Rally Against Kansas-Nebraska Act
By Bryan Baumgart-Douglas County Republican Party Chairman
With the ever increasing numbers of Americans forced to live off of the government dole, the Republican Party needs to confirm a vision for those living in poverty. A vision of empowerment, rather than entitlement. The vision should have nothing to do with any specific language group, ethnicity, country of origin, sexual orientation or gender. It should just be about people, and all people deserve more than they are currently getting from their government.
The message of the Republican Party must have the capacity to be delivered in any community at any time by those who are willing to go and serve every resident of that community.
The GOP was created to battle slavery over 150 years ago. Today, the Republican Party continues to battle slavery; the slavery of dependence. The slavery of creating a majority class of Americans so completely dependent on government for their basic needs, that they are terrified to take a stand against it. The Republican Party continues to stand up as the party of independence and freedom. The GOP remains true to its intent 150 years ago. We believe in the mantra of: “Give a man a fish and he’ll eat for a day; teach him how to fish and he’ll eat forever.”
But if we want a truly appealing message, we can’t let our focus be directed at the former. Our message can’t be: “We oppose giving away fish.”
If we want to truly appeal to people, and more importantly…if we want to truly make a difference, we must instead focus our message on the latter part of that saying. “Teach him how to fish and he’ll eat forever.” Our message must be one of compassion and hope. It must be one of the freedom and self-reliance we can help Americans achieve; and we must have a plan to help them achieve it.
It’s true that it isn’t the duty of government to provide charity; but it is the moral responsibility of each one of us. Charity must not be forced, but in everything we say and do; in every issue we debate and every law we introduce…we must ask ourselves…”How can we best help our fellow man.”
We must keep in mind, the virtue of compassion. That message will return American’s faith in the Republican Party. And it will bring back the prosperity that makes this country that “shining city on a hill.”
You say that government shouldn’t force charity. Just where do you want to cut spending? Please be specific. Thanks
Interesting take on the messaging. Too many of the government programs addressing poverty actually promote more poverty instead of encouraging wealth creation.
I am a Democrat, but what this man says sounds good. My first thought was, why isn’t he the voice of the Republican Party in Nebraska instead of Mark Fahlson, since what he says is much more rooted in reality than the rhetoric of Fahlson. As for charity, our government has had a form of charity to the poor, even before we were a sovereign nation. I once worked for an organization that used volunteers that were required to work to receive state benefits. The rules are such that these individuals cannot get the services, such as education and training, to become independent. In addition, the private organization the state contracts with has more incentive to keep these individuals in these so-called training programs instead of graduating them out. I support legislation that provides training for real jobs, which will require coordination between local businesses, community colleges, and training centers. Yes, this will require funding, but it will lead to people getting off of public assistance and into jobs that will support them and their families.
Bryan makes an excellent point. Those of us who are politically aware realize the damage done to our Republic by an out of control government, but those who are recipients of government largesse often aren’t in that position due to their knack for making shrewd decisions, or their stunning grasp of the intricacies of political science. The Democrat party has long pandered to that segment of society and tailored their messaging and governance to grow that constituency. We saw the fruit of their labor last November.
I’ve written before about the need to educate those who oppose us, when that opposition is based on fallacies peddled by an agenda-driven media. We know that we oppose the expansion of entitlement programs due to their corrosive effect on society in general and the individual multi-generational recipients in particular, however those recipients have been convinced by news and entertainment media that our opposition is based on purely selfish motives. Telling and embellishing that fiction comprises the entirety of the Democrat party’s campaign strategy.
We require a positive, affirmative defense of our principles that is told in a way that is understandable to the presently misled voter, but avoids the pitfalls of pandering. We can no longer afford to follow the jaded advice of establishment Republican strategists who proffer the equivalent of identity politics and “access-to-the-trough” policy. The Left are expert in these. We will only appear half-hearted and amateurish by comparison. Boldness in principle and policy is the path we must follow if we are to win back the allegiance and confidence of our citizens.
