Posted on 02/24/2010 3:29:15 PM PST by Former Military Chick
I know they were trying to influence the primary race in my district but I think the will of the people has forced them to support our choice.
Every piece of legislation seems to expand government and add to the deficit. Just once I’d like to see legislation that reduces the size of government and cuts spending. Give the taxpayers a break now and then.
I don’t see how any American who truly loves their country, and who honestly believes in our Founding Ideals, could possibly find fault with the Tea Party Declaration of Independence.
It embodies all of the ideals that our Founders fought and died for, and which they encoded into our Constitution.
I’m sending this out to every person I have contact data for.
Thanks for posting it.
WF
Liberals are out saying to toss everyone out. Maybe that was it. Any real conservative would look first.
We have about 4 running in our congressional district. Two strong ones. But, a little dust up between the two candidates, because of perceived or maybe real RNC support for one over the other, is causing problems. I just want the candidates to have a good open debate so I can make a decision on who(m?) to support.
Syraight Up line in the sand. Had to be done.
Now lets take over the Republican party.
My chosen candidate is a top notch conservative republican and he’s in the lead over the incumbant marxist and all other republican challengers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Walberg
I’d be a fool to vote for this self described “Ron Paul republican” and I don’t have major issues with Ron Paul but I don’t want him running the country. This guy seems to be pretty good at the art of giving vague answers.
http://www.gregmerleforcongress.com/
Well shit Karl, guess I can't be in the GOP OR TEA Party now!
We always have a crowded field which can be a problem but its fine as long as we get to make the choice we want. One of the guys running says the NRCC asked him to move to the district. He doesn’t sound bad but he has zero legislative experience and I would happily vote to send him to Lansing, but he’s not ready for Washington in my opinion.
The NRCC is warming up to my guy (despite throwing him overboard in the 08 race and causing him to lose by 2%) plus he’s picking up the important endorsements around the state. At this point he’s out in front of the democrat by 10 points and all other candidates trail the democrat.
One of the republicans was a democrat the last time she ran and is back in 3rd or 4th place territory.
What’s wrong with the original Declaration of Independence? No one up for the “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor” thing anymore?
Yeah, that Sam Adams and his S.O.L. crew were a real bunch of "loons."
The only thing I know for sure is that social issues are part of the platform and the Republicans aren’t interested so why would I support them?
Ping
I think some here jump to an unwarranted conclusion in accusing the “Tea Party Movement” of starting a third party. In reading this statement, I find no evidence that this is the intent of the writers.
Oh, it is clear they are “distancing” themselves from BOTH parties. And, because Republicans have traditionally been the home of Conservatism, this may SEEM to be particularly a slight to them. To the contrary, however, the Tea Party Movement isn’t moving to form a thrid party, at least in my view, so much as they are trying to form a movement that puts the ENTIRE Washington political Establishment on notice — NO MORE unConstitutional, unethical, corrupt, Socialist, tyrannical elitism!
The Tea Party is simply INSISTING on limited, responsible government, fiscal accountability, realistic monetary policy, LOW and SIMPLE taxes, and FREEDOM for the people from the encroachment of government interference.
Now, this only becomes a “threat” to Republicans — a “wedge” to separate Conservatives from other Republican constituencies — IF the RINO’s and Big Government Republicans, the “socially liberal” Republicans and secular or “libertarian” Republicans, the Country Clubbers and Blue Blood Republicans refuse to HEAR their Conservative base on these many essential issues.
Simply put, the Tea Party Movement INSISTS on observing Conservative PRINCIPLES — not PRAGMATISM, “compromise” and “bipartisan” betrayals. If Republicans insist on running one of their party insiders — a RINO — then the Tea Party OUGHT to offer an alternative — in the primary. However, if that doesn’t alter the Republican Party machine from their statist, progressivist tendencies, then a 3rd Party candidate in the general election CANNOT and should not be taken off the table. No — not a “party” candidate, but a principled alternative to two “party” candidates.
Finally, I’ll say that I think the statement is quite good. I haven’t signed on, but that’s only for one reason. I want to get some clarification about some of the wording in the Tea Part DOI. It seems the writers go out of their way to avoid ANY “God” language. For instance, this statement in section VI: “ We belive that liberty is based in rational self-interest, in freedom of thought, in free markets, free associaiton, free speech, a free press and the ability GRANTED US UNDER THE CONSTITUTION...”
There is nothing inherently wrong with the statement quoted above insofar as these liberties listed goes. But, in the Bill of Rights, where is “freedom of thought” listed? It’s not. Oh, I certainly believe it’s implied, but it’s not clearly stated like, say, FREEDOM OF RELIGION... The absence of that particular liberty is striking.
Also striking is the concept that these are abilities “granted us under the Constitution.” Well, true, but it isn’t the CONSTITUTION itself that grants these “abilities” to us. The Founders clearly noted (quite specifically in the Declaration of Independence)that these RIGHTS were given by God and were “inalienable.” The Constitution was meant merely to assure PROTECTION of these rights from Government!
One last statement made in the TPDOI: “We believe either fate or history has chosen this country to be a becon of freedom and prosperity to the whole world because of America’s belief in vigorous defense of political and economic liberty.” Well, okay, yes — BUT, neither fate nor history has the ability to “choose.” Only a BEING can choose — and that being that has chosen America is “God.” C’mon there guys. How far out of the way can you go to avoid any mention of DIVINE PROVIDENCE — which our Founders very clearly embraced?
Let me say that I don’t think the writers of this “Tea Party Declaration of Independence” purposefully sought to leave out these rights because they deny their existence, nor because they desired to insult those who stand for these God-given rights. I think the writers simply wished to create as broad a coalition as possible to put under the “Tea Party Movement” banner. And while that is noble, what is absent from the statement could be quite problematic as well.
I generally support this statement, I understand it’s intent, and I believe in it’s goals. I would imagine, however, that many Tea Partiers just like me are noticing the conspicuous absence of the “God” stuff in the statement. And generally, Patriots won’t stay silent about something as essential and integral to our history and our national vision as God. Just my thoughts — you wanted to know.
Blessings....
So does Obama...
Karl Rove said the same thing in the Wall Street Journal:
....“If tea party groups are to maximize their influence on policy, they must now begin the difficult task of disassociating themselves from cranks and conspiracy nuts. This includes 9/11 deniers, “birthers” who insist Barack Obama was not born in the U.S., and militia supporters espousing something vaguely close to armed rebellion.”
_________________
I think Karl is right! the “Truthers” and “Birthers” will end up hurting, crippling, maybe even killing an otherwise viable political movement that could turn the tide in our nation WITHOUT a major, traumatic collapse or catastrophe.
One caveat there — ANY American citizen serious about their rights has to be prepared to defend them, both from criminals who would violate them, or from TYRANTS who would DENY them. I don’t advocate “armed rebellion” against a duly elected CONSTITUTIONAL government. But let that Government usurp the God-given, Constitutionally gauranteed rights of the people, or circumvent the process by which they can be removed through legitimate election or other Constitutional means, and ALL bets are off, just like they were for our Founders with His Majesty King George III.
Bottom line, Karl, I will not stand for tyranny — at any cost. Folks in Washington need to get that message WITHOUT any “vague” or veiled terms.
Blessings...
Karl would have us throw out Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton, per his way of thinking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.