Tea Party Movement: Patriots or Propagandists?

Tea Party PatriotsI am sure whatever your political ideology may be, you have heard about the Tea Party movement, which is a national organization that features a main website despite its splintering into subdivisions with states. Of course, its name is derived from the historical event in 1773 when, in protest against excessive and unfair taxation as well as monopolization of the tea import, American colonists dressed as native Americans, dumped wooden cases of tea into the Boston harbor from a merchant ship the night before unloading. This event was an important link to what would become the American Revolution.

Thus, under that concept, the Tea Party organization was founded in 2009 and with the help of YouTube videos, social networking sites, Facebook, and Twitter, it has grown in popularity. In the background, a major political entity, separated from the Republican Party and at the same time sponsoring those members who believe in limited government and reduction of bureaucracy by the name of FreedomWorks, created by Dick Armey, former congressional member. It was meant to be an alternate to the progressive-socialist entity called MoveOn.org that was created during the presidency of Bill Clinton, with the concept that even though that president committed perjury, adultery, and violated the ethics of workplace sexual harassment; it was time to move on because Congress did not impeach President Clinton. Last year, Dick Armey has removed himself from FreedomWorks because he claims that money has corrupted and moving away from what the founding principle was meant to be. Of course, the progressives immediately went in for the proverbial kill.

Looking objectively at the Tea Party organization in its performance, it has most clearly recognized the problems of ignoring the Constitution and allowing government to become less limited and bureaucracy become an unaffordable element in government and politics. However, their solutions do not always match with what the Founders had in mind when they framed the articles and amendments of the US Constitution. This is mostly that the elite establishment of leadership within the Republican Party has turned against the Tea Party movement because they do not want to be looked upon as “radical”.

A good example of this is the Affordable Health Act, commonly known as Obamacare. It not only threatens the medical care system, but it is a catalyst in cementing the movement toward a socialist welfare state whose agenda is to subvert the government the Founders created and control American society into government dependency from cradle-to-grave, forever change the relationship between government and citizens that FDR started in his New Deal programs.

Originally the main character behind the concept of the Tea Party movement was Dick Armey from Texas, but Sarah Palin has become a key figure that promotes enthusiasm toward true reformation back to the constitutional republic which was wisely created. There are other key figures, like Ron Paul, a definite constitutionalist who ran a campaign not only against Democrat candidates, but poster candidates representing the GOP establishment. John McCain was considered a maverick, but that has been shown to be only a front toward his RINO methods of politics, and who has publicly ridiculed the Tea Party movement and its membership. It is ironic that Sarah Palin became a national figure when she conceded to accept being a vice president candidate in John McCain’s presidential campaign; however, it afforded her the opportunity how far Washington DC has fallen from the grace of being a constitutional republic. Just as she turned on Republicans in Alaska when she was governor and gained reputation of being a responsible politician, so she has done on the national scene. Sarah Palin is considered one of the great modern patriots of the Tea Party movement.

Even so-called liberals have seen the dangers of Obamacare and how it has made matters worse instead of better, while those who pushed for it continue to lie about it even when the deception that began in 2008 and continued proves to be clear. Those who call themselves liberals once called themselves democratic, in the true sense of the words as originally intended. But they are deluded into thinking they are not progressing towards socialism and eventually communism where the government becomes overseer of the people instead of the other way around as the Founders warned future generations of this danger. As I have written several times, democracy was never intended for our government because eventually it eats itself away and evolves into something aforementioned. Democrat politicians, like Hillary Clinton, has done away with the description of being liberal and looks upon themselves as progressives – progressing forward with promises of freedom from want, which is not part of the constitutional republic, but instead the gist of Marxism. Hillary Clinton is popular among the progressives and unenlightened, ignoring her career has been filled with scandals – many around her going to prison (or ending up dead) and she remains unscathed.

FDR added freedom from want in one of his speeches when he mentions freedom of speech and religion. Freedom from want is not in the articles or amendments of the Constitution because that is not the responsibility of government, but the diligence of the citizens to have the freedom to work towards prosperity. Regulations devised by government to make our lives better has, for the most part, only made matters worse – and progressives do not accept the wisdom that if something isn’t working it is time to consider a different approach to the problems and issues.

Woodrow Wilson (and that Congress) was the first progressive, and during his administration the 16th Amendment came to be and the Federal Reserve system was formed – both a progressive means to control the people by controlling the money and a means of no limitations on taxation in order to continue its frivolous and unnecessary spending that is clearly against the constitutional limitations of our government. Wilson’s form of progression, statist liberalism, had already been developed in Germany by Kant and Hegel, and progressed toward communism through the Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx. It was a perfect platform for tyrants and tyranny.

