“I now want to bring forth a friend — well, he is deceptive in that his social style is of such, one can miss his seriousness and commitment to success, which is beyond argument. When we opened this Wall Street project . . . He gave us space at 40 Wall Street, which was to make a statement about our having a presence there.” (1998)
“We need your building skills, your gusto . . . for the people on Wall Street to represent diversity.” (1999)
Thus Jesse Jackson praised Donald Trump at the 1998 and 1999 Rainbow Push Coalition conventions for giving Jackson’s coalition a headquarters building on Wall Street.
In the wake of the media shithole frenzy, the four-flushing phony Jackson is now calling Trump a racist.
On Friday, Isaac Newton Farris Jr., MLK’s nephew, told CNN that Trump is not a racist … well sort of. Here is what he said:
“I don’t think the President Trump is a racist in the traditional sense as we know in this country. I think President Trump is racially ignorant and racially uninformed. But I don’t think he is a racist in the traditional sense.”
Alveda King, MLK’s niece, appeared Monday on ‘Fox and Friends’ and defended Trump in the ‘shithole’ controversy. She praised Trump for his policies from which “African-Americans are benefitting.” She said:.
“Our jobs are going up; our unemployment is going down. Companies are saying they’re gonna raise minimum wage and do bonuses because of the tax cuts, so the president is helping the African-American community, and I don’t believe President Donald John Trump is a racist.”
The Democrats and the mainstream media are hanging onto every word spoken by the president, hoping for an opportunity to destroy his presidency. Unfortunately, Trump’s uncontrollable mouth has given them that opportunity numerous times.
As for the shithole controversy, Haiti and some African countries are shitholes where the masses live in abject poverty while their rulers and their rulers’ associates are rolling in wealth obtained through out-and-out corruption.
I believe that Trump made the shithole remark, but I also believe he is not a racist, in any sense of the word. Trump is a bigot, but then so are the rest of us.
Mark Lee, a Trump voter and owner of a pest control company, provided Camerota with some insight into what “The Swamp” is, after the CNN anchor pointed out that the administration is stocked with multi-millionaires.
“I love that,” Lee contended. “They’re not politicians.”
“In a capitalist system, you’re allowed to make money,” he continued. “Being rich is good.”
Lee and another Trump voter determined that the Swamp is “the mainstream,” “elites” as well as Congress.
And finally, Lee made a pretty striking declaration regarding his unwavering loyalty to the president:
“If Jesus Christ gets down off the cross and told me Trump is with Russia, I would tell him, ‘Hold on a second. I need to check with the President if it’s true.’”
When Camerota asked him why he believes the president over everyone else, Lee replied “I believe him. He’s a good man. And he’s taken so much shots for us.”
Lee also revealed that he shows up at Mar-a-Lago whenever the president stays at the Florida resort, armed with a “Blacks for Trump” sign.
Nothing to see here folks. Just another loyal Trump supporter.
A classy first lady to be and President. The Romney's.
THE CONSEVATIVE RIGHT NEVER DID LIKE THIS ROMNEY MODERATE BASTARD BUT THE ELITE IN OUR PARTY PICKED HIM AND NOW LOOK. We…
Man, ain’t this the truth:
A year into Trump’s presidency, Christians are facing a spiritual reckoning
President Trump is an ultimate and consummate worshiper of money, sex and power. American Christians have not really reckoned with the climate he has created in our country and the spiritual obligation we have to repair it. As a result, the soul of our nation and the integrity of the Christian faith are at risk.
Central to the health of our society is for American Christians to rescue an authentic, compassionate and justice-oriented faith from the clutches of partisan abuse, and from the idolatry of money, sex and power. The word “repentance” in Christian, Jewish and Islamic traditions means much more than feeling sorry about the past; it also means “turning around” to equity and healing personally, and systemically in our institutions of policing and criminal justice, education, economics, voting rights, immigration and refugees, racial geography, housing, and more. Making repentance practical is the spiritual task ahead.
We must judge Donald Trump.
