Happy Birthday to the little movement that could.

Ignited by a spark from the most unlikely of places-a cable business news channel watched mostly by investors-and spread by social media, a surprising revolution had its most humble beginnings five years ago today.

The first coordinated gatherings of the modern American Tea Party movement were held on February 27th, 2009, initially as an expression of frustration over the Homeowners Affordability and Stability Plan, which had been announced just before Rick Santelli's now famous (or infamous if you're a more establishment DC type) rant. In truth, it was the result of years of frustration with an ever-creeping federal presence in every aspect of Americans' lives.

What was unique about it was the way grassroots activists instinctively found ways to utilize new media to work outside the more conventional and prescribed way of doing things. In ancient (early 21st Century) times, Santelli's outburst may have hit some evening newscasts and may have gotten some word of mouth publicity, but the likelihood of it spreading beyond its cable niche borders wasn't something you would want to bet on.

In 2009, it made its way to YouTube almost immediately and was passed around on Facebook and Twitter (which even those of us who used it regularly barely understood back then). A little more than a week after this now famous moment, people gathered in sync at an agreed upon time all over America.

Here in Los Angeles, a handful of us who didn't really know each other used social media to connect and throw together a gathering on the Santa Monica Pier. The aforementioned agreed upon time meant we had to get people to drive to Santa Monica during morning rush hour, find parking and then walk to the end of the pier.

We were pretty sure only the organizers would be there.

To our surprise, somewhere between two and three hundred people (my closest recollection) made the effort that morning, no small feat given the logistical difficulties and political bent of the City of Angels.

These gathering would explode on April 15th of that same year and go on to mobilize and heavily influence the 2010 midterm elections.

Since then, it has been declared either dead or the most powerful force in Republican politics almost weekly by the press. Very often, it will be called both...by the same reporter...in the same article.

It is also one of the most misrepresented political movements in American history. The Tea Party (I use the capitalized form because it's easier than always typing "various tea party groups" and things like that) is a disruptive force that makes those invested in the status quo very nervous. So they attempt to marginalize the movement with disinformation. What they have learned is that we keep using new media to debunk their claims and continue trying to make an impact.

Expectations have always been high, both from within and without. Five years may seem like an eternity in the digital age, but this is still a nascent movement. There have been hits and there have been misses, which is perfectly normal. The hits are all but ignored and the misses are magnified, then often distorted.

But we keep plugging along.

The Washington Post wonders today if we will be here in five years.

It is with devious good cheer that I tell the mainstream media, the Democrats, and the entrenched status quo mongers in the GOP that we have no plans whatsoever to relocate.

The Internal Revenue Service is attempting to change the standards for tax exempt status for 501(c)(4) groups. Rather than sticking to enforcing the will of Congress, the IRS, with the full blessing of the political operation in the White House, wants to ensure they won't have to harass conservative and tea party groups about their tax exempt status applications, because those groups won't even bother to apply. They need to hear from America.

Following its targeting of tea party and conservative groups in the runup to the 2012 election, the IRS now wants to codify into regulatory law the organization's illegal and tyrannical behavior. The rules are meant not just to stifle free speech, which would be bad enough, but to favor progressive groups over conservative and libertarian ones.

After initially calling the IRS targeting "outrageous," President Obama shifted to calling it a "phony scandal."  The White House and its allies in Congress have worked hard in favor of the new targeting. 

House Ways and Means Committee chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) has asked Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew and IRS commissioner John Koskinen for all documents pertaining to the proposed changes. Perhaps we will find out whether the White House, the NTEU, or low-level staffers in Cincinnati came up with the new policy.

UPDATE, via The Daily Caller:

IRS officials planned during 2012 to make changes to how 501(c)(4) groups are treated, according to an email released to Ways and Means.  Lois Lerner, who invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when Congress asked her about the matter, was involved in the discussion, which may or may not have led to the current proposed rule change.

