Greater Boston Tea Party – For Immediate Release 4.11.12

((Sunday Bumped) Why can’t any of these loons just create their own organizations without having to steal the “Tea-Party” mantra, which for four years now, in the Boston area, has been the “Greater Boston Tea Party” (GBTP) well-recongnized by both local and national media.  “40” organizations?  One guy with Letterhead isn’t an organization! – promoted by Paul R. Ferro)

Boston April 11, 2012 —In keeping with the Greater Boston Tea Party’s tradition of welcoming all that want to preserve our Constitutional freedoms, we will be neither endorsing nor attending the rally on the Boston Common scheduled for Sunday, April 15, 2012. In fact, we encourage tea party activists to avoid the event. Sponsored by an unfamiliar “Mass Tea Party Coalition”, the lack of communication and collaboration with established tea party organizations concerns us that this is an organization bent on damaging the good name of the tea party movement.

For nearly three years, Greater Boston Tea Party has been strongly focused on the serious fiscal issues facing the Commonwealth and this country. Our organization does not take positions on social issues, such as gay marriage or abortion. While these issues are important to many people, including some of our members, they do not apply to our mission of advocating for personal responsibility and individual Liberty.

The Mass Tea Party Coalition has a radically different view on tea party activism. Their main focus appears to be the above social issues, as evidenced by the speakers they have chosen for their rally, including two well known anti-gay activists. The coalition claims to represent 40 groups but there is little evidence of this being accurate. We know of at least one legitimate Tea Party group that has asked repeatedly to be removed from the “coalition”, but to no avail. Their unprofessional behavior and unwillingness to communicate with other established tea party organizations are distressing but to be expected as part of political activism.

“We are fortunate that the majority of the independent tea party organizations in Massachusetts have agreed to come together and share our collective message of preserving the Constitution and the principles of good governance therein”, said Christine Morabito, president of the Greater Boston Tea Party. “On April 15, the Greater Boston Tea Party is proud to be joining with the Worcester County Tea Parties for their 4th annual Tax Day Rally. The Worcester group has proven to be an earnest, honorable grass-roots organization, and does a fine job of representing the conservative center of the state.”

Greater Boston Tea Party volunteers will assist in the event Sunday, April 15, 2012 at Lincoln Square, Worcester. They will also sponsor a booth where attendees can meet and speak to columnist Aaron Goldstein as well as receive a free copy of the United States Constitution.

About CVarley

  • There is a way to meet in the middle that is not anti-gay but would in fact help gay people even as it preserved marriage.

    Fiscal conservatives and small government conservatives should be extra wary of same-sex conception being declared a right and labs starting to create babies that could not exist in nature. It will require billions of dollars just to research it, and billions more each year to regulate it and make it available to everyone. The only way to be fiscally conservative and keep the government from getting into our child’s genes and meddling with our own reproduction, is to completely prohibit the creation of children any other way except joining a man and a woman’s unmodified gametes.

    So it should make sense for you to support a ban on same-sex reproduction and cloning and genetic engineering, and it should make sense for you as defenders of equality and liberty to support preserving everyone’s right to marry someone eligible and for all marriages to procreate with their spouse using their own genes.

    And it wouldn’t be anti-gay at all, because you would be joined in the Compromise by the Social Conservatives who would soften their stance by accepting Civil Unions for same-sex couples formerly in marriages, in exchange for ending same-sex marriage. Though they would not get everything they want, they would make a huge step toward achieving everything they want, moving the status quo in their direction finally.

  • One guy with Letterhead isn’t an organization!

  • demolisher

    It was important to draw this line, I think.

  • I had always gone to Boston for the Tea Party Rallies, but this year I will be going to Worcester.  I always defended the Tea Party against the liberals by saying that we just want smaller government and lower taxes.  Plain and simple.

  • The majority of tea party members are not radical. We agree to disagree. But to paint the picture that if we don’t agree on certain issues then we are radical.