As I write this early on a Sunday morning, millions of Americans of various faiths are preparing to head to one of the hundreds of thousands of churches in the U.S.A. Many of them are so fearful of a Hillary Clinton presidency that they will be praying that Donald Trump wins the election. They are so fearful of a Hillary Clinton presidency that they have suspended all logic and reason, believing that the new Donald Trump is different from the old Donald Trump of 3, 6, 12, 18 months ago. Or 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 20 years ago. They have convinced themselves that a 70 year old man’s life history should be ignored by voters because he says that he won’t let them down.
And they will tell me and others like me that we shouldn’t judge Donald Trump because we aren’t God and we don’t know what’s in his heart. That we shouldn’t judge Trump because the Bible tells us that we shouldn’t judge others.
I’ll skip the biblical discussion and let them believe what they want to believe. But have I judged Donald Trump? You bet that I have. And every voter in America should be judging him as well. Elections require us to judge the people running for office. Be they Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.
I didn’t judge Trump this week, after his bragging about sexual assault was caught on tape. I judged him many months ago, determining that he has no business being President of the United States of America. I judged him and decided that:
- his political philosophy doesn’t match mine
- he is not a Republican
- he cannot beat Hillary Clinton and will drag the entire party down with him
- he is an authoritarian that would prefer to be a dictator and will act like one if elected
- he has no credibility to be commander in chief of our military
- he is a loose cannon that cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons
- he has a zero sum outlook on the world – if he can’t have it, no one can
- he has no sense of morality or common decency
I also decided that I would never vote for Donald Trump and was #neverTrump before there was a hashtag. Ted Cruz was right:
Truer words were never spoken.
Regardless of what you hear and see from your friends on Facebook or in the media, this is not a “binary” election. There are better candidates on your ballot than Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. I’ll be voting for Gary Johnson. Others will vote for Jill Stein. Still others will write in Evan McMullin. Don’t let anyone fool you into thinking that you have to vote for Trump or Clinton.
And don’t let anyone tell you that you shouldn’t judge Donald Trump. As an American voter, you have a duty to judge all candidates. It’s in the Bible.
Hours before Devon Anderson and Kim Ogg debated last Monday night at Windsor Village United Methodist Church, one of Devon’s lead prosecutors was the subject of prosecutorial misconduct allegations in a Fort Bend County courtroom. Prosecutorial misconduct has become a theme of the Anderson administration.
The DA debate, moderated by Khambrel Marshall from KPRC Local 2, occurred just minutes before 84 million people watched the Trump-Clinton debate. Think about that for a second. The race for Harris County District Attorney is easily the most contested race in the county and the Anderson-Blakemore crew decided to debate Ogg the same night of the most watched political debate in history.
Since the 2014 election, Anderson has been on the defensive for a variety of issues including several prosecutorial misconduct allegations; the [unjust] prosecution of two pro-life activists; a lawsuit that exposed the fact that prosecutors jailed a rape victim; even more jailed witnesses, including another rape victim; misuse of the asset forfeiture process; and a complete lack of diversity in the leadership ranks.
Devon used two defenses to this litany of scandals: personally attacking Kim Ogg and blame shifting.
Anderson attacked Ogg for previously running as a Republican. Anderson also attacked Ogg for voting in the 2008 Harris County Republican Primary. Instead of discussing her own attributes, Anderson tried to point out to the black community that Kim did not vote for Barack Obama in the 2008 primary campaign. Again, an interesting approach for someone defending her own Republican bona fides and one I enjoy sharing with Republican voters.
I do find it interesting that Kim Ogg’s father, former State Senator Jack Ogg, was one of the last pro-life Democrats in Texas. I was wondering if Anderson was going to bring that up; but, she is likely unaware of Houston political history.
Interestingly, Anderson is still defending her office’s decision to jail rape victims. While this does not surprise me, Anderson’s lack of legal responsibility blows me away. Let me explain. Most of you have likely seen Anderson’s video from Arizona defending the actions of her office. Since the news broke, Anderson has provided a detailed description of the trial court prosecutor’s actions. This is a problem because, whether or not they are true, the prosecutor’s actions were likely outside the scope of his employment, which would pierce his governmental immunity. This is why most smart lawyers say, “I cannot comment on pending litigation.” Devon Anderson is not a smart lawyer.