-- End of Update --

Meanwhile, American Commitment pointed out that no one has been held accountable for the targeting:

The IRS confessed to targeting conservative groups in a stunning abuse of power.

Nobody has been held accountable for these outrageous abuses.  Indeed, the apparent ringleader of the suppression scheme, Lois Lerner, was granted six months of paid administrative leave and then allowed to retire with her full pension!

I commented to the IRS:

February 5, 2014

Dear Comment re Docket ID: IRS-2013-0038,

The proposed rule would violate my right to equal treatment under the law, by unfairly targeting the social welfare mission of 501(c)(4) organizations with which I am associated in favor of other social welfare organizations.

Discussion and advocacy on public policy issues is an intrinsic part of a social welfare mission, and for some groups of people, may be the sole way they express their opinion. 

The rule effectively muzzles 501(c)(4) groups while unfairly exempting 501(c)(5) labor unions, even the union to which people who made the rule belong. Did representatives or members of the National Treasury Employees Union or other groups to which Treasury employees belong have input into this policy change, and if so, how much?

The proposed rule's distorted definition of "candidate" to include appointees restricts efforts to weigh in on executive or judicial nominations that are crucial to promoting social welfare.

The 501(c)(4) category has always been the home of groups that advocate public policy and hold politicians accountable for the policies they pursue at every level of government.

The rule disregards the facts and unduly limits rights of association and speech. It should be withdrawn.The IRS is attempting to change by regulation what Congress has for many years resisted doing, removing the tax exempt status for groups involved in political speech. Since most of these groups are conservatives, and their involvement harms Democrats, it's a blatant partisan push from the leftist Democrats in the Obama administration.

Sincerely,

Mr. Loren Heal
Neoga, IL

Consider writing your own response. The IRS must acknowledge the public comments or expose themselves to legal challenges. It may be too late to keep them from squashing pro-limited-government speech heading into the 2014 elections, but the more attention we bring to the issue the more likely the proposed policy is to change.

As you may have heard, the IRS has proposed new rules that would severely restrict grassroots advocacy groups. 

Under current IRS rules, the purpose of tax-exempt 501(c)(4) organizations is educate the public and promote "social welfare" causes, and they can't work primarily as political campaign organizations. Many 501(c)(4) entities are small grassroots organizations ran by local activists that want to participate in the political process. 

The proposed rules would modify the definition of political activity for non-profit organizations. 

Under the proposed IRS rules, here are some things that would be considered political activity: 

• Nonpartisan candidate forums that take place 30 days before a primary

• Nonpartisan candidate forums that take place 60 days before an election

• Any communication mentioning a political candidate or political party within 60 days of an election 

• Nonpartisan civic engagement activities

• Voter registration drives

• Voter education and the preparation and distribution of voter guides mentioning candidates

• Get out the vote efforts and distribution of certain materials promoting candidates

• Calling for the election or defeat of a political candidate

• Any expenditure that must be reported to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC)

• Grants and contributions made by the group to any political group that reports to the FEC

• Grants and contributions made by the group to any 527 or tax exempt group that spends money on candidate-related political activity

The proposed IRS rules are confusing and overly bureaucratic. Many non-profit organizers will have to hire lawyers in order to ensure that they are complying with the complicated rules. Some well-intended activists will undoubtedly break the unclear laws without even knowing it.

FreedomWorks has been encouraging our members to submit comments to the IRS opposing these regulations that will further stifle free speech. Click here to submit your comment to the IRS. The IRS’s deadline for public responses is February 27, 2014.

The IRS shouldn’t be discouraging citizens from participating in the political process and helping to inform voters about their choices. Let’s stop the IRS from infringing on our constitutional right to free speech. 

Recently, I attended a speech that attempted to lay out a case that Ronald Reagan would not have been a Tea Party President. The speaker, a conservative not terribly familiar with the Tea Party movement, made an interesting case. He cited Reagan's tax increases, deficit spending and amnesty granted to 3 million illegal immigrants as proof that Reagan would not have been embraced by the Tea Party. I decided to investigate the case further, and this is what I found.

