Archive | Republocrats RSS feed for this section

If we can not Beat them, Infiltrate them!

By Leon Moe on July 23, 2010 in Republocrats

In the early days of the USA, One of the worst insults the Founding Fathers could give someone was to refer to them as a PARTY MAN. To be a PARTY MAN meant you put the welfare of your political party above the interests of the country.

Let’s examine the possibility and or fact that the TEA Party movement is causing some disturbances and concern within the ranks of the career politicians/PARTY people. One of the possible methods to address this issue would be to recognize them, welcome them and infiltrate their ranks. Something like “If you can’t beat them, join them” Continue Reading →

Comments { 1 }

Constitutional Platform or Just the Best that Money can Buy?

By Leon Moe on June 24, 2010 in Elections, Republocrats

Let’s backup a few years.

In 1992, people had had enough of the Republican agenda and Democrat Bill Clinton proved to be the candidate that made the most and best sounding promises that resulted in the Best President that money could buy. He also proved to be one of the most immoral presidents. Under Bill Clinton, Freddie and Fannie were launched and we are now seeing and paying to learn how well that failed among other things!

In 2000, people had had enough of the Democrat agenda and Republican George W Bush proved to be the candidate that made the most and best sounding promises that resulted in the Best President that money could buy. George W. Bush increased our national debt, worked diligently to take away our privacy and freedoms with the Patriot Act, he also insured that our military industrial complex stayed profitable by sending American troops to Afghanistan and Iraq!

By the time 2008 rolled around people were angry and fed up with the Republican agenda and Barack Hussein Obama proved to be the candidate that made the most and best sounding promises that resulted in the Best President that money could buy. Mr. Obama made promises to get our troops out of Iraq, that has not happened, he made promises about a transparent government, that has not happened, he has bailed out banks, auto industries, wall street and more all with taxpayers money, he has managed to stuff unconstitutional healthcare down our throats, he does not have the American flag present at press conferences.

So, now, people are fed up with the Democrat agenda and we are approaching another election on November 2, 2010. Are we now convinced that a Republican is the solution again? Be interesting to see if we have learned anything or if we will continue the insanity of repeating the same things and expecting different results. Will we once again prove to select the candidate that makes the most and best sounding promises that result in the Best Governor that money could buy, the Best Attorney General that promises and money can buy, the Best Secretary of State that promises and money can buy, the best judges, state senators and representatives that promises and money can buy or are we angry enough to realize that this has not worked and seek a Constitutional platform by electing only candidates that will make their allegiance to the Constitution greater than party politics or self.. Our insanity has continued for over 100 years and the results surely speak volumes of failure! What do we have to lose by adhering to what our founder’s envisioned and trying a Constitutional platform?

Have you had enough yet??

Comments { 0 }

Ron Paul Predicts Obama Lie on Iraq in 2008

By Michael Boldin on June 3, 2010 in Foreign Policy, Republocrats

Comments { 3 }

Zach Wamp, Physical Education, and the Constitution

By Lesley Swann on June 2, 2010 in Big Government, Republocrats

Rep. Zach Wamp has been campaigning on state sovereignty, the Tenth Amendment, and “meeting the feds at the border” when they overstep their constitutional bounds. Yet again, Rep. Wamp’s actions speak louder than words, as in the same breath as he is talking state sovereignty he also brags about legislation that he co-authored which introduces a federal mandate for physical education programs nationwide. It further calls into question Rep. Wamp’s understanding of the Constitution and the boundaries it places on the federal government.

H.R. 1585, or the FIT Kids Act, requires local schools to “annually provide the families of their students with information on healthful eating habits, physical education, and physical activity.” Additionally it directs the Secretary of Education to work with the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences to study various issues related to physical education in schools. These are all noble and commendable goals, with the best of intentions given the obesity epidemic that is affecting children in the United States, but as a wise person once said, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” In the case of the FIT Kids Act, good intentions are trampling on the Constitution.

When looking at the U.S. Constitution, there is no reference to education, teaching, or instruction in the document (If you wish to verify this, click this link to view the full text of the Constitution and press Ctrl+F on your keyboard to bring up your browser’s search function and try searching for these words in the document – you won’t find them.). Our federal government was made one of strictly enumerated powers, and all other powers were left to the states as is clearly pointed out in the Tenth Amendment. Education is not a power that is delegated by the states to the federal government in the Constitution, and thus is reserved to the states. Even the U.S. Department of Education is completely unconstitutional.

If Rep. Wamp wants to work on this issue through legislation at the state level if he is elected to the governor’s office, then that would certainly be in line with the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment. On the other hand, pursuing this legislation on the federal level is an encroachment on the powers of the states by the federal government. When considered together with his cosponsorship of a bill to unionize state and local emergency services workers at the federal level (withdrawn shortly after several groups including TN-TAC called for him to do so) and his vote for the TARP legislation, it shows that Rep. Wamp clearly does not understand the Federalist system that our founders gave us in the Constitution.