The Obama administration has proposed so many initiatives in such rapid succession that even the most adept and astute among us cannot keep up. We have, like trained animals, responded with protestations and grumbling that rather quickly devolves into intransigence followed by capitulation. To put it in street vernacular, we are being “punked” with regularity.
Everyone likes free money, but no one likes higher prices. Translate those govt policy initiatives to higher grocery store prices, or diminished choices. Devolve the argument to it’s core – who can better decide what’s right for you and your family? How much of your life do you want decided by someone you’ll never meet who doesn’t give a damn about you? Instead offer them a better way, free from the restrictions of a heavy-handed bureaucrat.
Every issue has a principle underlying it. Make the debate about the principle, and provide an affirmative defense for that principle. We’ll be accused of changing the subject, but that’s ok, because we’ll bring it right back to that subject when we propose our own initiatives that enhance freedom, enhance prosperity and individual freedom, while addressing the issue in an effective and understandable way.
Don’t recite the 2nd Amendment, talk about why you should be able to defend you and your family just as well as Obama defends his. Don’t prattle on and on about the 4th amendment, tell a story about cops breaking into a family’s home, taking their valuables and the family not being able to do a damn thing about it. When the injustice becomes apparent, that’s when you mention “Thank God for the Constitution. Without it, govt could do this whenever they wanted.”
Good article Bryan. Well done.
How is charity “forced” onto people? To fail to provide, is third world status. If Republicans believe in doing good, being good or believe in the social contract as part of governance, then belittling recipients of government assistance must stop. Entitlements is a derisive term. We are all equally human & worthy. But, just a handful of people had the advantages, good luck & opportunities to be where they are in the 1%.
If public policy favors the advantaged [which it does], then fiscally starving the programs serving those needing assistance to have a mere subsistence is a disgrace of politics.
Those receiving benefits of any number of programs are often kept underclass by the budget & eligibility requirements that the politicians approved. Going over the guidelines by even 1 penny knocks people out. That’s budget management, not helpful. Or, if your teenager in a residential treatment center is making progress, but not as fast as the insurance company is willing to pay for – that is not health care. That is corporate profit management.
So REAL economic opportunities for employment must be reachable through the training, education & jobs, jobs, jobs programs. Not minimum wage; living wage should be the basic wage & go from there based on performance history, credentials as necessary, experience & other legitimate job-related criteria. Minimum wage doesn’t even allow for health care, unless you are on Medicaid & then, not all doctors accept Medicaid (they get sorely underpaid, but politicians think that’s OK to cut Medicaid that way, resulting in loss of health care). These are some examples of how linked life experience & programs are. The current Republican principles make it impossible to find solutions or to accept smarter alternatives, especially if they are voiced by President Obama. Some smart ideas from Republicans-past are now dead because of the unfettered animosity to our President.
The article is primarily Republican boilerplate which is outdated & disproven. Smaller government? Why? We have millions more people! Millions more in poverty, without health care, without food. Homeless. Some is caused by the wars by spending on war & but not on it’s harm to vets & families. A huge amount is because of Wall Street-caused fiscal crisis through fraud.
Private sector is for profit. Government is for service. Caring about all people & serving the public interests cannot be privatized successfully. More road work to do, water to clean, more street lights to keep on. You think I’m speaking boilerplate? After 40+ years of public service at the state level I have seen what works in good governance & what degrades. Private sector principles degrade.
If Republicans have some contribution about processes or some other area – offer it up. But, efficiency by automating to a call center is not helpful in human services. Cutting staff & doubling, tripling workload for caseworkers, managers cuts meaningful/helpful services, burns out people, causes turnover & illness.
Governance is about people & policies that serve, improve the circumstances of people who have no lobbyists or fortunes. Elected officials are supposed to be our lobbyists, not mouthpieces for Grover Norquist or un-elected patriarchs or corporations. Governance is about public safety & universal quality of life factors (clean air, water; sewage treatment; fire & police protection; sanitation). Governance is to show we are all equal – equal rights, equal opportunity with liberty & justice for all.