The speaker attempted to correlate the modern Tea Party movement with the Presidency of Ronald Reagan. He concluded that, despite the common refrain from Tea Party activists that The Gipper would be the ideal Tea Party president, Reagan's record does not hold up to Tea Party principles.

In order to determine whether Reagan was a Tea Party president, one must first determine what a Tea Partier is, what the Tea Party ISN'T, and how Reagan fits into the equation.

Now, when one is unfamiliar with a subject, what's the first thing one does? Google it! Type in “Tea Party”, and up pop 394,000,000 results in .43 seconds. It's a daunting task, to say the least, to narrow it down to legitimate sources only. And, sorry to say, the reference material found at the website cited in the speech leaves more questions than answers. I see a donation button and a lot of language designed to appeal to Tea Party activists, but a surfeit of information regarding its organizational structure. Luckily, they do list a phone number with a LIVE OPERATOR 24/7/365! Curious, I called the number.

After being placed on hold for 5 minutes, an operator came on the line with the greeting, "Tea Party Processing Center, how may I help you?" Turns out this number is a donation number only. I state that I have questions about the organization before I make a donation, and the operator is of course unable to answer any questions. He assures me he'll have someone call me back from the office. (I'm still waiting, of course.)

So on this site is a list of 15 Non-negotiable Core Beliefs. It doesn't actually say who collated this list, whether anyone actually voted on these items, or who contributed at all. Presumably, these are the core beliefs of the only individual listed on the website, the CEO of the site. Again, he'll be calling me back any time now.

Look, any yahoo can put up a website claiming to represent the Tea Party and start taking donations. In fact, that sort of fraud is rampant.

What I'd like to reiterate is what the Tea Party is NOT: The Tea Party is not a cynical fundraising vehicle with a website long on boilerplate and short on achievable goals. The Tea Party IS a loose coalition of many thousands of local groups that align themselves with the quest for liberty and patriotism. There are several dozen such groups here in Oregon that I can think of off the top of my head, with varying levels of organization.

The Tea Party has always functioned best when it encourages activists to find their own voice and empowers them to effect real change in politics. It inspires and empowers. It encourages folks to get off the couch and get involved. And that involvement means electing politicians and holding them accountable to Tea Party ideals.

Now, what are those Tea Party ideals? Do they include the minutiae from the website cited by the speaker, like Illegal aliens, special interests, English as our official language and family values? I would say that, in my experience, most Tea Party supporters believe in a mix of all of the above, but that is not to say that those are our core ideals. The core ideals are much more simple and more fundamental.

FreedomWorks, for instance, says this on their website:

FreedomWorks members know that government goes to those who show up, and are leading the fight for lower taxes, less government, and more freedom. Join us!

What We Do

FreedomWorks recruits, educates, trains and mobilizes millions of volunteer activists to fight for less government, lower taxes, and more freedom.

Why We Do It

FreedomWorks believes individual liberty and the freedom to compete increases consumer choices and provides individuals with the greatest control over what they own and earn.

How We Do It

FreedomWorks' aggressive, real-time campaigns activate a growing and permanent volunteer grassroots army to show up and demand policy change.

The prominent local Tea Party example in Oregon, of course, is the Oregon Tea Party PAC. At the website, oregonteapartypac.org, we see a mix of local and national news items, recent Tea Party operations and a list of political accomplishments since its founding in 2009, resources for new activists, a list of very simple principals, and, YES, a donate button.

So let's focus on those simple principles. This will be short, because there are only three:

• Limited Constitutional Government
• Free Market Economy / Capitalism
• Fiscal and Personal Responsibility

Now, of course, within these broad categories, there’s a lot of room to distill down a series of policy stances. The best way to define this is by example. Let’s take the biggest driver of Tea Party interest today: Obamacare. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act violates all three of the Oregon Tea Party’s stated principles – it greatly expands the size and role of government while clearly violating the constitution (John Roberts be damned); it requires the federal government to take over 1/6 of our economy and creates a command economy more akin to the Soviet Union than American capitalism while removing local and individual control over purchasing behavior; and it requires dozens of new taxes and fees, while requiring the participation of every single American citizen – sort of the opposite of fiscal responsibility.

