Who owns the Tea Party Movement?
Who elected them?
On Monday, a group of “conservative and Tea Party leaders” released a letter to Mitch McConnell and John Boehner. The gist of the letter was that the Tea Party movement did not support social issues and the GOP should stay focused on fiscal issues.
Really?
First, the letter does not define social issues. What are social issues? Abortion? Illegal immigration? Gay marriage? Maybe they are and maybe they aren’t, but when you hide behind vague terms, no one has a clue as to what you are talking about.
Among the “conservative and Tea Party leaders” that signed this letter was the chairman of the gay GOP group, GOProud and Tammy Bruce, LA based Internet radio talk show host. There were a total of sixteen signers on this letter. Seven were state chairs for Tea Party Patriots.
Let’s be clear. GOProud is not now, nor has it ever been a conservative or a Tea Party organization. It is a group of gay Republicans who are not particularly conservative. Tammy Bruce has spoken at a few Tea Party events, but she is not a leader of this movement.
And then, there is Tea Party Patriots.
The Tea Party Patriot website states they are the “Official Home of the American Tea Party Movement”. I find this particularly offensive as there are several national tea party groups, including Tea Party Nation which was founded at the exact same time as Tea Party Patriots. None of these other national groups refer to themselves as the “official home of the tea party movement.” This arrogance seems to be their general attitude as shown last week, when they tried to harass freshmen members of congress to go to their event instead of another one the congressional freshmen had arranged with the conservative group, Claremont Institute.
Contrary to their beliefs, the Tea Party movement is not of Tea Party Patriots, by Tea Party Patriots and for Tea Party Patriots.
This movement has no official home. It has no specific leader and no group has the right to speak for the movement the way the signers of this letter have.
They owe the movement an apology.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Vincent Calderone on -
Hi Marcia:
Great work. I would like to shire some wisdom with you, if you don’t mind. Did you know that at one time there was the:
House Un-American Activities Committee
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Unamerican Activities Committee)
HUAC hearing
The House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUA) or House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC),[1] 1938–1975) was an investigative committee of the United States House of Representatives. In 1969, the House changed the committee's name to "House Committee on Internal Security". When the House abolished the committee in 1975,[2] its functions were transferred to the House Judiciary Committee.
The committee's anti-communist investigations are often confused with those of Senator Joseph McCarthy.[3] McCarthy, as a U.S. Senator, had no direct involvement with this House committee.[4] McCarthy was the Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Government Operations Committee of the U.S. Senate, not the House.
Do you think that this Committee should reform in the Congress.
It will be one heck of a kick in the ass (mule) to some people. Do you think that Mr. Judson Phillips might support the formation of this committee?
-
Permalink Reply by Marcia Wood on -
Vincent - no I didn't but HCUA is something that I'm interested in researching. Thanks
-
Permalink Reply by Vincent Calderone on
-
Any time. Let me know how you make out.
-
Permalink Reply by Christopher Mahon on -
Regarding the thread about George (Schwartz) Soros, while he has nefarious intent to control humans it's important to understand where his sociopolitical underpinnings come from. He's an admirer of Karl Popper as I and an author that I appreciate, Nassim Taleb 'The Black Swan' is too. In Popper's book the 'Poverty of Historicism' he illustrates an experiment where he sets up a device on one side of a room that has a ball to be released at the top of the machine and all other variables controlled the ball is released. Popper suggests that even an undergrad engineer could calculate where in the room the ball would end up - even to a very close calculation. He then suggests in his book, 'what if there was an X factor in the ball that could move at will?' He and Taleb who commented on the illustration concluded it was virtually impossible to calculate it. This is important to understanding Soros: Soros believed 'yes that is true', however, if the x variable in the ball was restricted in movement, you might not know the precise location of the ball, but you could narrow it down to a much smaller quadrant. This in effect is socialism and how large government policies are designed - to control men. Here's the thing we need to understand in the Tea Party movement - THERE ARE SOROS-TYPES IN OUR MOVEMENT FOR CONSERVATIVE SOCIAL CAUSES. GINGRICH, PENCE AND MANY OTHERS are looking to implement federal government power to remove unwanted social behavior. Not only has it not worked but it creates distortion in society as has been witnessed with immigration, drugs, education, etc. The Tea Party conservatives have to come to an understanding in the intent of the US Constitution - as we have preached, freer economic markets, we need to adhere to the enumerated powers and allow freer social values in the market and where necessary and appropriate address these issues in the States.