Joe, you talk about principles, but you don’t tell us what they are. Consequently, anyone who reads this can attach their own biases to what you write. You wrote a rather lengthy response, but you really didn’t add anything, other than you bias toward the Democratic Party. I would be interested in what you think the Republican Party should do. Many Republicans are not calling for any change at all, other than re-messaging. What do you think?
I like very much, Bryan and Joe, your idea of a new framework for the Republican Party. A reasonable alternative to the left should create a feeling of optimism and legitimate hope to all who hear the message. The right preaches against and criticizes the left and while that criticism may be deserving, the right is so invested in leftist castigation that it neglects the presentation of alternatives for consideration. When attacked by the left the right is taken off message and their energies are wasted in senseless defensive measures instead of staying on task and selling solutions.
What we stand for is far superior to the left’s dependency efforts, but they don’t sell dependency, they sell “we are here to help you”. It is difficult to turn away from free stuff. The difference is we know how expensive that free stuff is. Even worse than the financial cost to those of us who are footing the bills, is the loss created within those locked in dependency’s clutches. That’s where we witness the real destruction — loss of incentive, loss of pride, loss of self-esteem. It is the illness that accompanies that dependency that creates the attitude that “the rich can afford it and we deserve more of what they have”. They no longer see reality as it is. Their reality is created in the messages they receive from the left; not the words from the left, but the results of the left’s actions.
We on the right must establish a set of clear, logical and easy-to-understand goals and then learn how to explain how lives will be transformed and improved by following those simple steps. And Bryan we can teach them how to fish, but first we need to sell our message as successfully as the left has sold theirs. In order to do that we have be as focused on our message as the left is on theirs. Bryan and Joe, you both hit upon it, now it needs to be developed.
I appreciate the words and works of both of you.
Ginny, you wrote, “The private sector is for profit. Government is for service.” These statements aren’t true, but your belief that they are justifies the positions you take in your post.
First, everyone can benefit from profit. Wealth is either created or destroyed. I would not argue that anyone is better off when wealth is destroyed. After-all, you cannot have charity without wealth. The goal should be fewer poor people, not fewer rich people. As Milton Friedman pointed out, “The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit.” The only time exchanges take place where both sides do not benefit is when the government, and so coercion, is involved. This is when wealth is destroyed.
Secondly, not always is the private sector about profit. Let me offer examples. I have spent almost a decade working in the private sector for various non-profits. Currently I work for an organization that operates on a loss of I believe to be around $40-$50 million annually in order to care for the children and families they serve. They rely on donations to operate in the black.
During this time, I have also worked in coordination with various state agencies in the same field. I assure you, “service” is not the focus. In fact, I have witnessed first hand the very destructive consequences of governmental policies aimed not at serving these children and families, but focused on money instead.
Joe is correct, these issues all boil down to principles. He isn’t being vague. The principles of freedom offered under smaller government; or the streamlined cronyism offered under the guise of “serving” under bigger government.
How is “charity” forced onto people you ask? You are correct. When government calls on the “wealthy” to “pay a little more” it isn’t charity. Charity must be voluntary. If it is forced, we strip away the moral component reducing charity to mere income redistribution. We can promote true charity though, by offering tax incentives for charitable giving. This is key.
True charity leads to more effective social assistance, and guarantees the sustainability of that assistance because wealth isn’t destroyed through policies involving the redistribution of wealth. True charity provides effective social assistance while respecting the potential of the individual and encouraging the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. While entitlement programs destroy personal accountability and breed generations of dependence, charities encourage and motivate the individual to strive to reach their full potential rather than enabling dependence. They provide a true safety net for America’s needy. One look at the efficiency of government programs compared to that of their private counterparts and it is clear that if we truly want to “SERVE” the needy, the best way to do so is through the policies of wealth creation and freedom that only the private sector can offer.
Government is expanded under the guise of “good intentions”, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I point you to a relevant quote by Henry Ford, “Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him, better take a closer look at the American Indian.” As I said before, we must be about EMPOWERING rather than enabling. These entitlements have created modern day slavery. You cannot be truly free if you are dependent on the government or others for your basic needs.