To liberal-progressives, the Tea Party seems radical and frivolous, because it recalls the concept of the American Revolution – and that, to them, means that those who support the Tea Party are anti-government. That, of course, is nonsense, for no government would mean anarchy – and that is not what the Tea Party folks are promoting. And, if the Tea Party movement supporters recreate that which began the American Revolution by dressing up in period clothing and quoting from what was said back then – they are promoting an overthrow of government. In this vein of thought they have labeled the Tea Party movement with racism and violence; another falsehood – the revolution they are referring to is a social revolution that demands and expects the return of a limited government, governed by and for the people using the voice of words and voting as ammunition and the pen replacing the sword. However, despite their desire not to repeat the American Revolution complete with aggressive methods; there are some who seem to hope for it. As far being accused of being an organization of racists, someone should tell that to Tea Party members like Allen West and state senator in Louisiana Elbert Guillory, Lloyd Marcus (Unhyphenated American) and others. They have educated themselves and see that constitutional law created greatness for the US, so why dissolve it? It has become so popular that it has its own congressional caucus. The Tea Party Caucus members are constitutionalists and members are NOT required to be of any particular race, like the Black Caucus. Members of the Tea Party Caucus come from 35 states and more may follow. The Tea Party is color blind – its sole purpose is to return constitutional law and limited government. The political left views the Tea Party movement advocates as traitors instead of patriots. If they base their ideology upon what the Founders believed, does this mean the founders were “traitors”?

There have been Tea Party protests and demonstrations, and rallies – all peaceful, except when progressive groups showed up and created a violent atmosphere. It seems that progressive liberals just cannot help being hypocritical, and like their politicians, never practice what they preach and act upon that which they accuse their opposing entities and citizens.

If one examines the history of organizations, one may originate with sound principles and honest ideology; but as it grows, so does the means of accumulating wealth – eventually it becomes large, loses its sight of why the organization was founded and becomes corrupted. Basically, this is what has happened to the two traditional political parties that have become nothing but a money guzzling entity where both have lost the principle of protecting and maintaining the Constitution and the importance of limiting government. Indeed, their political clubs and status has become more important than the people they are supposed to serve.

As Charles R. Kesler, editor of the Signet Classic edition of The Federalist Papers, and author/co-author of several books concerning the Constitution and our government, wrote [The Tea Party, Conservatism, and the Constitution]:

The Tea Party rightly concluded from the battles over Obamacare that what we are seeing in our politics these days is not two clashing interpretations of the same Constitution, but increasing two different Constitutions in conflict: the old Constitution of 1787 and a “living” Constitution that is not just a different approach to the original, but an alternative to it. …mainstream Republican leaders understood them with much less clarity and intensity. …
The failure of the Supreme Court to strike down Obamacare and the individual mandate played into the Tea Party’s suspicions. … There were five votes to rule it unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause before Chief Justice Roberts changed the subject to the taxing power. …the old constitutional mechanisms of judicial review and separation of powers did not seem capable of defending the Constitution against this fundamental challenge, and that the only recourse would be a direct appeal to the American people – to the ultimate source of authority for any constitution. …
It is a populist movement to defend the Constitution, but the Constitution is meant, among other things, to limit populism in our politics – to channel, moderate, and refine popular passion through constitutional forms, such as elections, office-holding, and the rule of law.

The last quoted paragraph is an example of why the framers of the Constitution never mentioned a democracy nor intended for our government to be one. Democracy does not limit populism and becomes the rule of the mob instead of the rule of law; and then evolves to a point where it becomes rule by the ‘selected’ elite who no longer serves the people but the people serve the government.

Since all other measures failed in repealing Obamacare, the Tea Party has turned to the public for growing support to do this. Ronald Reagan constantly appealed to the people while battling with Congress to do the right thing, the constitutional thing. In the 1990s, Newt Gingrich tried to perform this from the bully pulpit of the Speaker of the House in the 1990s, but although “Contract with America” was created, nothing came of it or culminating into what was intended.

Mr. Kesler eloquently wrote:

To summarize, the Tea Party has been right about the threat posed to the fabric of constitutional government by Obamacare and by other brazen assaults on the Constitution, such as President Obama’s asserted prerogatives to choose which laws to enforce and to make recess appointments when there was no recess. i …the establishment Republicans were right about the outcome of the effort to defund Obamacare by tying it to the Continuing Resolution. … In that light it is neither wise nor moderate to lambaste members of the other as political enemies – something of which both sides have been guilty.
The Tea Party could do itself and the country a great service by working out what a return to constitutional government might really mean, and thus the strategy and tactics appropriate to that. What is needed is less populism and more political thinking on its part, or on the part of its trusted advisors. Political thinking and constitutional thinking are not opposed. …
After a century of Progressive mining and sapping of the Constitution, the great document we count on to defend us now needs our defense, and the form of government issuing from the Constitution is itself in need of restoration and renewal. …
If conservative officeholders don’t start to correct these structural deformation in our government, and if the Tea Party doesn’t turn it formidable patriotism and energy to enlightening the American people about how we are losing control of our own destiny, then no matter how many good policies we enact, or how low we set tax rates, the body politic will continue to sicken, and self-government will slip through our fingers.

