Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Danville LiberTEA's Position on the Gambling Expansion

During a recent anti-gambling rally, a statement was made by the Illiana TEA Party (Al Reynolds) denouncing the expansion of gambling and a new casino which could be built right here in Danville, IL. Many people are frustrated by this position. The Illiana TEA party does not represent or speak for the entire area or even the majority of the TEA party movement. One of the core values of the movement is free market trade. A private investor, who wants to spend private money with zero expectation of tax incentive or subsidy, is by no means something that most genuine TEA party supporters would stand against. I understand many in the area are confused about the stance that Illiana TEA has taken against what best can be described as a social issue, which the TEA party generally steers away from. The three core principals of the TEA Party movement are fiscal responsibility, limited government and free market trade, none of which have to do with the moral issues of gambling. The group known as Danville LiberTEA also based here in Danville, IL, does not take issue with a free market enterprise that will bring jobs and growth to the Danville area. Some of our members may personally be against the idea of a gambling establishment based on their personal beliefs but they also understand that these moral beliefs are not at the heart of the TEA party philosophy. I personally believe the Casino is a good idea and have already urged Governor Quinn to pass the legislation. I only write this to educate and inform as some have expressed a distaste toward the Tea Party movement based solely on Illiana’s position.

Thank you,

Mike Ortiz
Danville LiberTEA (Formerly known as East Central IL TEA)

Stumble Upon Toolbar


  1. I'm with Al Reynolds on this one...even though I'm not really up on the differences between one Tea Party and another. I'm not even sure if there are differences, or if there is a "truer" Tea Party. To be perfectly honest, this type of rhetoric seems pretty suspicious. Not to put you on the spot, Mike. I'm thinking if you have a special interest in Danville affairs, to include building a Casinos, and then thats perfectly fine but, for the life of me, I don't understand why anyone would have to set themselves apart from the comments of a fellow Tea Party patriot. Maybe you could write something explaining the differences so we could see how you are trying to personalize the party to your Danville interests on this topic and on others. I think doing this for us might make your efforts and interests here in Danville a little more productive. Tea Party folk might even be better able to intellectually separate or categorize national Tea party efforts from that of Danville's.

    I'm thinking you could give your efforts and special interest in Danville another name and yet still draw the support from Conservatives, Libertarians, and Republicans, etc. It almost seems, from here, like there is a desire to draw away some of the Tea Party support to this particular issue. I understand he commented on the casino idea for Danville, but by no means would I considered the Tea Party fractured, if I disagreed on any one topic or issue. Why? Because the Tea Party is bigger than special interest for individual cities....

    I know this comment doesn't really address this particular topic but I'm a Tea Party Patriot and a Conservative. I'm also Christian. I really don't know or understand the divide that I seem to be sensing between Tea Party "members" of differing locations. I've heard this once before. I think Tea Party folk, like myself, are very much aware that the Tea Party is national and is made up of all sorts of backgrounds and walks of life. It is actually for anyone and everyone that agrees with the very real concerns the Tea Party is expressing. I have never seen a membership list.... Nor would I ever sign one. I hope someone's presence and voluntary involvement (either randomly or consistently) with Tea Party efforts doesn't make him or her a "member".

    I just hope we aren't losing sight of the fact that Tea Party folk are made up of all sorts of people. We disagree on various things. For example: A Protestant is a protestant. A denomination starts when a group of people want to distant themselves from certain differences. Is this what the Danville Tea Party is going for? One thing very frustrating about some Protestant churches is when one demonizes or is preoccupied with alienating the other denominations. Doing that is not the heart of the Gospel message.

    Now, I understand Al Reynolds ran for Senate and I understand you support John Bambenek's run for Senate. Gosh, I know both of them and like both of them for different reasons and I wish they both could win. I'm really kinda stuck in the middle between them. I know Al Reynolds was rather active with the Tea Party but don't know if John was. I do know John has been active on other fronts! =) If Al is a fake, by all means, please keep us informed and get the word out, but, for the sake of the Tea Party, I just hope there isn't some "setting apart" from another Tea Party patriot just because we have special interest for Danville or for the election of a personal friend. ;0)

  2. Jay, I assume you are not a member of my mailing list or a regular follower. I have updated everyone in my distribution on the points and history. I would be glad to share this with you. Please contact me via email or facebook

  3. Wow, Jay. I'm not sure if Mike and you have talked more about your post but I would like to point out a few things.

    Mike's only "agenda" behind writing that email (and sending it to the Editor of the Commercial News and News Gazette) was in response to many negative comments he's gotten from supporters of the Tea Party about Al's and the Illiana Tea Party's position.

    Regardless of what you may think about the Tea Party there are many disagreements on many fronts about many issues within the Tea Parties. Off the top of my head I can name: supporting Mark Kirk just because he's a republican, being against entitlements but then telling politicians to not touch their Social Security, and now most recently being against a business moving into our city that has not asked for tax incentives.

    We aren't saying our Tea Party is better than Illiana's. What we are saying, well, at least what I'm saying is that we are trying to stay true to the reasons the Tea Party was started in the first place. It was started, like Mike explained above, to promote free market principles, to help limit the government, and promote financial responsibility.

    Where in that mission does it support fighting a casino coming to town?