What does the new 285 Tea Party Group Stand For

When I first posted that we were trying to start a new Tea Party Group here in the 285 Corridor, on that other Forum, immediately I was attacked and questioned as to what we stood for. Here are some of what we now have come up with. I know it will cause a lot of discussion, good and bad, because we all think differently. Opposing views are not harmful in as of themselves, but do cause people to think and possibly get involved in the process. Hopefully that will be the result of this.


PRELIMINARY RESOLUTIONS FOR THE

285 Corridor Tea Party Group


Whereas, our duly elected representatives have covertly instituted a wholly Progressive agenda which is intended to Fundamentally Transform America into a nation which creates an elected elite, whom are few, and an entitlement class of the many ordinary citizens, and that these same elected officials have acted thus, without the Consent of the Governed.

Therefore, be it Resolved, that the citizens of Park County and Jefferson County, specifically those members of the 285-Corridor Tea Party Group, refuse to provide support; morally or financially, through our votes, or otherwise, to any political candidate who does not abide by the tenet that all power comes from the people and that all Legislation must only be made through the Consent of the Governed.

Be it Resolved, that we as citizens of Park County and Jefferson County, Colorado, residing within the United States of America are entitled to honest, fair and equitable representation, and that said representation will only be retained in office at the pleasure and Consent of the Governed. Furthermore,

Be it Resolved, that we as ordinary citizens will regularly exercise our God Given Right to elect legislators to represent us, and will only elect those who are Moral, Principled and of Sound Character, and who retain genuine intent to fairly and equitably represent us as US citizens. Furthermore,

Be it Resolved, that our representatives shall be chosen, based upon their position on the issues and not based upon race, color, creed, or party affiliation.

( Since we have had only one short get-together, this is only preliminary)

Great info, thanks for posting it.

sorry, I just don't see a 'wholly Progressive agenda" being instituted - just more of the same corporatists in power. (Big disappointment for many of us!) There are aspects of the Tea Party movement which make sense to me, but all I see is them sponsoring the same corporate-backed hacks that we've been getting in there from both parties. Even a lot of their (big) events are corporate sponsored. We need campaign reform (publicly funded), and abolishment of corporate personhood. Then maybe we'll get some Moral, Principled representatives (from both sides!) who actually represent people instead of special interests. If you actually do find some candidates who aren't bought off, let us know!

beammeup wrote: sorry, I just don't see a 'wholly Progressive agenda" being instituted - just more of the same corporatists in power. (Big disappointment for many of us!) There are aspects of the Tea Party movement which make sense to me, but all I see is them sponsoring the same corporate-backed hacks that we've been getting in there from both parties. Even a lot of their (big) events are corporate sponsored. We need campaign reform (publicly funded), and abolishment of corporate personhood. Then maybe we'll get some Moral, Principled representatives (from both sides!) who actually represent people instead of special interests. If you actually do find some candidates who aren't bought off, let us know!

Lets be friends?

http://vimeo.com/1793067

Maybe that is the point. It isn't a Progressive agenda. It is made up of people who want the Constitution to still mean what it was intended for. We are not happy with the "Change" we have left after all this hope and change.

I think you'd have better response, and get your points across better, if your goals were written in plain English -- not reading like a court proclamation.

You'll notice there are no whereas 's and no "be it resolved" in the Declaration of Independence. Just make it understandable and clear.

Wayne does have a point.

Nmysys wrote: Maybe that is the point. It isn't a Progressive agenda. It is made up of people who want the Constitution to still mean what it was intended for. We are not happy with the "Change" we have left after all this hope and change.

I didn't mean that your group was supposed to have a Progressive agenda, but your resolutions stated that the elected reps have "covertly instituted a wholly Progressive agenda". That's what I meant that I'm not seeing.

And I agree with Wayne, stating your positions in regular language would help. It is still very hard to understand what your group is for or against. And for someone like me who wanted some real "Change", I can't even see where overall anything has changed much from Bush to Obama. It all comes down to the fact that the banksters are still running our government and the rest is distraction.

I totally agree with your statements that elected officials need to understand that power comes from the people and legislation should be at the consent of the governed. So just curious if your group is at all supportive of publicly funded campaigns (or any kind of campaign reform), or in opposition to the supreme court ruling of corporate personhood and subsequent unlimited campaign spending. It just seems like we will always be at the will of multi-national corporations if these issues are not addressed, because unfortunately most people vote by what they see and hear on TV.

I am truly interested and not here to criticize your group. When I have talked to some Tea Party people, I see common ground but when I try to get specific, the discussion just falls back to generalities like "it's about the Constitution".

As was stated by a fictional senator in "The Shooter": "There are no sides. There's no Sunnis and Shiites. There's no Democrats and Republicans. There's only HAVES and HAVE-NOTS."

The bankers are the HAVES.

We are actually having just the second get-together of people, first time was only 10, now looks like we will have about 50 to 60 people tomorrow night. At this meeting I hope to be able to get some consensus of opinions from the group as to what we will try to accomplish, what we stand for, short and long term goals that we hope to accomplish, etc. When I first decided to try to form a group like this, I explained two things. First, that I was frustrated over the direction that I perceived the country was heading into, and second, that I was looking to get other people involved somehow in the political process, hopefully to accomplish that one aspect. Getting others involved, on the local level, state level, and the National level. I stated that I was not an organizer by nature, or a leader.

On every posting there were constant barrages of what do you stand for, do you back so and so, etc. When I posted this, it was an attempt to show only what I and one other friend and member have discussed. We would not be able to conceive of writing anything like The Declaration of Independence, or The Constitution, we don't claim to be that intelligent, or able to see the impact into the future, of our words. What we have done is to try to establish some form of a basis of what we felt we wanted to see. It is now going to be up to the consensus of this larger group, and most likely revised again and again, but we do want to do something instead of sitting frustrated over what we perceive to be a dangerous turn of events. I posted this knowing full well it would cause debate, in fact that is the reason for posting it.

Just because you are replying to it, proves that some words in it have struck home. Hopefully more people will have input and give ideas with which to go forward and accomplish something. That is where it begins, with the first step, and this was our attempt at a first step. I appreciate all the input I can get, and am learning every day. Hopefully more people will get involved in the process. That is all I could hope for.

Wayne:

I just read your last post and wanted to add something I learned years ago. Banks only have what we give them by deposit or entrust to them. It was to me, a stupid idea to bail them out. Banks come and banks go, just like any other business. I personally don't see them as the bad guys when I need to turn to them, only when they do something that gets into my pocket, like new fees. We could all just keep what little money we have in our mattress, more liquid than in the ground in equity, or other investments.