Let’s take another example: The Columbia River Crossing. That also violates all three principles. So does the expansion of Medicaid. So does PERS. So do a myriad of state and federal policies – you get the point.

Please note, at this point, that nowhere in this discussion have the following issues been mentioned: an official national language, abortion, illegal immigration, military spending, or family values. This is because the Tea Party coalesces around the issues that are most dire for our national survival right now, and about which the overwhelming majority of us agree.

So, based on this refined definition of what the Tea Party is, would Ronald Reagan fit in? Well, where I agree with the speaker is that Ronald Reagan’s record is not the most conservative it could have been. He engaged in deficit spending, amnesty for 3 million illegals, and some tax increases. But what one must always keep in mind is the historical context in which these actions were taken. Liberals love to kill Republicans by saying any derivation of the following statement: “You are hypocrites for criticizing Obama’s spending policies, because Bush and Reagan both were responsible for bigger debt and more deficit spending” – a true statement lacking context. Both were president during war time. In Reagan’s case, it was the Cold War, but that makes his accomplishment all the more remarkable – he destroyed the threat from an enemy without a shot being fired or an ICBM being launched. And, it must be noted, that deficit spending PALES in comparison to the levels of spending today. Indeed, Obama’s gargantuan expansion of federal spending is unique in our history, as it is exclusively devoted to domestic programs instead of a war effort.

Now, the question still remains, does Reagan’s Cold War deficit spending conform to Tea Party Principles? I’d say there’s an argument on both sides, but many Tea Party activists would agree that he faithfully executed his constitutional duty to protect us from enemies both foreign and domestic. My somewhat educated guess is that this follows the spirit, if not the exact letter of Tea Party principles, but there is much debate to be had.

Regarding amnesty, as this is not a Tea Party principle, it may not be relevant to the discussion. However, it’s worth noting that MOST Tea Party activists probably disapprove of this policy, but again we must remember the context. When the Speaker of the House, Tip O’Neill, is to the left of Nancy Pelosi, you don’t have a lot of room for negotiation. This also holds true for the tax increases we saw under Reagan.

And speaking of negotiating, I want to touch on this point because we Tea Partiers often get a bum rap. We’re labeled as uncompromising and unable to negotiate. I reject that claim out of hand. Politicians most closely aligned with the Tea Party like Mike Lee, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are perfectly willing to negotiate. What they won’t do is compromise on their core principles. Indeed, the core principles guide their negotiations – not the other way around. And, contrary to popular folklore, Tea Party activists generally understand that getting part of what you want instead of getting everything you want is way better than getting nothing at all. But what really drives us nuts is watching politicians give away their negotiating power right at the beginning. Giving up what the other side wants now, for the promise of something to come later, is a sure way to lose. And we hate losing.

What other aspects of Reagan’s legacy are relevant to this discussion? An unemployment rate that was cut in half, the end of Jimmy Carter’s stagflation and record GDP growth that lasted well past the end of his second term. The end of the Cold War. Overall, a cut and flattening of the tax code (with an assist from Senator Packwood). A safer, more secure, more prosperous nation that rediscovered what made America exceptional.

So, while I would certainly say that at times there would have been tension between the Tea Party and Ronald Reagan, and we might even have strong disagreements on elements of policy, there would have been much more to agree on than to disagree on. So yes, I believe that Ronald Reagan would have been embraced in real time by the Tea Party – that is, if Calvin Coolidge and Barry Goldwater were unavailable.

Last week, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Dianne Feinstein, announced that President Obama didn’t know the United States was collecting communications data of allied leaders. In other words, Sen. Feinstein is suggesting that our intelligence agencies do not clue in the President to what sort of intelligence the United States government is gathering. Let that one sink in for a sec. 