Hey Bryan, are you friends with that low life Matt Pinkerton? he really screwed us young republicans.
Who is John Galt? Show me a Republican that has served more than one term in any office and then show me how he/she did anything to actually reduce the size/cost/reach of any level of government. That’s your “message” problem bud. Your candidates and office holders “talk the talk” but they never “walk the walk”. Here’s something of a message for you to consider…”When the going gets tough, the tough get going…the smart already left.”
Ginny,
As a small business man let me give you one example of your policies. Most of the people who work for us start at minimum wage. We have been in business for 4 years and only last year did my wife start receiving a salary for her efforts. I have only started receiving a wage but it is minimum wage. If I did not have a pension, the business would have gone under within a year of opening. Initially we paid sick leave and vacations. We no longer can afford to do so. You would have us pay a living wage. So where would have us get the revenue to do so? Should we raise the price of daycare on our families who come to us? What about those who can’t afford it? Shall we tell them to leave? We have provided and do provide free daycare to some in need. We did this even though we received no compensation from the business. If we pay a living wage and don’t raise our prices we will go out of business. What happens to the families who depend on us? Not many daycares give free service. We are a center in a rural setting. There are not enough local home daycares to take up the slack. What then? Both parents need to work but both would not be able to as one would have to stay home with the kids. When people like you talk about a living wage, you have no idea what you are asking. You see business and assume all business’ are big corporations. On the contrary, most are small business’ and are just getting by. Yet our business though small, provides employment to 14 individuals, mainly students. Should we tell them that Ginny believes we should sacrifice all until they are unemployed? What would you say to them? It is said small business is the engine of our economy. If so, your idea is to kill the engine and stop the vehicle from ever moving again. So the bottom line is, can I provide a living wage? I wouldn’t know until I raised my prices enough to figure it out and laid off some employees. By then the damage is done to not only my employees who loose a job, but the families I serve, and is not reversible. All because people like Ginny, not knowing the full consequences of what their policies are, have wrecked untold carnage on those they thought they were helping. This is the legacy of liberalism. Even the churche whose Biblical mandate is to care for the poor and oppressed has dumped it’s responsibility on to the government. If you were to check on who gets more complaints about inadequate and sub-par service, who has the most ridiculous regulations that harm more people, the answer, government. I know, I worked for them for over 30 years. There is no more inept group than government. And if you believe it is just the Republicans, then you truly are very naive and I am sad for you. Inept and inadequate business’ go out of business. Inept and inadequate governments put nations out of business.
Kudos to Progressive Oasis, hence my donations go to Club for Growth. Get the economics, dude!
I just had to ccp this update on the upcoming CPAC. One of the comment-ers showed a tombstone with the name of the deceased as “The Tea Party”. My reply was that the Tea Party has been declared dead so many times, only to resurface like we did with the nation shaking their heads during the 2012 primaries. Remember?
Anyway, here is the article.
————————————————————————-
Home
About
Issue Areas
Vision
Staff & Board
Advisory Board
IREHR Impact
News
Latest News
Special Reports
Issue Areas
International Dimensions
Nation, State, and Citizenship
Race, Racism, and White Nationalism
Tea Party Nationalism
The Report
Foreword
Introduction
Origins of the Tea Parties
Tea Parties – Racism, Anti-Semitism and the Militia Impulse
Who is an American? Tea Parties, Nativism, and the Birthers
Tea Party Faction Data Collection Methodology
Acknowledgments
Appendix: Correlation Between Unemployment Levels and Tea Party Membership?
Endnotes 1-100
Endnotes 101-200
Endnotes 201-280
The Data
Tea Party Membership Map
Local Tea Party Chapters Map
Tea Party Growth Chart
Tea Party Rallies Map
Tea Party Matrix
Tea Party Caucus Map – 112th Congress
Tea Party Membership – 2011
Tea Party National Factions
1776 Tea Party
FreedomWorks Tea Party
ResistNet / Patriot Action Network
Tea Party Express
Tea Party Nation
Tea Party Patriots
The Blog
Tea Party News and Analysis
Beyond FAIR Report
Appendix A: Nativist Leaders Involved in Tea Party Activity
Appendix B: Nativist Establishment Financial Data 2001-2010.