-
Permalink Reply by Vincent Calderone on
-
Mr. Mahon:
You have no Y factor. So x variable is invalid as is Soros xyz is invalid. Which makes yours and Soros movement of conservative social causes not valid or functional.
-
Permalink Reply by Christopher Mahon on
-
Vincent, thank you for your comments. The X variable are those either unanticipated or miscalculated (lacking knowledge). Please consider reading Benoit Mandelbrot's theory in the Mandelbrot Set or Nassim Taleb's 'The Black Swan' or Popper's 'Poverty of Historicism' both go into these consideration and also confirmation bias.
You can find some of these materials at my website www.ambidextrouscivicdiscourse.com
-
Permalink Reply by Vincent Calderone on
-
Christopher:
I have seen these books before. It lead me to believe that you are comming from the far left, is that true? -
-
Permalink Reply by Christopher Mahon on
-
'Social conservative' advocacy is the battle ground in the Tea Party movement right now. I wrote an article on my website regarding the solution which is adhering to the intent of the US Constitution and a better understand regarding governance from the philosophy of Negative Liberty vs Positive Liberty.
I agree with Judson, we need to be specific when it comes to social values, but in general terms i go by the 'Harm Prinicple' that JS Mill quotes in his late 19th century essay 'On Liberty' that in a civilized society a man is free until he infringes on the rights of another. For those who are Christians a good way to understand Negative vs Positive Liberty is to consider the realtionship that Adam had with God in the garden vs the relationship that Israel had with God through Mosaic law. In the garden man was free except to not eat of the tree, so man would forfeit his freedom only by choosing to. While through Mosaic law man was not free but obtained it by his performance, which was always being qualified.
You can see how these two different philosophies of government and how laws are written could affect our lives differently. The founders in their brilliance understood this through watching the events in Europe, Biblical insights and the writings of philosophers like Montesquieu and his theory on separation of power. The US Constitution was designed with very narrow defined powers to the federal government and broader powers to the states, because local government works better than a government far away in DC. In addition, federal laws should reflect the concept of Negative Liberty and not Positive Liberty, while the states while being warned by Jefferson and other framers could use Positive Liberty in creating laws. You can see the wisdom in this because, while it is very difficult to escape ardous federal laws, at the state and local level, you and I have the free choice to flee or stay. We see this happening today as a study recently suggest many are fleeing higher taxed states for the relief in no taxed or lower tax states.
Finally, social values and economic values (all part of societal values) work in tandem and respond to markets in similar ways. Successful (superior) life choices and values when not subsidized and preferred will always prevail. It used to be Conservativism was based on free exchange and association not only in the market place but in society as a whole and 'traditions' were maintained or allowed to change by that discourse. Modern Conservativism has become a subsidy of tradition at any cost and for the nostaglia of yesteryear. It has proven wrong in federal policies (immigration, drugs, education) and if we are honest in our private institutions as well: Churches, families, social groups.
The Tea Party is a diverse group of individuals, lets not allow what was our strength in November, become our downfall going forward.
I do believe the 'Right to Life' falls under the General Clause and within the power of federal government but outside that we need to go by Constitutional Intent and legitimate tolerance as Jefferson put it, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
Christopher Mahon
www.ambidextrouscivicdiscourse.com
-
Permalink Reply by Steven Robinson on -
Christopher, you bring up some very interesting points.
The "Social Conservatives" within the Tea Party movement has not focused on 'social issues' due to the very pressing concerns regarding the 'in our face' destruction of our economic system. The debate about the intent of our Founders demands that we investigate THEIR words and not assume that we know what they meant. One of the very best books to explain some of what you are saying here, is "The Five Thousand Year Leap" by W. Cleon Skousen. Dr. Skousen accurately points out that the model of 'local control' is traced back to the Anglo-Saxons who took the concept directly from the book of Exodus. The English system establish, cities & towns (shires), counties, states and the 'Throne'.
So while the Constitution addresses just the highest two levels, Federal and state, the principle says let the problems be handled by the 'governing' group most affected by the decisions. THAT is why the Federal government has NO business telling a city that they have to build a light rail system and ignore the bridges and roads in desperate states of dis-repair.