Sen. Feinstein is claiming that the President of the United States was unaware of his executive branch intelligence agencies spying on fellow heads of state. That’s akin to openly acknowledging that the President’s subordinates act without his approval, rendering the Obama Presidency either completely ignorant or hopelessly impotent.  

Entertaining the idea that the man in charge of the United States’ security and relationships with our allied nations would be unaware that his subordinates are spying on allied world leaders can be nothing but a lie concocted to protect the President from the political fallout of his administration’s abusive overreach. 

Worse is that this not some one-time freak incident where supposedly a rogue administrator acted without President Obama’s authorization, but rather this incident is the continuation of a disturbing trend of “Oops, ughhh…I didn’t know about that” moments throughout his presidency.  

All presidents’ administrations tend to leave their bosses some room for plausible deniability, but either Barrack Obama is the most out-of-the-loop Chief Executive in our history, or he needs to start taking some notes during all of those meetings he’s pictured in:

Let’s review his more prominent “I dunno” moments from the past few years:

• Apparently no one thought to tell the President that healthcare.gov had failed its preliminary testing before its launch. If they had, he might not have said: "You can go to the website. You can check it out… You can sign up next week. You can sign up next month…See for yourself what the prices are. See for yourself what the choices are.”- President Obama, 9/26/13.  
• The IRS was apparently targeting Tea-Party groups all by itself because the President didn't know about a report detailing the malicious targeting of liberty-minded groups. If that report hadn’t been “leaked” would anyone have told him? 
• The White House also had no idea that the DOJ seized the phone records of Associated Press reporters. I guess Eric Holder was just making sure the mainstream media keep saying nice things about his boss. 
• Jay Carney claimed that the President found out about Operation Fast and Furious through the media. Presumably this was the face he made when he saw the news reports: 

• President Obama wasn’t informed of an FBI investigation into Gen. David Petraeus’ email account until just two days before Election Day 2012, whereas Eric Holder knew months beforehand (he seems to know everything the President doesn’t). Since the President apparently isn’t keeping track of the DOJ, the IRS, or the NSA, it would actually make sense that he wouldn’t know what the FBI is up to. 
• And of course, the President seemed surprised to find that after implementing the “Stimulus,” there were no “shovel-ready jobs.” I personally blame that one on his ignorance of basic economics. He should take the time to sit through FreedomWorks University’s econ 101 lectures.

Perhaps the President should spent more time with his cabinet and less time on the golf course, just to avoid appearing so dazzlingly ignorant of his administration’s operations. Then again, all the evidence indicates that meetings the President does attend tend to go like this: 

Hey, I just had a thought. If the President is really left in the dark so often, maybe he actually believed people could keep their health insurance plans under Obamacare? It just might be possible that no one in his administration had the heart to tell him the truth, just like they lied to the American people. Right?

Nope.

Because I am a nice guy and don't want anyone to waste their time, here is a quick list of those who won't enjoy this post: 

1) People working for Mitch McConnell's reelection.

2) People who come from families that internalize everything rather than fight it out and get it over with. 

3) People who are Mitch McConnell. 

The last several weeks have brought to the fore some ugly realities that the establishment GOP was hoping it could deal with using its go-to conflict resolution strategy: put it off, hope the problem goes away and then perhaps a nap. 

Led by a host of Republican senators whose most notable achievement is getting elected a lot, the old guard has been busy publicly admonishing the more Tea Party-minded additions to the fold that they don't know anything. 

Because they haven't been elected a lot. 

Now, I will concede that, yes, the establishment dinosaurs do have a knack for winning elections. However, the gaps in between those victories tend not to be filled with much to crow about unless you're a fan of things like the Department of Homeland Security, Medicare expansion or being part of a team that's only won the popular vote in a presidential election once in twenty five years. 