Treaty Rights and Tribal Sovereignty
Get Involved
Contact
Donate
Search
Tea Party Dominates CPAC 2013 Agenda Featured
06 Mar 2013
Written by Devin Burghart
Published in Tea Party News and Analysis
Read 956 times
font size decrease font size increase font size
Print
Email
Some of the Tea Party and Tea Party-Sponsored Figures Scheduled at CPAC 13. Top (left to right): Amy Kremer, Richard Mack, Tom Cefaratti. Bottom (left to right): Judson Phillips, Jenny Beth Martin, Bill Norton. Some of the Tea Party and Tea Party-Sponsored Figures Scheduled at CPAC 13. Top (left to right): Amy Kremer, Richard Mack, Tom Cefaratti. Bottom (left to right): Judson Phillips, Jenny Beth Martin, Bill Norton.
For decades, the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) has been a barometer of the different political tendencies inside the right-wing. In the 1980s, Reagan administration officials and Reaganite New Rightists dominated the podium. Pres. Reagan spoke at CPAC in both 1984 and 1988. In the 1990s, culture warriors like Pat Buchanan and the Rev. Pat Robertson joined Republican regulars such as Sens. Bob Dole and Phil Gramm. At this years’ CPAC13, Tea Party leaders and Tea Party-supported politicians will dominate the proceedings. The result is an agenda filled with bigots, conspiracy mongers, and publicity hounds.
Consider the inclusion of publicity-seekers such as Gov. Sarah Palin and Donald Trump, and Tea Party standard bearers like Sens. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. The exclusion of popular GOP figures like Gov. Chris Christie and Gov. Bob McDonnell is one sign that Tea Party politics holds sway. Another is the exclusion of LGBT Republican groups like GOProud and the Log Cabin Republicans. A more exacting gauge of Tea Party influence is revealed, however, in the CPAC conference sponsors and workshops. Tea Party and Tea Party-aligned groups make up a sizable majority of the partners and sponsors for the event, and a big percentage of the co-sponsors and exhibitors. Four different Tea Party national networks have a presence.
Tea Party Patriots has the biggest footprint. It is listed as one of nine official CPAC 13 top-level “partners” (a $50,000 + contribution level). Co-founder Jenny Beth Martin will be busy speaking, signing books, introducing movies, and much more. Tea Party Patriots is also, like a Trojan horse, bringing ideas and personalities long cast out to the margins, back into “respectable” conservative circles through the workshops.
One such presentation sponsored by Tea Party Patriots is by Richard Mack, entitled “How a Constitutional Sheriff can Protect Your Second Amendment Rights.” A former Graham County, Arizona sheriff (1987-1997), Mack became prominent in gun and militia circles after he filed suit in 1994 against the Brady Bill, a Clinton-era gun control measure. Mack claimed the five-day waiting period for criminal background checks was an unwanted imposition on local law enforcement. Mack became popular in white supremacist, militia circles and among Buchananites. He spoke at a so-called Christian Identity Bible camp in Arizona in 1996 where other speakers preached the notion that Jews are Satanic, and people of color an inferior creation. One other speaker at that event, Richard Kelly Hoskins spoke about “Vigilantes of Christendom,” and how God favors racist murder. The same year he served as an Arizona state “leader” for Pat Buchanan’s run through the Republican Party presidential primaries. Indeed, he spent so much time outside his own county, that he was defeated in a primary election in 1996 and lost his office.
Mack also co-authored two books during that period. He argued that, “proponents of the New World Order are entrenched and moving forward aggressively with their plan,” a view widespread in militia circles. Further Mack contended that “Satan” is acting through conspiracies every day. Like other Christian nationalists, he declared that “The court-imposed separation of church and state is a folly, a myth, a lie.”
