Politics Plus

For all their wailing about the intrusiveness of government, one might thing that the Teabaggers would oppose the most intrusive move by government since Crawford Caligula declared open season on all citizens’ telephone calls and email.  One might be wrong.

Tea Party activists go out of their way to insist that they’re not partisan, racist, or filled with hate; they’re just patriots who want to stop a “socialist” government machine from controlling their daily lives.

The new immigration law in Arizona should be ripe for the Tea Parties to take up. SB-1070 is the “broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations,” giving police unprecedented power to detain anyone they suspect of being an undocumented immigrant and making “the failure to carry immigration documents a crime.” Even traditionally far-right figures like former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee have worried that the law might lead to racial profiling abuses by the government.

But as the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson notes, this Tea Party support hasn’t materialized:

Activists for Latino and immigrant rights — and supporters of sane governance — held weekend rallies denouncing the new law and vowing to do everything they can to overturn it. But where was the Tea Party crowd? Isn’t the whole premise of the Tea Party movement that overreaching government poses a grave threat to individual freedom? It seems to me that a law allowing individuals to be detained and interrogated on a whim — and requiring legal residents to carry identification documents, as in a police state — would send the Tea Partyers [sic] into apoplexy. Or is there some kind of exception if the people whose freedoms are being taken away happen to have brown skin and might speak Spanish?

Not only are Tea Partiers not speaking out against SB-1070, they’re actively supporting it. The Arizona Tea Party Network called on its members to support Brewer’s big government [Teabaggers delinked]. In fact, the sponsor of SB-1070 is state Sen. Russell Pearce (R), a Tea Party backer.

According to a new survey directed by University of Washington political scientist Christopher Parker, white Tea Partiers tend to be “predisposed to intolerance,” pointing to a possible reason the movement has been reluctant to join with immigration reform activists:

For instance, the Tea Party, the grassroots movement committed to reining in what they perceive as big government, and fiscal irresponsibility, also appear predisposed to intolerance. Approximately 45% of Whites either strongly or somewhat approve of the movement. Of those, only 35% believe Blacks to be hardworking, only 45 % believe Blacks are intelligent, and only 41% think that Blacks are trustworthy. Perceptions of Latinos aren’t much different. While 54% of White Tea Party supporters believe Latinos to be hardworking, only 44% think them intelligent, and even fewer, 42% of Tea Party supporters believe Latinos to be trustworthy. When it comes to gays and lesbians, White Tea Party supporters also hold negative attitudes. Only 36% think gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to adopt children, and just 17% are in favor of same-sex marriage.

Also, if Tea Partiers really do feel like they’ve been taxed enough already, they should support immigration reform. As Andrea Nill has reported, “In January, the Immigration Policy Center and the Center for American Progress found that legalizing undocumented immigrants through comprehensive immigration reform would generate $4.5 to $5.4 billion in additional net tax revenue within three years… [emphasis original]

Inserted from <Think Progress>

I see two possible explanations.

Teabaggers are against government intrusion only when applied against white wing-nuts.

Teabaggers think only what they are told to think by their GOP handlers.

What say you?

Democrats are calling for a boycott of Arizona over their racist GOP immigration law.

Calls grew across the US today for a boycott of Arizona over its new law giving the police the most draconian powers in the country to deal with illegal immigration.

Democratic members of Congress, religious leaders and leftwing activists urged a boycott of hotels, convention centres and other economic targets in the state. At least one nationwide group has responded by cancelling a convention planned for the autumn. Scores of lorry drivers were reported in the US media to have threatened to stop carrying loads to and from the state.

The calls are being made spontaneously by individuals and an array of groups, but leftwing activists predict they will soon coalesce into a single campaign.

The bill, signed into law on Friday, gives police the right to stop anyone "if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the US". It has polarised opinion across the US, creating a clear divide between Democrats and Republicans.

In a sign of the passions aroused, cleaning crews were called to the state legislative building this morning to clear swastikas daubed on it overnight.

Opponents of the legislation say it will lead to victimisation of anyone who looks or sounds Latino. Supporters say the legislation is needed because the state can no longer cope with an estimated 450,000 illegal immigrants.

Among those calling for a sweeping boycott was the San Francisco city attorney, Dennis Herrera, who urged city departments to look at contracts with Arizona that could be terminated.

Herrera said: "Arizona has charted an ominous legal course that puts extremist politics before public safety, and betrays our most deeply held American values."

He noted that a similar boycott 20 years ago, which included the National Football League’s decision to move the Super Bowl from the state, led to Arizona finally dropping its refusal to recognise to Martin Luther King Day.

A Democratic congressman from Arizona, Raúl Grijalva, is also calling for an economic boycott against what he described as "unjust and racist" legislation that will damage Arizona’s prestige and credibility. He was forced to close his office at the weekend after receiving two death threats… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Common Dreams>

On the news, I’ve seen Republican after Republican claiming that this law will not institute racial profiling and that there is nothing racist about the bill.  If you have the slightest doubt that these GOP hypocrites are lying through their teeth, you will not after watching Rachel Maddow expose the people behind the bill and the positions they represent.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

That makes it crystal clear.  The GOP racists will stop at nothing to maintain a white majority.

One of the GOP’s premiere hypocrites has been acting out a big victim stance over her computer being hacked.

Sarah Palin took the stand Friday in the trial of Former University of Tennessee student David Kernell. Kernell is charged with hacking Palin’s Yahoo! e-mail account while Palin campaigned in the 2008 presidential campaign.

Kernell is facing 50 years in prison over this incident. He would be 72 years old when he gets out of prison. According to the Anchorage Daily News, Palin was asked if she thought the charges against Kernell were excessive:

Palin said, "I don’t know, but I do think there should be consequences for bad behavior."

Hmmm…consequences for BAD BEHAVIOR???

This coming from the Quitter Governor of Alaska who:

• used state resources to relentlessly pursue a family vendetta
• took per diem as governor while sleeping in her own bed
• took her kids at state expense on official State of Alaska business trips
• lashed out at socialized "death panel" health care while her family was covered by socialized "death panel" health care
• enjoyed socialized health care in Canada when she growing up and needed it
• has health care provided to her grandson through Indian Health Services
• advocates abstinence when it never worked for her own family
• family members ignored subpoenas and were found in contempt

and the list goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on….

 

But…the pinnacle of Palin’s hypocrisy might just be with this trial. "…I do think there should be consequences for bad behavior." Really? What about hers? How about Sarah Palin’s hacking into another state employees’ computer back in 2004? If hacking into someone’s computer is "bad behavior," what were her consequences?

Sarah Palin hacked Randy Ruedrich’s computer to find some dirt on him… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Huffington Post>

Lest I be accused of diverting, a thinking error to which I have attributed right wing comments on other blogs, let me say that what Kernell allegedly did was wrong.  I agree with Palin that there should be consequences for bad behavior.  If convicted, he deserves a standard sentence, not inflated over Palin’s notoriety.

However, what’s good for the gooseolini is good for the Mooseolini.  Should there not be consequences for her bad behavior as well?