A school of thought is emerging amongst us extremists that it might be rather refreshing if they applied some of that ability to battle and prevail over Democrats in elections to the legislative process. 

So a schism is erupting that sees one side yelling, "Hey, we win elections and stuff!" and the other side responding, "Yeah, but you're kind of hosing us once you do!" 

The eruption, however, isn't from a new source of conflict. In fact, this is a decades-old ideological volcano in the GOP that has had spectacular consequences after blowing up in the past. 

This New York Times article almost deserves a sentence by sentence examination but let's just grab a couple of chunks and look at them. 

After the budget standoff ended in crushing defeat last week and the political damage reports began to pile up for Republicans, one longtime party leader after another stepped forward to chastise their less seasoned, Tea Party-inspired colleagues who drove the losing strategy.

“Let’s face it: it was not a good maneuver,” Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, the senior Senate Republican and supporter of the deal that ended the showdown, said on Thursday in an interview from his Capitol Hill office. “And that’s when you’ve got to have the adults running the thing.”

Hatch is indeed "seasoned". Four hundred and thirty seven years old and serving his fiftieth term (okay maybe only his seventh) in the Senate, Hatch can not only win elections but will more than likely survive the zombie apocalypse. 

By the way, Hatch was first elected to the Senate largely by campaigning on the premise that his three term incumbent opponent had been in Washington too long.  You can't make this stuff up.

The adults Hatch mentions are the same grown-up election winners who brought the Republican party to the point where it was helpless to stop the passage of Obamacare. 

These same adults also spent the last debt ceiling showdown whining about Ted Cruz rather than discussing the ticking time bomb of debt that will one day blow up this economy. These adults actually sped up the countdown timer on the bomb. 

But, hey, winning elections and stuff. 

Oh, the "political damage" from the "crushing defeat" was so overwhelming for the GOP that less than three weeks later President Obama's job approval hit an all-time low. 

The obvious reason for this swan dive in The Lightbringer's approval numbers is that Obamacare had a rocky start.  Because it's awful. 

I believe it was Ted Cruz who was mentioning that a lot in September and early October. Silly unseasoned kid. 

Let's look at one other thing from the Times article: 

The moment draws comparisons to some of the biggest fights of recent Republican Party history — the 1976 clash between the insurgent faction of activists who supported Ronald Reagan for president that year and the moderate party leaders who stuck by President Gerald R. Ford, and the split between the conservative Goldwater and moderate Rockefeller factions in 1964.

Some optimistic Republicans note that both of those campaigns planted the seeds for the conservative movement’s greatest success: Reagan’s 1980 election and two terms as president.

Oh, the Times will be the Times-there is nothing "optimistic" about it, that's actually what happened. 

The Republican party is not, and has not been for quite some time, an ideological lock-step affair. That's something that we should be celebrating rather than having fits about. If you don't like in-fighting and you want to pretend a lot, the other guys would love to have you. 

The present battle is a most necessary one not only for the future of the party but the future of the country. 

The problem with the "capitulation for the sake of fighting another day" approach the GOP has taken for decades is that it allows the Democrats to push the center ever leftward by increments. We are now at a point where the nation's wealth is shifting to those who bloat and perpetuate the federal behemoth. The IRS is going to punish you if you don't purchase something that is going to be far more expensive now that it is required than it was when it was a free choice. 

Shall I go on? 

Let's say your case for maintaining the status quo on either side isn't a very strong one at this juncture.  In a sane world, anyone seeking to oust the people who have been in charge while the country headed down this path would be lauded.  Instead, we are demonized by a GOP establishment that is eerily in concert with the MSM and the Democrats. 

Whenever I talk to my more moderate Republican friends (and I have many) about challenging incumbents their side of the conversation is always filled with the same excuses masquerading as reason.

"I have no problem with incumbents being challenged but this just isn't the right time/challenger."

And: "You (Tea Party people) just need to find better candidates." 

My only response to them now is, "How are you not at the point where you want to go out and find better candidates?!?!?!?" 