In language reminiscent of segregationists in the 1950s, Mack wrote about the NAACP: “The Reverend Jesse Jackson types and the NAACP have done more to enslave Afro-Americans than all the southern plantation owners put together.”
In the current period as a board member of Oath Keepers, Mack still presents himself as a defender of the Constitution in terms similar to that he used in 1990s. Like the Posse Comitatus of the 1980s, Mack claims that the county sheriff is supreme over all other law enforcement agencies, for example. He isn’t talking at Tea Party events about fiscal policy, taxes or health care, yet he is one of the most popular speakers on the Tea Party circuit.
Tea Party Patriots is also sponsoring a workshop entitled “The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution,” led by Bill Norton, the Tea Party Patriots National Support Team Constitutional Coordinator. He also serves as a “Master Instructor” for the National Center for Constitutional Studies (NCCS), founded by W. Cleon Skousen–a former FBI agent and long-time John Birch Society supporter. Skousen’s 1985 book, The Making of America, will be the basis of the CPAC workshop. Therefore it deserves some examination.
The book noticeably includes an essay on slavery by Fred Albert Shannon that argued that, “abolitionist delay[ed-ed] the emancipation process,” and that slave “families [were-ed] usually sold as a unit,” and that the standard of treatment was “humane.” Such Confederate-friendly arguments are augmented by the idea that if the Civil War and emancipation had been avoided, “it likewise seems reasonable to believe the Negro might have escaped the revulsion of feeling against him that resulted from forcible emancipation and the carpetbag regime.” Further, a graphic in the 1986 edition of the book claims, “The economic system of slavery chained the slave owners almost as much as the slaves.”
If this is the history that Tea Party Patriots learn at the knee of the National Center for Constitutional Studies, it is no wonder that they also hold workshops such as the one at CPAC entitled: “Trump the Race Card: Are You Sick and Tired of Being Called a Racist and You Know You’re Not One?”
Other Tea Party Input
Tea Party News Network (TPNN) is also one of the nine official partners at CPAC. This is the web outfit run by Tom Cefaratti, the man behind the TheTeaParty.net, the group that organized the armed “Day of Resistance” gun rallies last month. TPNN will be holding workshops on how the Tea Party can dominate social media. They’re even providing free Wi-Fi for all the CPAC attendees this year.
One of the initial Tea Party networks, Tea Party Nation is an official exhibitor. Its founder Judson Phillips will be holding a reception at CPAC. Phillips and Tea Party Nation gained national attention when their 2010 conference featured Sarah Palin. On the white side, Phillips’ proposal to deny voting rights for those citizens who do not own property and for promoting anti-gay bullying, was previously reported by IREHR. He is also on record defending the now defunct and indefensibly racist National Origins Act of 1924. He even published a piece on the Tea Party Nation website claiming that “American culture” will soon perish since the “White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) population is headed for extinction.”
Not to be left out, Tea Party Express chair Amy Kremer is as a featured VIP across the street at the CPAC 13 Blog Bash. Like Tea Party Nation’s Phillips, and newly announced CPAC speaker Donald Trump, Kremer is also a birther.
The conference also spends an entire day commemorating the life of Andrew Breitbart. His attacks on ACORN and the NAACP are well known, as well as deceptively edited video that forced the resignation of USDA official Shirley Sherrod. Breitbart’s actual legacy is one of race-baiting and the successful monetization of racialized attacks in the YouTube era. Breitbart.com is also an official sponsor of CPAC 13.
The other CPAC top-level partners include Judicial Watch (which has been busy working with the Tea Party voter suppression group, True the Vote), the National Rifle Association, the websites NewsMax and HotAir, a radio program syndication company that supports the Tea Parties, and two local radio stations.
For those who believed that the Tea Parties were dead after the election, CPAC offers a stunning confirmation that the movement—if not all the organizations—is still alive and dangerous. And CPAC 13 points to where some in the Tea Party movement are headed. They will be less often outside on the streets, and more likely to be inside acting as an institutional force driving a significant sector of the far right.