My question for Rep. Wamp is this: You keep talking about meeting the feds at the border when they overstep their constitutional bounds. If you become governor, are you going to meet the feds at the border when they try to come in and enforce your pet federal physical education mandate? Because let’s face it, if you’re REALLY as serious about state sovereignty and the Tenth Amendment as you claim to be, then that is exactly what you should do.

cross-posted from the Tennessee Tenth Amendment Center

Comments { 3 }

Have the Neo-Con Right and Socialist Left Awakened a Sleeping Giant?

By Bryce Shonka on May 20, 2010 in Republocrats, Sovereignty Movement

It has been said that future struggles will not be between left and right, but rather between fundamentalist-extremists and moderates. If that is true, a new poll published by the Pew Research Center would indicate that the fundamentalists within American governance have severely overplayed their hand.

People inclined to moderate viewpoints are just that- moderate and not likely to stand out in the crowd. Many don’t vote, those who do aren’t normally the ones leading the charge. This may be changing, however, as signs point to an awakening of a true sleeping giant in American politics. Perhaps average folks, who normally sleep through the ridiculous rantings of extremists have suddenly been awakened by a bureaucracy intent on invading the most intimate aspects of their lives.

The greatest threat to the extremists who are now making unprecedented claims of authority from Washington DC is the state sovereignty, or “states’ rights” movement. Many attempts have already been made in the corporate media to demonize state sovereignty by association with everything from militias to segregationists but if the new Pew poll is any indication, those efforts were not effective.

The massive support for “states’ rights” you can see in the chart is joined only by ‘civil liberties’ as terms viewed positively by not just Democrats & Republicans but also third party voters as well. Moderates seem to instinctively understand that as power is reduced, decentralized and redistributed across the republic, it is they who reap the benefits of greater autonomy.

State Sovereignty even came up in the Miss USA pageant over the weekend, part of a statement from Miss Oklahoma USA Morgan Elizabeth Woolard. Even USA Today saw fit to include it in their coverage:

Miss Oklahoma USA Morgan Elizabeth Woolard was named first runner-up after handling a question about Arizona’s new immigration law. Woolard said she supports the law, which requires police

enforcing another law to verify a person’s immigration status if there’s “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the country illegally.

She said she’s against illegal immigration but is also against racial profiling.

“I’m a huge believer in states’ rights. I think that’s what’s so wonderful about America. So I think it’s perfectly fine for Arizona to create that law.”

From pageants to Pew, the new voice of moderate Americans is emerging as a potent and resilient force and showing no signs of letting up.

cross-posted from the California Tenth Amendment Center

Comments { 1 }

Congressional 10th Amendment Task Force can’t have Two Gods

By Jeff Matthews on May 15, 2010 in Politicians, Republocrats

Either the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, or it is not. The current Constitutional 10th Amendment Task Force is undeniably stuck in a conundrum.

The GOP members have traveled their districts, touting their conservative principles, family values, etc., and now, they have a problem. How do you tell your constituents that now you intend to follow the Constitution and urge the federal government to become agnostic on such hot social issues as marijuana decriminalization, marriage, abortion, etc.? How do you tell your voters that, in following the Constitution, your new platform will be to step off the moral soapbox and let the states do the legislating in these areas?

The fact is that, if they want to claim to be beholden to the Constitution, this is exactly what they will have to do. Yet, in doing so, what risk will they be taking in possibly alienating their base of support? There is no doubt they realize they are stuck in this quagmire. That’s why, so far, “mum” has been the word from them on these topics.

Another undeniable fact is that if they do not take this necessary risk, their task force will die a natural, partisan death, and the whole effort will be for naught. So, they need to clearly identify the god to whom they choose to bow – the Constitution, or their party platforms.

Comments { 3 }

Divided We Fall

By Rich Hand on May 13, 2010 in Activism, Elections, Republocrats

The two parties are at it again. The Republican Governors Association is running an ad against Mayor Hickenlooper, the democratic candidate for governor, trying to link him with the unpopular Bill Ritter, but do we really need this? What is the purpose of the ad? What will be the result of the ad in the end?

The purpose of the ad is simple, to paint candidate Hickenlooper in such a negative light that people will vote against him, therefore helping the republican candidate to win the election. But the democrats are going to respond, most likely creating an ad that will attempt to demonize the republican candidate. And so it will go, on and on, ad after ad, the good people of Colorado will be inundated with negative ad after negative ad, and they will be left to wonder; which candidate is the lesser of two evils.