Ogg quoted hard data to demonstrate the lack of racial diversity in leadership positions at the Harris County District Attorney’s Office. Simply said, the racial diversity in the office in no way reflects the ethnic composition of the county.
In addressing the series of prosecutorial misconduct allegations against the District Attorney’s Office, Anderson claimed that none had been substantiated. In actuality, Judge Stacey Bond found that two prosecutors intentionally caused a mistrial in a highly publicized case. Attorney Stanley Schneider said that “Harris County residents should be troubled by the DA’s office condoning conduct like this.” After Bond’s ruling, attorney Dan Cogdell said, “It says to me there’s a cancer in that office that needs to be cut out.”
The latest problems involve destroyed evidence at Precinct Four and Anderson’s failure to timely notify defense counsel. Anderson’s office is a scandal a week and this will continue. She is in way over her head and has gotten terrible political and legal advice from those that surround her.
At one point during the debate, Anderson described her office’s transparency and a large chuckle erupted from the audience. Let’s just take the Precinct Four situation. Instead of accepting responsibility, Anderson shifted blame to Constable Mark Herman. Anderson claimed that her office could not obtain reliable case information from Constable Herman’s office, which is why Anderson’s office waited six months to notify defendants that the evidence in their case was destroyed. Meanwhile, defendants went to prison and, now, defendants may sue the county over these civil rights violations. Once again, the taxpayers lose with Anderson in office.
Anderson is wasting your tax dollars by permitting her prosecutors to exercise bad judgment and unethical conduct. She is also using the entire budget for salaries and is dependent on asset forfeiture funds for everything else.
If you watch the debate, you will witness Anderson’s negative personal attacks against Ogg. Anderson’s defensive posture and blame shifting does not warrant Republican support. Most folks agree that Anderson is weighing down the ticket. It is time for the Anderson administration to end. Otherwise, Anderson’s misbehavior will continue as a stain on Harris County Republicans during every election cycle and lead to more problems for years to come. Most importantly, we are not safer with Anderson in office. Violent crime is prominent throughout the county. Anderson was a product of the slates and as Paul Simpson has waged a war against the three prominent slates, he continues to endorse and support the worst candidate in the Republican field, which drags down all of the candidates. Watch the debate and see for yourself.
There is no question that the 2016 election will be talked about for many years to come. This election is unusual for several reasons and the candidacy of Donald Trump has added more stress for Harris County elected officials and candidates. Paul Simpson is doing the greatest Kabuki dance of all time trying to support what is arguably the worst field of candidates in Harris County history. Folks like Devon Anderson, Mary Lou Keel, Mike Sullivan, and Jim Murphy must give every true conservative on the ballot this election cycle tremendous heartburn. At this point, full panic mode is setting in. If you notice, Paul Simpson does not have one nice thing to say about Donald Trump and let me tell you why.
You cannot understand the 2016 race without looking at the 2014 election of Paul Simpson. In that election, Simpson was supported by a coalition of institutional, big government, pro-immigration, establishment Republicans who teamed up with Libertarians and Log Cabin Republicans to defeat Jared Woodfill. Another group of supporters bought into the fallacy that the defeat of Woodfill will bring down the “pay to play” guys (i.e., Hotze, Lowry, and Polland). Of course, the real goal for many Simpson sympathizers was to replace the so called “pay to play” slates with their own “pay to play” slates. Allen Blakemore, of course, has his hand in both camps. See Wayne Smith’s primary defeat.
Simpson’s strategist was Kevin Shuvalov of the Mammoth Group who works for Joe Straus. Think about that for a second. Straus is the establishment Republican whose job is to keep money flowing to contractors, party bosses, police and fire unions, Planned Parenthood, etc. in the Texas Legislature. After two failed campaigns, Simpson turned to Shuvalov’s establishment consulting group in Austin, the Mammoth Group for his 2014 campaign. Following Simpson’s victory, the Mammoth Group basically operates the Harris County Republican Party, and, in turn, the party’s campaign in November. The Mammoth Group works for establishment Republicans and is a reconstituted version of Karl Rove’s old group.
