whom’ the Tea Party movement is targeting just proves that he truly does not understand it.

He also refers to the comment from Mike Huckabee about returning government to the American people and then asks, “Who’s in possession of the government right now, if not the American people?” And the answer remains the same: the Obama/Pelosi/Reid administration in Washington that was defying the Constitution and refusing to listen to Americans. Once again, that is not a ‘whom’ but rather a ‘what’ and in the shaking fist of so many Tea Party activists and supporters was the contractual “consent of the governed” that those elected officials had sworn under oath to support and defend, the U.S. Constitution. If the federal government pursues its own agenda while ignoring the outcry of its citizens and brazenly overreaching its enumerated powers, then indeed the government is not in possession of the American people. It is creeping tyranny.

These issues and more certainly were—and are—being articulated and protested by so many in the Tea Party movement loud and clear in town hall meetings, rallies, and campaigns. Is there a problem with lobbyists and special interest groups? Obviously, and the Tea Party is very upset about that. However, the more egregious problem is who Washington is not listening to: the American people.

After issuing a typical canard about President Bush, Robinson finally wonders why it was only now that people felt “somehow the government had been seized or usurped” by hands not belonging to the American people. “Why,” he asks, “would this concern about oppressive, intrusive government become so acute now?” It is simply incredible that Robinson could be so out of touch as to pose this question, with the history of this movement not only so readily available but with an answer so clearly obvious. This concern became so acute now because that was the progression of its growth. While its meager, scattered roots can be traced back three or four years ago to the libertarian supporters of Ron Paul, the voices started becoming more numerous under the final years of the Bush administration and its wasteful spending, but rose to a deafening crescendo under the Obama administration because it escalated federal spending to dizzying levels. From the 2006 midterms to 2010, the House of Representatives under Speaker Pelosi committed to five trillion dollars in deficit spending, three trillion of which was under the Obama administration. But in addition to skyrocketing national debt and federal budget deficit, the Obama/Pelosi/Reid axis also put together a major national health care bill in defiance of the growing outcry throughout the states to such unconstitutional overreaches of the federal government, e.g., individual health care mandate. Add to that the tax hikes, including letting the Bush tax cuts expire in 2011, and it is frankly obvious why the Tea Party movement organically coalesced into the remarkable powerhouse it turned into and why this concern about oppressive, intrusive government became so acute now…

…and why a Republican tsunami swept the nation’s political map this week.

“I have to wonder what it is about Obama,” Robinson pondered, “that provokes and sustains all this tea party ire.” A slightly less myopic view of the American political landscape and what the Tea Party is actually protesting very clearly and loudly will help enlighten Robinson to see that it was not about Obama as a person but about his administration and its dizzying tax-and-spend socialist experiment supported by the Democrat majority in both chambers of Congress; i.e., the Obama/Pelosi/Reid axis. It had nothing to do with Obama as the first African-American president. It is patently absurd to think that all the Tea Party activists and supporters would have been just fine with skyrocketing national debt and federal budget deficit and unconstitutional overreaches of the federal government if the president had only been white.

If you are truly concerned about racism, sir, you should start paying closer attention to some of the things that President Obama says, with particular interest in his speeches and interviews when he was stumping for Democrat candidates this past midterm.

Update: 4/Nov/2010

Adding insult to injury, frequent Tea Party speaker Lisa Fritsch from Project 21 had the following to say about the 2010 midterm election results, further confirming my point in this article—and from a black woman:

An explosion of American enthusiasm and a return of the government to the American people was witnessed last night. Though there were a few races where conservatives came up short, the momentum for conservative values and principles cannot be denied. The tea party has translated protest into power. And we are just getting started restoring our rights and founding principles to America.

Would Robinson suggest that Fritsch has a latent racism against black people? (Well, probably; he could suggest she suffers from a kind of Stockholm Syndrome, similar to how Charlie Crist accused Marco Rubio of turning his back on his Hispanic family.)

Could someone please explain to me how it is that taxpayers in the U.S. are funding NASA not for scientific space exploration but rather for international Muslim outreach? The last time I checked, NASA and the U.S. Department of State were different federal agencies. When did that change?

On Wednesday of last week, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden was interviewed on an episode of Talk to al-Jazeera. During that interview he described three of the top priorities President Obama had tasked him with for his new job (in response to the question about NASA finding itself at a crossroads):

When I became the NASA Administrator—well, before I became the NASA Administrator—he charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations, to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.

He was asked if this is “a sort of diplomatic role to win hearts and minds of Muslims.” Bolden quickly denied that, and claimed President Obama simply wants to draw in “the contributions that are possible from the Muslim nations.” Yet in a speech two weeks earlier at the American University in Cairo, Bolden said that NASA used to work “mostly with countries that are capable of space exploration,” but that has changed in light of Obama’s Cairo initiative:

[Obama] asked NASA to change [...] by reaching out to ‘non-traditional’ partners and strengthening our cooperation in the Middle East, North Africa, Southeast Asia, and in particular in Muslim-majority nations.

“NASA has embraced this charge,” Bolden said, adding that NASA “is not only a space exploration agency but also an earth improvement agency.”

Is the American public aware that their tax dollars are funding the U.S. space agency to patronize Muslims to “feel good” about themselves with soft-diplomacy outreach? As noted by former NASA administrator Michael Griffin, NASA’s purpose is not to inspire Muslims or any other cultural entity. No doubt. Its purpose is to expand our knowledge of space and its attendant technologies. “If by doing great things people are inspired, well, then that’s wonderful,” Griffin said, and then observed, “There is no technology they have that we need” for NASA to accomplish its missions.

But earlier this year Secretary of State Hillary Clinton revealed in her speech at the U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Qatar that the Obama administration is embarking on a new era of engagement with Muslim nations “to expand educational opportunities, support entrepreneurs, and promote advances in science and technology.”

“NASA, our space program,” she said, “has partnered with the Arab Youth Venture Foundation in Dubai to give Arab and American engineering students the chance to work together on NASA missions.”

Highly advanced rocket technology. Prime Directive, anyone?

Update: 27 July 2010

NASA: National Arabic Sensitivity Administration

(HT: Mike Church)