Back when Andrew Sullivan was a conservative, he sent lots of traffic this way with a number of links. So, I feel a certain sadness with his change of perspective over the last few years.

Andrew wrote a piece titled The Tea Tantrum Movement for The Atlantic. It is his take on the Tea Party protest movement based on an admitted hour or so of on-line research.

He professes to have emerged from his rigorous course of research perplexed, bothered and bewildered.

He describes the movement as “some kind of amorphous, generalized rage on the part of those who were used to running the country and now don’t feel part of the culture at all”. He calls it “adolescent, unserious hysteria”.

Andrew makes the error that most liberals insist upon, that this is a movement of the Republican Party. Had he looked at the existing documentation of the hundreds of Tea Parties already held, he would have clearly seen that the movement is made up of some very average people, people who have never “run” the country. Perhaps he did look, but chose not to engage his intellect.

He even manages to make a serious historical error. The men who conducted the original Tea Party were NOT illegal immigrants, but Englishmen fed up with having their rights trampled by a distant government.

That is the bone of contention for Americans today. Our government has grown distant and is failing to respect our rights, the rights we have enjoyed from the founding of this nation.

Andrew needed to come up with a few hundred words for his paying gig, so he slapped something on the wall with the hope it would stick. It’s brown, and sticky, and smells. I would have hope for a little more reflection and honesty from a man who I once admired.

April 15 will see over 500 Tea Party protests being held nationwide. During the run-up to this important date, we have read a number of news stories about the roadblocks that local governments have placed in the way of these peaceful protests.

The permit requirement seems to be the typical means of suppressing free speech. In the guise of “protecting” the protestors and the community, the permitting process lays a number of difficult to negotiate steps in front of any wou8ld-be protest organizer.

The first impediment is that you must be an “organization”. In many communities, you and I cannot go out and get a permit to parade, or hold a rally. By requiring an “organization” sponsor the event, the locality places a burden on free speech.

Liability insurance is another requirement that impedes a Tea Party. Many communities require this for an event, and a $1 million policy is a common requirement. This is another attempt to shut down a protest through spurious claims of “protecting” the public. It is the local government’s duty to protect the public, not that of the event organizers.

A popular means of curtailing protest is to require a permit weeks in advance of the event. Four weeks is often used, and six weeks in advance is not uncommon. Our request to protest a governmental action that happened today would be denied. This is the “maybe they’ll forget about it” portion of the event permitting process.

Rutland, Vermont tried a unique approach to derailling the Tea Party scheduled for that small city. They denied a special event permit based upon unwritten and rarely communicated “official” policies. The protest organizer followed all of the written procedures and was approved right down the line. Then his application was brought to the Board of Aldermen for a vote, unannounced, and was voted down.

Fortunately, everyone involved in Rutland seems to feel that the Tea Party can go on as scheduled. The vote of the Board has no effect, since even the alderman seem unclear as to what the result of their vote ought to be. Which is more dangerous, a politician or a confused politician?

As you organize your Tea Parties, or attend your local protest, remember that your local governments set obsticles in the way of you exercising your Constitutional rights of assembly, free speech and seeking redress from the government.