Simpson’s supporter list prohibits him from supporting Trump. Dick Weekley, a big Simpson financial supporter, would punish Paul if he even thought of supporting or helping Trump. Sad but true. It is important to remember that these folks are dependent on cheap foreign labor for their businesses to succeed. This need is juxtaposed against the Trump Train and Mr. Trump’s strong stance against illegal immigration and wasteful government spending. Weekley is not alone and a coalition of political economic opportunists have set their sights on Harris County – the biggest prize in contracting in the state.
The Cruz pity party adds to the crosscurrents of the local political outlook. When Trump defeated Cruz in the Presidential primary, many Cruz supporters in Harris County were disappointed and angry at Trump. Ironically enough, Cruz and Simpson share many supporters. How can Cruz, a man who claims to value the United States Constitution and the legacy of Mr. Justice Scalia, be so shortsighted? What will Cruz say if Hillary is elected and Justice Scalia’s legacy is tarnished by a very liberal court? Cruz and his hurt feelings do not bode well for down-ballot races in Harris County. Cruz’s failure to endorse Donald Trump at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland hurt Harris County Republicans.
Then, we have Devon Anderson as the District Attorney candidate. Devon’s problems have been well documented by me, David Jennings, The Houston Chronicle, Jace Larson of Channel 2, and just about every news organization in the country. Devon’s problem is the other battlefront in the conservative movement – social conservatives. Devon Anderson’s indictment and prosecution of David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt set off a political firestorm within the pro-life movement. The damage done to the pro-life movement nationally by Devon’s actions may well cost many Harris County Republicans this November. Devon Anderson to this day does not understand the damage she caused the pro-life movement. Social conservatives are rightfully angered by her mere presence on the ballot. See Dr. Hotze’s email to Devon et al. from Saturday night.
The fact that our local party officials are running away from Donald Trump is a disaster in the making. When you see Jim Murphy standing with Sylvester Turner supporting Turner’s pension reform plan, Harris County has a problem. Simpson did not want to involve himself with Devon Anderson and the indictment of Daleiden and all candidates will pay a price. With Simpson at the helm, the local party does not stand for life or fiscal conservatism. The pro-immigration issue is not helping much either. Simpson’s Muslim pep rally and recent carnival were symbolic of the utter failure of the local party. Simpson’s reliance on establishment money creates a well-funded local party, but one devoid of principle. The new mantra is pro-life is taboo and fiscal conservatism does not align with their big government contracts.
It kind of makes me miss Jared.
In the primary season passions can flare, and otherwise likeminded people can, and often do, disagree on which candidate to support. This leads to collective ill will and the need for the winners and losers alike to make reconciliatory measures to bring about party unity. Each person’s vote in their own, and if someone elects to sit out the election rather than vote for the party nominee that is their right.
However, choosing to exercise that right, especially in the current crossroads we are facing as a nation, is ill advised for the next President will shape the judiciary for years to come. It’s not hyperbole to suggest that we could see the Supreme Court return to a Warren Court mindset if Clinton wins the election. To that end, everyone must decide is sitting out worth the risk, and for a Cruz, Rubio, or Kasich supporter ask how can I hold my nose and vote for Trump in the absence of any reconciliatory actions?
It’s no secret that I supported Trump in the primary. One question asked, or piece of “advice” given, was how can you, as a Christian, support Trump when other candidates more closely align with your religious beliefs? That question was difficult to answer in the primary. It’s a much easier question to answer now since the contrast between the two candidates is clear, and Trump has given indications he will appoint conservative SCOTUS Justices and protect religious liberty.
To begin with, viewed through the prism of faith both candidates are flawed. Not only that, they are both flawed in a similar manner. They both express a sincere desire to act in a manner that is aligned with some Catholic positions of social issues. They also both vehemently oppose some of the positions. The areas of agreement and disagreement are diametrically opposed – what Trump supports Clinton opposes and visa versa.
