America’s first Tea Party in 1773 was not an act of wanton lawlessness but rather a deliberate protest against heavy-handed government and excessive taxation. Its leaders took great care to ensure that nothing but tea was thrown overboard – no other items were damaged. The “Indians” even swept the decks of the ships before they left.

Tea Parties occurred not only in Boston but also in numerous other locales. And those who participated were just ordinary citizens expressing their frustration over a government that had refused to listen to them for almost a decade. Their reasonable requests had fallen on deaf ears. Of course, the out-of-touch British claimed that the Tea Parties were lawless and violent, but such was not the case.

Interestingly, in many ways, today’s Tea Parties parallel those of long ago. But rather than protesting a tax on tea, today they are protesting dozens of taxes represented by what they call the Porkulus/Generational Theft Act of 2009 (officially called the “American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act”). For Tea Party members (and for most Americans), that act and the way it was passed epitomizes a broken system whose arrogant leaders often scorn the concerns of the citizens they purport to represent.

Tea Party folks agree with the economic logic of our Founders.

• “To contract new debts is not the way to pay off old ones.” “Avoid occasions of expense…and avoid likewise the accumulation of debt not only by shunning occasions of expense but by vigorous exertions…to discharge the debts.” George Washington
• “Nothing can more [affect] national credit and prosperity than a constant and systematic attention to…extinguish the present debt and to avoid as much as possible the incurring of any new debt.” Alexander Hamilton
• “The maxim of buying nothing but what we have money in our pockets to pay for lays the broadest foundation for happiness.” “The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” Thomas Jefferson

These are not radical positions – nor are the others set forth in the Tea Party platform – that Congress should: (1) provide the constitutional basis for the bills it passes; (2) reduce intrusive government regulations; (3) balance the budget; (4) limit the increase of government spending to the rate of population growth; (5) and eliminate earmarks unless approved by 2/3rds of Congress. Are these positions dangerous or extreme? Certainly not. In fact, polling shows that while Americans differ on the way they view the Tea Parties, they support these Tea Party goals by a margin of two-to-one.

Citizens are angry about the current direction of government. As John Zubly, a member of the Continental Congress in 1775, reminded the British: “My Lord, the Americans are no idiots, and they appear determined not to be slaves. Oppression will make wise men mad.” But does that anger automatically equate to violence? Of course not. It does equate to action, however; but instead of throwing tea overboard, modern Tea Parties are throwing out-of-touch politicians from both parties overboard.

The Tea Parties represent much of what is right in America – citizens reacquainting themselves with the Constitution and holding their elected officials accountable to its standards. Two centuries ago, Daniel Webster could have been talking to today’s Tea Party rallies when he said: “Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution!”

The danger to the tea-party movement has always been that Washington insiders would attempt to hijack it for their own purposes and political agenda.

One man who has clearly attempted to do that is former House majority leader Dick Armey with his well-funded organization FreedomWorks.

Armey is at the forefront of an insidious plot to “rein in” the tea-party movement, to constrain it to exclusively economic grievances defined in ludicrously narrow terms.

For instance, tea-party members overwhelmingly want to see immigration laws enforced and the border secured.

But Dick Armey and FreedomWorks insist that tea-party activists who work with them avoid this issue like the plague.

Armey has been stepping up his attacks on those tea-party activists who ignore his warnings – all but seeking to excommunicate them from a grass-roots movement he seeks to control.

In a recent interview with Charlie Rose, Armey attacked former Rep. Tom Tancredo, now a candidate for governor of Colorado, for his “harsh and uncharitable and mean-spirited” immigration positions.

Armey told Rose he was “not really happy to see Tom Tancredo calling himself a tea-party guy.”

“But first of all, we’re a nation of immigrants and a wonderful tradition. People have marched with their feet to America looking for freedom,” said Armey. “Our biggest problem in immigration is we have a dysfunctional INS. If the government would do its job with some degree of efficiency. …”

Armey went on to call Tancredo the “cheerleader of jerkiness in the immigration debate.”

When Jim DeMint stated some time back that he would rather have a small core group of true conservatives that a majority of RINOs, he drew sharp criticism from the GOP establishment and raised concern  in the minds of others, many of whom considered him on an impossible Don Quixote-esque mission against impossible odds.

However, Jim DeMint didn’t listen. Not only has he been taking his case straight to the American people (angering the leadership of his own party by doing so – go figure), but he formed a PAC to support true-blue conservatives get elected. And what are the results?

According to a Bloomberg article,

Since then, DeMint’s money and manpower have upset Senate Republican nomination contests in Colorado, Utah, Kentucky, and Delaware. Of the 13 candidates he’s endorsed, only three have lost. Last year he raised $1.3 million. This year his PAC has pulled in more than $4 million, says spokesman Matt Hoskins.

According to this article, DeMint has “vaulted from backbencher to conservative kingmaker.”

Here’s more of the media buzz following his latest Delaware victory:

Once again, DeMint’s candidate prevailed over the candidate boosted by the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee.  He set out to transform the Republican party and it looks like he just might be pulling it off. (ABC News)

“Based on the number of Republicans DeMint has helped get elected this year, I would say he’s done quite a bit to elect a majority,” Hoskins told CNN. “Perhaps the real reason some unnamed leadership aides are upset is that these Republicans actually have principles.” (CNN)

DeMint, whose endorsement boosted O’Donnell late in her primary race, cited other tea party favorites who are doing well in polls, including Florida Senate candidate Marco Rubio and Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul. Both defeated better-established Republicans in primaries. (MSNBC)

Christine O’Donnell’s upset win in Delaware’s GOP Senate primary put Sen. Jim DeMint back on TV and in the headlines. The South Carolina Republican has been taking on the GOP establishment this election season, backing a number of candidates who have challenged incumbents from the right. (Wall Street Journal)

All of this success, because DeMint chose the path of unwavering principle and initiative. As Scripture says, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.” (Isaiah 55:8)

This approach seemed backwards to so many, but in the end it has resulted in more success than the establishment methods could approach. And, DeMint himself stands poised to be a powerful force in the 2010 Senate, bypassing the ordinary route of the senority ladder.

Through it all, DeMint has remained devoid of personal ambition.

“DeMint is a modest man, and he always makes clear that he is by no means the only force behind the seismic shift of power in the Republican party this year.” (Wall Street Journal)

All of this, because one man refused to sit by and do nothing, and because he refused to sacrifice his principles in the process.

“For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward him.” (2 Chron. 16:9)