Tea Party activists circulate ‘declaration of independence’ and distance selves from Republicans

A network of Tea Party activists are circulating what they call the “Tea Party Declaration of Independence,” a document meant to define the movement and establish its independence from Republicans.

“We reject the idea that the electoral goals of the Republican party are identical to the goals of the Tea Party Movement,” the document, released Tuesday, reads.

Activist Bob MacGuffie, involved in the drafting process and also known for authoring a memo last year on how to disrupt health-care town hall meetings, said activists, “got tired of being defined from the outside and decided to do some self-definition” themselves.

MacGuffie said the idea for the document came from a number of leaders who attended a summit hosted by conservative group FreedomWorks, which has been heavily involved in the movement but was not officially involved in the drafting. He wouldn’t say specifically who drafted the document, but said there are at least 60 groups nationally behind it.

“They would just end up being targets,” he said of the drafters. “We’ll remain nameless for now.”

He also said it’s “hard to say” who’s co-signed the document, saying, “It’s just organically moving out there,” mainly on the Internet.

The movement will work against Republicans if they try to force RINO’s on them, according to the document, referencing “Republicans in Name Only” or members of the GOP seen as too moderate or liberal. It also demands that Republicans understand that activists will “reject its attempts to co-opt” the Tea Party movement.

The declaration says activists will “organize, demonstrate and vote” to achieve their goals.

It doesn’t just declare the movement’s independence from the Republicans, but from Democrats and the media as well.

“We reject arrogant left-wing politicians who furtively hide from public scrutiny, as they cut corrupt deals loaded with earmarks and pork in order to produce 2,000-page pieces of legislation so purposely incomprehensible, they do not even bother to read them before foisting them upon us,” the document reads.

The document said the media “has proved itself to be anything but a fair and balanced enterprise and which focuses more on entertainment, fear mongering and shock value than investigation and unbiased fact.”

They also reject that anyone leads the movement, including “self-styled ‘leaders’ who claim to speak for the Tea Party Movement.”

“This movement is not a brand name to be used to sell product; nor is it a logo to be used to justify profiting off its name,” the document reads. “We reject those who seek to personally capitalize on our popularity and momentum by trying to associate with our cause.”

John Loudon, a leader of the Tea Party political action committee Ensuring Liberty PAC, said he was e-mailed a copy of the document, which he said is “generating quite a bit of buzz” among Tea Party activists.

Even though the document speaks for the entire movement — something that would appear to irk activists known for being adverse to any type of leadership — Loudon said he doesn’t “see it that way.” Instead, he said, someone was just “putting out their thoughtful work and hoping that it gets picked up.”

“If they were trying to claim leadership, I think they’d try to put their name on it,” he said.

McGuffie said he has not heard any negative responses yet to the declaration and doesn’t see it making any Tea Partiers angry as the document is voluntary for activists to sign off on.

The declaration comes at a time where several other manifestos have emerged trying to define what the conservative movement stands for. Last week, several Tea Party groups unveiled plans for drafting a list of specific legislative proposals desired by activists called the “Contract from America.” And a group of leaders — representing the economic, social and a foreign policy wings of the conservative movement — signed the Mount Vernon Statement last Wednesday before the start of the Conservative Political Action Conference.

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....

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...

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.