TEA PARTY CAUCUS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES??

On July 16, 2010, the House Administration Committee granted a request by Representative Michele Bachmann for the formation of a Tea Party Caucus, just one day after the request was submitted. As a side note, approval of caucus requests normally take days before the Committee even considers such request. I find it interesting that a House Committee dominated by members of the Democratic Party would be so “eager” to grant approval for this caucus. I’ll try to tie this opinion into this editorial in the wrap-up comments. In order to deliberate on establishing a Tea Party caucus, we must remember the original premise behind the We, the People movement (commonly referred to by the media as the Tea Party movement) and some changes that we have endured.
Almost two years ago, the movement by We, the People began which was centered on the frustrations of Patriots across the country on how our government structure, from the local level thru the state and into the federal bureaucracy, was operating the legislative business of our townships, states and our country. This frustration stretches before the Obama (to be referred as BHO) administration to previous administrations. Actions by our elected officials have been committed in contrast to what We, the People expected. The movement recognized that ignorant decisions by our elected officials were being “allowed” by the American citizens because we inherently trusted the promises of our elected officials during their campaigns. Yet We, the People failed in the duty and trust dedicated to us by our Founding Fathers and “sat on our hands” in trust as our country was being led away from the Republic that our Constitutions (federal and state) designed and is slowly and effectively digressing into a Socialist-type “state”. In response, once We, the People decided that we had endured enough, we began a movement that was (and is) designed to reeducate ourselves, our family, friends and fellow citizens on the principles of our Constitution and the philosophies that influenced the decisions of our Founding Fathers in their formation of the Constitution of the United States. We began to study how the Constitution was the Law of the Land and how it influenced the formation of each individual state’s Constitution. With this education under our belt, we accepted the responsibility of spreading this knowledge across our land so that We, the People (as individual American citizens) could look for viable citizens who were Constitutionally-principled, fiscally conservative and morally ethical so that we could convince these like-minded citizens to run for office (again, from local up to the federal levels) as true representatives of We, the People. With our support, We, the People could present these candidates to our fellow citizens and support them in their campaign efforts. This movement was not based on political party ideology; rather it is designed to be party neutral. The goal was (and is) to induct citizens into the political processes who would truly represent the American citizens (not organized lobbyists and overbearing union desires) without party affiliations as a requirement for our support. We were warned from the beginning that this movement would be a hard and arduous endeavor which ran the risk of being influenced by organized political causes/parties in their effort to take over OUR movement as We, the People.
Already we have seen evidence of this warning; from some National Tea party organizations publicly endorsing candidates (ex., Tea Party Express and Tea Party Federation endorsements), some 9/12 organizations openly endorsing only candidates from one particular party, and other National organizations openly endorsing causes and candidates. The purpose of OUR movement was for individual decisions to be made based on justified and vetted decisions about the candidates that we, as individual American citizens, had chosen. Invariably, many national organizations grew out of this movement, some constructive and others not so constructive. As long as the national organizations served as a focal point for helping to start local and state groups, the purpose of OUR movement was being fulfilled. But when some National organizations took it upon themselves to endorse candidates “in the name of it’s members”, they violated the very essence of this movement. The vast majority of local groups have continued to work under the original premise of We, the People and should be highly respected for holding true to their original convictions. Some National organizations, such as Tea Party Patriots, have openly isolated themselves from this idea of endorsements because, as they have openly stated, the decisions of each individual for a choice/support of candidate was left up to the individual. They recognized that the purpose of the National and affiliated state organizations is to provide a pathway towards the “education process” that We, the People must take in order to be able to make sound and justifiable decisions.
Now back to the issue of the Tea Party caucus in the House of Representatives. The various definitions of a caucus are closely related to one goal: REACHING AGREEMENT. Some definitions for caucus, as vetted from various sources, are as follows:
A. Meeting of members of a political party or subgroup to coordinate members’ actions, choose group policy, or nominate candidates for various offices.
B. Closed meeting of a group of persons belonging to the same political party or faction usually to select candidates or to decide on policy.
C. A group of people united to promote an agreed-upon cause
A list of the current caucuses in the House, as found on http://cha.house.gov/member_orgs111th.aspx , shows upon review that the caucuses represent political agendas designed to influence (or act like a lobby) the legislative process. On first glance, this may sound like a good agenda for the Tea Party caucus, which will be chaired by Michele Bachman. But deeper insight indicates that this process of how caucuses are used is part of the ongoing problems that have plagued our legislative branch for decades and decades. Do We, the People need a “caucus” in the House of Representatives to reach agreements on policies? Are We, the People capable or incapable of reaching our own consensus as American citizens on what policies need to be pursued, how they should be written and constructed and then passing on our convictions to our elected representatives? Though I admire Michele Bachmann (currently, my personal presidential ticket in 2012 is DeMintt/Bachmann or Bachmann/DeMintt; it works either way), are her intentions truly honorable in this endeavor to help out the movement of We, the People? I hope so. Or does she truly comprehend the problems that could affect this particular caucus, as similar problems have plagued other current caucuses? Has anyone truly questioned the intentions of the House Administration Committee as to why this committee was apparently over-eager in approving this caucus? To paraphrase a great philosopher, these are the questions that try men’s souls.
The opinions of this caucus and the intentions of some National organizations (Tea Party, 912, etc.) in their current endeavors and the conflicts these endeavors present towards the original premise of the We, the People movement are for each individual citizen to make, preferably after some thorough deliberations. Your decisions may affect the effectiveness of the movement by WE, the PEOPLE in our efforts to RESTORE OUR REPUBLIC.