That is our two party system in a nutshell. Demonize the other party’s candidate to the point that your candidate looks less evil than the other party’s candidate. All in the name of “winning”. I ask; what do we win in the end? No matter which candidate wins in the end, the people in both parties are left with the perceptions from the campaign pounding each has received. So we end up with a dysfunctional ability to govern. Democrats won’t listen or be open to anything a republican winner has to say, and the Republicans will not listen to or be open to anything a democratic winner has to say.

People are so disillusioned with the political process, and yet we are told that negative ads are an effective campaign strategy. These ads may be effective for the party that wins, but not for the people, and the ability to govern. Negative ads are an excuse and an easy way to campaign. The most effective way to win a campaign is to convince people through argument and debate that your positions are right for the direction of the state. Topic by topic, vetted in a forum, not bound by commercial time restraints, but real open and elongated debate. Where people have the opportunity to hear every issue discussed ad-nauseam to the point of conclusion. So why don’t politicians do that?

Simple; the people are not willing to sit and listen to it, and the media does everything in bits and bytes. We the people are partly responsible because we don’t do our homework and are not willing to invest in vetting candidates or protecting our freedom. The media is responsible because they play into the two party horse race, and never give anyone else a chance to be heard. They limit the debate instead of nurturing it.

So how does it change? I don’t know but the first step is for people to do more homework. My campaign is an example. I receive dozens of notes encouraging me and saying they respect and admire what I’m doing. But when it comes down to brass tax, people are not willing to take the effort to support alternative campaigns. We are lazy as an electorate and have been duped into believing what the two parties dish out. There are many alternatives to the two parties but the effort to make the change seems too much for most.

The two parties have been losing members for years and there are more people that find themselves unaffiliated than ever before. That’s a good thing, but leaving the party system is not enough. If you want to end the negative ads that divide us as a people, you need to punish the people that are doing it and support alternatives. Maybe I’m not the right candidate but there will be no change to this divisiveness unless we all get involved to change it…

Comments { 2 }

Freedom for Myself, and That’s All

By Michael Boldin on May 12, 2010 in Republocrats

Matt Taibbi nails it on the problem of partisan support for the Constitution, which we see from all comers these days:

The reason I really respect the Ron Paul people is that they’re consistent on all of these things. If they don’t want the government telling you you can’t buy a gun, they also don’t want the federal government telling you not to smoke weed or patronize a prostitute. Paul understands that you can’t make appeals on general principle unless you actually believe in that principle across the board.

It seems to me that a huge problem that Americans on both sides of the aisle have is that they believe in personal freedom, but only for themselves; for the other guy they seem always to want a powerful and intrusive federal government. Red staters and blue staters are both equally guilty of this in my experience. You get conservatives asking for a federal ban on gay marriage and then in the same breath screaming that abortion should be a states-rights issue. And you get progressives who want to pass their own state-by-state medical marijuana laws clamoring for federal bans on handguns.

The simple statement – one that I make repeatedly – The Constitution isn’t about political parties, it isn’t about political ideologies…it’s about liberty. Keep the government to those powers delegated to it in the Constitution, and be free to battle with each other…in your own area.

Comments { 1 }

Is winning a principle or the result of following your principles?

By Rich Hand on May 10, 2010 in Elections, Republocrats

The republican choir keeps getting louder on the subject of “winning” in November. The fear of third party candidates, independent candidates, and rival republican candidates are getting the inside pundits nervous. Well, they should be. But what they don’t understand is that people are looking for principled candidate’s period. They have seen what happens even when republicans win; many abandon their principles.

That is the reason we are in this mess. The people “in charge” of producing candidates, have become corrupted in the pursuit of winning. So what is winning? In the Republican Party’s eyes it is having one more republican than democrat in congress so they can control the committees, and therefore the agenda. Based on Obama’s lightning bolt efforts to ruin this country that is not all bad. But if the people in Arizona elect John McCain, the man currently pretending to share conservative and limited government values, will we get a candidate for limited government? No way, he is the typical republican candidate willing to “compromise” to get legislation passed and frustrating the rest of us who want principled constitutional government.

The two parties are spending lavishly on themselves while the expansion of government continues. Eighty percent of Americans don’t trust the federal government and I would suggest that number is not far from what people think about the two parties. So what do we do?

Do we continue to vote for the lesser of two evils or do we purge the evil? We need to change the foundation of the way we elect candidates and it starts with principles. We need to find principled candidates and help them win. The culture in political parties is corrupt and we know it. We watch people giving large sums of money for access, and we watch party insiders spending that money on getting more money from big donors that have one principle in mind; their own interest. The money is poisonous, the backroom deals are criminal, and we are focused on winning. We are helping to elect people that are willing to compromise our principles for the good of a party.

Again I ask; is winning a principle or is it the result of following our principles? We can follow our principles but as our founders stated in the Declaration of Independence “we must mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor”… Our founders knew what principle was worth but do we?

Comments { 1 }