If you can survey the political landscape in America for the past twenty years and are OK with at all that has gone on while Orrin Hatch, Mitch McConnell and the rest of the adults in the GOP have held sway in the party then you and I definitely have a problem. 

If you think it's all right for McConnell to be reelected and continue his capitulating reign of "meh" while the progressives in the Democrat party run roughshod over the Constitution, your liberties and anything else they can get their filthy statist paws on then yes, we are going to fight about some things. 

The "another day" and "next time" approach to governance employed by GOP leadership in recent years isn't a strategy, it's a pathetic reality avoidance mechanism. 

And it is ruining the country. 

The Republicans had better find a way to provide, and articulate that they are providing, a clear contrast to the Democrats. That they have done both so poorly for several years is the real problem the party is facing. Not demographics the culture or whatever other monsters they want to find under the bed. 

Decimating economically crippling policy before it becomes law is far more important than whether everybody is happy in the Senate lunchroom.  And if you want to continue to enjoy your rights you may want to think about getting behind candidates and legislators who aren't afraid to lose friends while thwarting the statist onslaught. 

There is no inherent virtue in bipartisan cooperation with an opponent who never gives anything in return. In fact, it's becoming rather dangerous. Republicans could use some leaders who grasped this simple fact. They don't have any at present. 

So, yeah, let's fight for the party. 

If those of you fond of the GOP status quo want to remain true to form and just wait to fight another day while we run you over I'm OK with that too. 

Stephen Kruiser is not only a comedian, but he's also a grassroots activist who has been working to rebuild the Republican party for decades. 

Photo credit: Sent to FreedomWorks by Twitter follower @justusthem

And vilification of the Tea Party continues. Following the latest Obamacare defund battle, there's been a recent resurgence of Tea Party hatred from Democrats. Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson, known for inflammatory rhetoric, decided to capitalize on the fresh wave of anti-Tea Party sentiment.

Congressman Grayson took to MSNBC to discuss his disdain for Tea Partiers, then sent out the following email:

Grayson represents Florida's ninth district, a district that according to census.gov, is comprised of a minority majority.

I'm not one to jump into the outrage du jour. I don't find it productive. But to use a burning cross and hooded klan members, one of the most blatant symbols of racism in recent American history, and to juxtapose that with the Tea Party, definitely warrants a response. Not only is comparing the Tea Party to the KKK insanely inaccurate, it suggests the congressman must have forgotten his history on the matter. It was the Democratic party that supported the KKK and elected a klansman to the Senate. But I suppose such facts are inconvenient. 

In any case, Grayson doubled down on his remarks and email saying, "One could go on and on, because there is overwhelming evidence that the Tea Party is the home of bigotry and discrimination in America today, just as the KKK was for an earlier generation. If the shoe fits, wear it.”

What overwhelming evidence would that be congressman? 

Deneen Borelli had this to say on the subject:

Grayson’s letter is part of an orchestrated effort by progressives to destroy the Tea Party. It’s a full scale assault that includes IRS intimidation, demeaning characterization by progressive politicians including President Obama and propaganda by left-wing TV hosts at MSNBC.

Not only should Grayson’s constituents be outraged over his inexcusable and divisive language, but freedom-loving Americans should hold Grayson accountable and not allow such behavior to go unchallenged.

And challenge we will.

On today’s edition of the FreedomCast, CJ Ciaramella joins me to discuss the latest revelations in the IRS targeting scandal, whether the White House received confidential taxpayer information against the law and if there’s any chance the DoJ will act to protect your privacy. 

Related Links:

Darrell Issa: IRS Officials Sent Private Data Over Personal Email Accounts

IRS Officials Counseled White House on Contraception Mandate

White House and IRS Pass Around Private Taxpayer Info

Subscribe to The FreedomCast on iTunes here.

Follow FreedomWorks on twitter and on Faceboook.

Follow today's guest @CJCiaramella on twitter. 

Our podcast is fabulously produced by @BradWJackson.