    Aren’t we all adults? Can we as individuals choose which event to go to? Or do we need to be character assassinated/ slandered and be told not to go.  

    If there is any speaker that I find offensive at any tea party rally, I have to choice to leave and not listen.  I would never stop anyone from going to either rally!

    Either way, it is my choice whether I decide to go to any rally.  

  • You open with,

    In keeping with the Greater Boston Tea Party’s tradition of welcoming all that want to preserve our Constitutional freedoms, we will be neither endorsing nor attending the rally on the Boston Common…

    Yet you will ostracize anyone you don’t agree with.

    ahh, just who are the bigots?

  • Most reasonable people see the dire financial position the Country is in; it’s broke and they would like to see it fixed, even many of those that live on a government check.

    Most feel they are over taxed and the government has gone to far in to their personal space and/or are spending taxpayers money on business they shouldn’t be in.

    These fundamental Tea Party issues are very dear to hard working patriotic Americans who will come out and vocally support the people that are willing to fight on their behalf. They are also simple issues to comprehend.

    When you start to get into other issues, that may very well be one of hundreds of social or fiscal issues that are in fact a subset of the primay tea party message, many can no longer see the forest for the trees. Consequently, the crowd starts to disperse.

    You start talking fetuses, genetic engineering, anti-gay, religion, etc; you splinter the crowd even further and the original movement becomes so dilluted, it dissolves.

    It’s not that most Conservative people don’t share many of these same fiscal and social concerns, its that this is an important and winnable battle front that needs to stay simplistically defined and focused if we, (Conservative/Patriotic Americans of all types) are to have any chance of some day winning back our Country from the Socialists that have taken control.

  • CVarley

    These “discussions’ over the last few days have been ugly and angry and, thankfully, enlightening.

    Maybe we need to redefine conservative. I actually like to call myself a constitutionalist or constitutional conservative. People that call themselves conservatives yet heave their Bibles at your head just don’t get it. Whether they like it or not, being a “good Christian” by their standard is not a litmus test for being an American.

    If we live by the principles and laws in the constitution, there should be no problems – no fiscal issues, no social issue, just what government should and shouldn’t be doing. Government has a role – period. I am involved with the tea party movement for one reason – to limit all government.

    What I see as the basis for this battle is not a debate between what issues tea party activists should talk about. It is the difference between big liberal government and big “conservative” government. If you simply want “YOUR RULES” followed, you are not advocating for limited government and individual Liberty, you are advocating for YOUR RULES. In other countries they call that fascism or totalitarianism. We called it tyranny. It does not belong in the tea party movement.

  • I think you are mixing up your Gay Pride Festivals with your Tea Parties. The Rainbow flags were at Pride, not the Tea Party. I’m pretty sure there was absolutely zero pro-SSM sentiment at the first Tea Parties. And there were sure lots of social conservatives out in force at the first Tea Parties. Where are you getting this “originally it was pro-gay marriage” from?

    We are certainly for smaller government and preserving our rights and liberties. Allowing people to marry someone of the same sex leads to bigger government and a loss of rights and liberties. Teaching kids they can change sex and have children with someone of either sex leads to big government and loss of liberties. It may seem paradoxical but the best way to preserve our liberties is with a law that preserves the right of every marriage to conceive offspring with their own genes, and that prohibits making people any way other than by joining a man a and a woman’s unmodified gametes. That law won’t require big government to enforce, but not enacting that law will require big government.

    It’s perfectly rational and reasonable and you shouldn’t ditch us unless you want big government and labs making babies with modified genomes and people being pressured into using better genes rather than their own.