While it will take an amendment to repeal the 16th Amendment, like the Prohibition amendment, in order to rid Americans of a draconian tax system that is unfair, intrusive and whose purpose is to redistribute wealth and income; reformation can take place in other areas without amendments. For example, require that the Appropriations Committee, or a such form of committees approve all regulations before they become law? Indeed, part of the problem is that the executive branch is no longer limited and with the Supreme Court, the check-and-balance system is ineffective and fading into the sunset.

Congress should follow budget rules and no longer provide elected officials any “retirement” benefits when leaving public office other than that which is afforded to the People – social security and personal retirement investment accounts. That would be part of the oversight reformation, like what should take place in the executive branch when the Justice Department protects corruption instead of seeking it out. Budgeting is a principle concern of Congress and they have failed miserably.

Instead of busily making new laws and regulations, Congress should be reviewing old laws and ensure that the executive branch enforces those laws, like immigration laws; not create new laws and amnesties that increase the problem instead of correcting it. Government over-regulating has caused the cost of products and services to rise considerably. It is why your money does not go farther than it did in the 1970s/1980s; despite earning more income. It is also because the major portion of one’s earnings ends up in the government treasury who prints money without gold (specie) to back it up. It is because through the Federal Reserve system, financiers are controlling the money instead of Congress – a clear job prescribed in the Constitution.

The Tea Party movement is a patriotic organization because it is an organization that demands that constitutional law be the principle behind everything the government does, living by rule of law instead of mob rule. As the Tea Party Patriots website states:

Tea Part Patriots stands for every American, and is home to millions who have come together to pursue the American Dream and to keep that Dream alive for their children and grandchildren.

The Tea Party is NOT against legal immigration. They are enlightened enough to know that this nation was founded by immigrants and they have contributed to the greatness it had become.

What they ARE against is illegal immigration, primarily invaders from Mexico who think nothing of breaking our laws, expecting benefits of citizenry without being citizens or loyalty to the sovereignty of the United States, who come here because their government is corrupt and not based upon a system of constitutional government like our Founders created; yet insist that the problems they leave behind in their own country be integrated within our society and methods of government thereby creating something they run away from.

Paul Harvey, in 1965, put things into prospective – an American with foresight like Ronald Reagan and became a voice of warning that Paul Revere provided …

Forty years ago Ronald Reagan foresaw the problems of a government that is not limited …

We do not need to have a civil war or a second revolution like that which broke American colonists from the tyranny of 18th century Britain. That was a unique situation in history that has never or never will be duplicated in its successful outcome. Today’s government is worried about such a civil war and has made plans to deal with it through means that would defy our imagination, reminiscent of dark periods of history like medieval and the rise and fall of Nazism.This cannot be allowed to escalate into being no other alternative, for We the People have the answer if we enlighten ourselves in knowledge of constitutional law and the reasons why the Founders did what they did. The voice of patriots, Tea Party or not, citizens determined to return the true principles behind the American Dream that the liberal-progressive have corrupted into a Utopia that can never exist.

Ronald Reagan:

Every once in a while somebody has to get the bureaucracy by the neck and shake it loose and say. “Stop what you’re doing”.

The Tea Party Patriots have been doing that, the Republican Party and certainly not the Democratic Party cannot be trusted to enact and maintain a true reformation that returns constitutional law with its government limits, implemented and maintained by those who operate our government, those who are the servants of the people and not the other way around. The more untruthful accusations against the Tea Party movement by progressives, the more guilty they look. As far as the present executive chief of our federal government: people voted for him because of his race, saying, “it’s time for a ‘black’ president, one who promised change and the people never bothered to get the details of that change. Now that Obama’s agenda is clear and his lack of respect for his oath of office and the Constitution of the United States, Congress is reluctant to initiate impeachment hearing proceedings because of his race. Choosing someone because of race to run for office is just as bad as not choosing someone because of race. With constitutionally minded African Americans in our society (like Allen West, who quit the Black Caucus because of their racism and unethical behavior), why ever would anyone pick someone who even before elected the first time proved to be associated with the criminal element, had too many mysteries in his past, attended a church where a racism was preached for twenty years, and had socialist ideologist mentors?

Cyrus-Duck-Dynasty1If we expect to reform our government, than we must begin to reform ourselves. We ARE the People. A nation divided cannot stand, Abraham Lincoln told us – and it certainly applies today. We all may have different opinions, outlooks on life, different social and ethnic background; but as Americans we must always remain a united people who exercise individual freedom and the liberty to choose with personal property rights and all the rights prescribed in the amendments, not made up by useful idiots of the progressive regime and those who would destroy those principles that make a good society and civilization.


This method of side slipping was not created by Obama, but used by Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt, the latter the iconic hero of democratic-socialism.