Politics: the Tea Party, brought to you by...

Who framed roger rabbit? On october 2, 1946 J. Edgar Hover, head of the FBI at the time, received a letter from the Department of Justice. The letter exposed the deliberate actions of companies that included General Motors, Standard Oil, and Firestone tires when they dismantled the streetcar industry in the United States. What these companies did was a brilliant business move. They bought up the street car industry and basically killed the industry. They replaced the street car with buses. Buses from General Motors, running on standard oil and firestone tires.

Some American business tycoons like the Koch family are really some of the greediest philanthropists the world has ever known. Recently, Jane Mayer of the New Yorker wrote a very enlightening article on the Koch Family, their political affiliations and philanthropy. While the name "Koch" isn't a familiar name in mainstream political debates, their influence in our democracy has a paper trail that goes as far back as the 1920's. Before the Koch family became the wealthy American family they are now, they made a sweet deal with the Soviet Union under Stalin. At the time, the Soviet Union had yet to embark on their quest for oil. They wanted to start digging into their oil refineries but lacked the technological capacity of the west. They struck luck when an American named Fred Koch offered to build the refineries for them. This investment made by Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union would be the business move that would fuel the Koch family drive to economical success. Ironically, this investment made by a communist government to Fred Koch would set the wheels in motion for Fred's son's, David and Charles Koch, to fund a political party that calls our current president a communist 90 years later, the Tea Party.

The Tea Party is mainly funded by Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works. Not so surprisingly, both American for Prosperity and Freedom works are organizations started by the Koch family and funded by the Koch Family. In 1984 David H. Koch established 'Citizens for a Sound economy'. Eventually, 'Citizens for a sound economy' renamed themselves as "Freedom works" in 2003. The following year, Americans for Prosperity was founded by David Koch. Funding for the Tea Party has also been funneled by Sarah Scaife Foundation according to Media Matters. Again, not so surprisingly, the Sarah Scaife Foundation is financed by a bunch of oil tycoons and banksters.

Looking at this all-star line up I can't help but ask, "why in the world would these business people work so hard only to invest their hard earned cash into our political argument"? An even much better question, "what in the world are they trying to say and why is it so important that they pay millions for these 'grassroots' voices"? Either they really care about the direction our country is going or they have alternative motives, i'll let you be the judge. To understand their motives, we have to understand what they stand for.

With recent reporting from from the New Yorker, it's no secrete that the Koch's are "longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and cooperate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry-especially environmental regulation". Considering the fact that the Koch family made it's fortune from the oil industry, it becomes clear why they would be in favor or less regulation in a world that worries about climate change. You see, with the business they're in, they don't have to worry about supply and demand because the structure of our country demands their company, thank you General Motors. They understand for their business to prosper in the future, they have to do everything it takes to maintain an economical structure that depends on oil. The only way to do this in a democracy were we're already dependent on oil is to control and maintain the political climate by keeping it conservative. Conservative because at the moment our laws make it extremely possible for them to make as much money as they can and destroy our earth while at it. Just recently, as stated in the New Yorker "the University of Massachusetts at Amherst Political Economy Research Institute named Koch industries as one of the top ten air polluters in the United states". Greenpeace has called this same company "Kingpin of climate science denial". In a country where there are virtually no laws addressing climate change, it starts to make perfect sense why a political organization funded by Oil tycoons would fund a Tea Party that fights every progressive movement.

Despite the fact that the Koch brothers are substantial funders of the tea party it takes two to tango. It's one thing to have a message but you need an audience. That's where Fox new's network comes in. It's no secrete that the Tea Party wouldn't be as relevant as they have become without Fox network promoting their gatherings. It's also no secrete that the line between the Tea Party and the Republican Party is almost non-exsistant. However, it just might be a secrete that "Fox News and Wall Street Journal parent company News Corp. donated 1 million dollars to the republican party in June". There's nothing wrong with giving to a cause. While there's nothing wrong with donating money to a cause you appreciate, there is a lot wrong with a businessman giving money to a group of people who are suppose to be leading our country in such vulnerable time. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that money and power is toxic mix.

The ironic thing about these complex interconnected business and political tycoons is the fact that the same freedom they are trying to alter is the same freedom that made it possible for them to get as rich as they are. They have the United States to thank, even more they have the American citizens to thank. People can think government is wrong and government is the problem but the truth is they know they need government. Go to Somalia and they'll tell you, "you need government". The same government that allowed them to be rich is the same government they are lobbying in order to change the dynamics so as to please their greedy quotas. If government was such a problem, why didn't the Koch family move to the Soviet Union? If government is such a problem as stated on Fox news almost daily, why didn't rupert Murdoch stay in Australia? They know government is the key but more importantly the dynamics of the American government is the only way. While the people representing the government may be a problem, the dynamic of public voice is the gift and the curse.

To understand how this will effect our future we have to look into the past. In the case of General Motors, the companies involved where extremely perceptive. They understood that having something like a streetcar in a promising country like America would mean billions of dollars lost. They understood that over time, people would find the streetcars efficient and economical. In their discernment, the perfect business move would be to make sure this never happens. They basically buy our economical transportation system and replaced it with a new system that would lead to the countries depending on them, therefore more profits. Today we have a "Tea Party" brought to you by the infamous rich boys of America.

The intricacies of how their business plans are intertwined with our current politics is more than I can decipher in just one blog, but the concept is very simple. People like David Koch and Rupert Murdoch obviously perceived the country going in a direction that for some they find unappealing. To slow the progress they find economically disturbing to their personal wealth, they fund a Tea Party and Broadcast their messages on Fox network in order to "take America back". I mentioned that they find it "economically disturbing" because these guys are businessmen. There's no part of their job description that saids, "to care and protect the American citizens". In theory they're actually doing what they're suppose to do. Obviously a better transportation system is something we couldn't afford to loose, but we did. Today we have the rare chance of witnessing the metamorphosis of how a business can now fund political parties, therefore buying their own political voices in washington dc. It's a political monopoly because the average member of this democracy can't afford to buy a political party to voice their opposition with the same velocity to make it a fair debate. The democratic party is as close as we can get but democratic voices are united and often times not in direct retaliation to these businesses and their actions. We already know what the effects of the General Motor monopoly is, with the effects of the Tea Party, time will tell.