  • I’m a mixture of all of the above posts, finding both sides of the argument making solid, good points, and applaud all civil discourse.  That said, I think there are areas that fiscal conservatives would like to stay away from but cannot.  There is a blur in where the literal lines are in where social issues absolutely impact and influence the fiscal narrative so as to become fiscal issues, (unless you can overlook social issues costing in the hundreds of millions of dollars and more).  The most obvious of these is immigration, which to a large degree is social, but when the Supreme court comes down and says we MUST provide them healthcare, (which it did), and then there are the other inherent costs of educating, housing, etc., it is a huge fiscal issue, which beckons fiscal conservatives to address and perhaps even pursue and enforce laws on illegal immigration to mitigate the financial burden.  The same can be said regarding abortion whether it is not funding Planned Parenthood or addressing that we are all forced to pay for it through our healthcare.  And all in between there are the trojan horses like funding education from kindergarten on up so that we are inclusive of transgenders, gay marriage, etc. etc.

    It is VERY hard to draw the line, even if you are sure where you stand, and then there are the more extreme views to reconcile.  Take, for example, Brian Canemaker who I do not agree with in some of his views, (but very much admire and respect his activism)? To try and put this is perspective with the overall fight confronting our country, I look to now, and back in history and see that ultimately a balance will be struck, but there are extremist from both sides of the aisle on almost everything from pets to green energy.  So what if there was NO MASS RESISTANCE, and only the very strong, powerful, and well funded other side to lobby for what they want?  I think that too is a scary prospect without those out there with their own extreme views to the contrary.  The Tea Party should find a way to bring and keep everyone into the same tent, with the express understanding that we don’t all share, or support 100% of the same views.  Even if it has to be that there are gradations from one party to the next, we still need a way to stand together on the same issues that are agreed upon, because there is simply too much at stake to leave it to the devices of the ever growing number of those that just feed off of big government out of control.

  • By Sunday the media coverage will dictate whether Massachusetts Tea-Partiers are percieved as pugilists addressing the (No.1 concern of most voters), the Economy or Biology!

  • CVarley

    Either tea party activists will move on or the not jobs who think it is their job to define “good Christian conservative Republicans” will move on. My bet is on the nut jobs ending up alone. They have been trying to make waves in MA for decades – latching on to every political gust of wind – and all they do is turn people of and end up alone again. And from what I’ve been told by you veterans, it’s the same 5-6 cranks. All they do is embolden Liberals and turn people off.

  • BrocktonDave

    is the lunatic martian trigender freak show that seems to post something about it in every thread there is.

    He needs a doctor and be put on meds right away.

    Whenever he responds to anyone’s post with some fruitcake craziness, I’ve taken upon myself to post something that’s incredibly more useful and entertaining, but equally as unrelated.  Such as my favorite ice cream flavors, or local restaurant reviews.

  • rather disappointing that we can’t keep this more civilized and productive.

  • geo999

    It would be most unfortunate if the Tea Party Movement (already derided by kook left devotees as gap tooth bigots wearing tri-corner hats), were to become a muddled, incoherent rabble, as is the OWS crowd – trying to be and do a thousand things at once, all badly.

  • CVarley

    will NOT be in Boston either. Seems he agrees that being on stage with well-known anti-gay activists is bad for business. I was always curious why he was invited anyway? He is not a social conservative – he is the opposite.

  • edfactor

    Brock –

    As always, I appreciate how you conduct yourself in public, and I agree with your calls for unity.

    However, don’t we have to go a bit further because we are in Massachusetts? So I am a social conservative, but I must recognize that there is a durable, state-wide majority that is not, and will not be converted to be, socially conservative.

    So I don’t think the strategy should be “Well, we should be a socially conservative party that works with the moderates and liberals.” That would be a solid strategy in New Hampshire. Here it is very different.

    In fact, I think our strategy should be, “We will be a socially centrist party that works well with both liberals and conservatives.” I don’t mean that I want to be a social centrist – I do not. But as a matter of what it will take to win, we can’t anchor ourselves in social conservative principles if we want a significant share of power. Some would rather be socially conservative and irrelevant to state politics. Fine. But that isn’t what I want, and is not what the party should want.