Now regarding the Constitutional and the debate leading up to signing on September 17, 1787, I just participated in a discussion in the Arizona Tea Party, Illegal Immigration page. The Framers, while intent upon avoiding declaration of a 'State Religion', nonetheless they firmly acknwledged the roots of morality, as the very same place as the source of our 'unalienable rights'; that is the "Creator". Here is the discussion on that matter, because as you stated, "Social Conservatives" will be expressing their concerns!
Gene, I'm glad you did challenge Leslie Fish on her statement. She misrepresents what the founders attempted to do. The Founders were leaving countries where the Church was controlled by, or were the controllers of, the government. The resulting religious persecution of those who believed differently, throughout Europe by the 'State' who was representative of the 'Official Religion', was the problem.
Perhaps Leslie would be surprised to know that, at one point in the Constitutional Convention, the bickering was about to collapse the meetings. None other than Ben Franklin stopped the proceedings, implored all the people meeting to pray. In fact, there were THREE DAYS of prayer and fasting. AFTER those three days, the Convention moved towards a very successful conclusion. The Founders did NOT want to establish a FEDERAL Church. HOWEVER, several states had 'State' religions, including Maryland, Pennsylvania and I believe Massachusetts.
The history books for the last 100 years of "Progressivism" have deliberately concealed the relgious values of our Founders. Several were Ministers. They were NOT attempting to establish a "secular" nation. No, that is what the French Revolution attempted to establish. The goal was to create a nation where religious freedom and diversity was tolerated, even atheism as Thomas Paine was.
The Founders en mass including Thomas Jefferson were religious people, even he realized the futility and emptiness of the "Age of Enlightenment". Here are some quotes for everyone to consider:
"The country's first two presidents, George Washington and John Adams, were firm believers in the importance of religion for republican government." --official Library of Congress statement
"...both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity." -- official Library of Congress statement
John Adams stated: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798
And Thomas Jefferson made the following statements: “ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”, "Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.” and, "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." and lastly, “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]
Are these the statements of "Secularists"? I DON'T THINK SO! And I didn't EVEN include a statement by George Washington! OK, I will!
"The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion" ...and later: "...reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle..."
Our Founders were very religious men to a man, even including Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, who stopped the Convention when it was about to fall apart, and encouraged the attendees to join him in three days of prayer and fasting. .This must be remembered when thinking of the "Social Conservatives".
-
Permalink Reply by Shirley Eliakis on -
Very eloquent, Stephen. The 5000 Year Leap is an excellent book. Reagan wanted it to be the official textbook for high school history and government classes.
It is an excellent read. If textbooks were modeled after this one, I would wager that it would be much easier to hold the attenton of the students, AND easier to keep them coming back to class!
-
Permalink Reply by Ronald Brahin on -
You are absolutely right, Contrary to their beliefs; the Tea Party movement is not of Tea Party Patriots, by Tea Party Patriots and for Tea Party Patriots. As a former member of TPP I watched as the elections drew closer and asked myself the following question.
How effective is Tea Party Patriots towards electing good conservative candidates? Since TPP will not endorse, vett or help fund a candidate, I then evaluated the phone calls, letters, rally's, and meetings that is the grass roots efforts of TPP. I am also a member of Icaucus which is a fine organization dedicated to finding and vetting good Conservative candidates nationally. I thought it would be a good Idea to marry or partner with Tea Party Patriots and Icaucus and made my idea known to the Chair of TPP. She did not even have the courtesy to answer my idea which I thought would make them a more effective organization. With time marching on and the elections getting closer I started evaluation other Tea Party organizations like Tea Party Nation and found they were more visually productive at backing and vetting good conservative candidates and helped fund their campaigns. After evaluating all this information I asked myself "If the only Tea Party organization was the Tea Party Patriots how would that effect the elections"? I canceled my tickets to the TPP convention, and signed up to become a member of Tea Party Nation. Thank you Tea Party Nation, without you doing your part, this could have ended up a different kind of election, and thank you for letting me be a part of the success.
-
Permalink Reply by Berks Tea Party on
-
Please refer to my previous thread.and Ron Reagans 11th commandment. Please stop excoriating a significant member of the movement. It doesn't help.
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