With this clear set of opposing views the analysis is simple, though by no means an easy task. Just look at the areas of difference and see where they align in the Hierarchy of Truths. Since this post presupposes everyone is familiar with the Hierarchy, and some may not be, an explanation can be found in the link above. To sum it up,
“When comparing doctrines with one another,  [theologians] should remember that in Catholic doctrine there exists a ‘hierarchy’ of truths, since they vary in their relation to the fundamental Christian faith” (Unitatis Redintegratio, no. 11)… [t]his hierarchy does not mean that some truths pertain to faith itself less than others, but rather that some truths are based on others as of a higher priority, and are illumined by them.”
In essence the Hierarchy means while all teachings are important some hold a position of greater importance. Whichever candidate’s positions support the higher position in the Hierarchy is the candidate whose beliefs more closely align with the Church’s teachings and is the one to vote for.
In terms of relevant core beliefs the candidates hold diametrically opposed views in three areas: abortion, religious liberty, and immigration. Trump has indicated he had a conversion and no longer supports abortions. Clinton supports abortions. Trump has indicated he will protect religious liberties. Clinton favors policies that directly attack religious liberties. Trump has indicated he will expel all illegal immigrants and build a wall on the southern border as well as banning Muslims from entering the country. Clinton has indicated she will follow President Obama’s footsteps on immigration. So how do these differences align with Church teachings? The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has set forth Seven Themes of Catholic Social Teaching that can be used as guidance to answer the question.
Abortion is the easiest of the three to categorize and answer. It’s well known that the Church opposes abortion and this can be found in both the “Life and Dignity of the Human Person” and in the “Rights and Responsibilities” teaching. This is a basic teaching, “human life is sacred and  the dignity of the human person is the foundation of a moral vision for society. This belief is the foundation of all the principles of our social teaching.” A teaching that is the “foundation of all the principles of our social teaching” appears to take the top position on the Hierarchy. On this issue, Trump clearly follows Church teaching more closely than Clinton does.
Protecting religious liberty isn’t as clean of an assessment. Religious liberty isn’t directly assessed in the list of social teachings. On a basic level it seems self evident that attacking the Church through an attack on religious liberty is an action against the Church, and indeed it is. However, the mechanics of the attacks is how the differences between the candidates becomes clear. Clinton wants to force individuals and organizations with sincerely held religious beliefs to act in a manner contrary to the beliefs. Not only that, but the method of enticing action isn’t through enticement, but rather it comes in the form of monetary and legal liability. In the Hobby Lobby case, as well as the group of plaintiffs in the Little Sisters case significant penalties were going to be applied. They are designed to be painful enough that the organizations cannot afford the penalty and will be forced out of business. Similarly, the baking a homosexual wedding cake issue subjects a business owner to choose between holding true to their religious liberty to being subject to suit and monetary award which will end up making ongoing business operations impossible.
This bears on the “Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers” teaching. For those who are able, work is an obligation. As such, “[t]he obligation to earn one’s bread by the sweat of one’s brow also presumes the right to do so. A society in which this right is systematically denied, in which economic policies do not allow workers to reach satisfactory levels of employment, cannot be justified from an ethical point of view.”
This situation is one where the difference isn’t one that directly contradicts the Church’s teachings. It does, however, lead in an inescapable course of action where the teaching is violated. Trump will protect the exercise of religious freedom. Clinton’s policies will prevent the worker with deeply held religious beliefs from being able to maintain employment while holding to those beliefs. The area of difference isn’t directly contradictory to a teaching, but it manifests in a way that prevents compliance with a teaching. Since compliance is impossible the teaching is violated. Although the analysis is more complex, the answer is the same as with abortion. Trump more closely follows the Church’s teachings than Clinton does.
The last area is immigration. Here the two candidate’s beliefs relative to Church teaching appear to be reversed with Clinton more closely following Church teaching. In the “Solidiarity” teaching the Church proclaims, “[w]e are one human family whatever our national, racial, ethnic, economic, and ideological differences. We are our brothers and sisters keepers, wherever they may be. Loving our neighbor has global dimensions in a shrinking world.” Taking a closer look at the specifics of the teaching shows, “[t]hrough the eyes of faith, the starving child, the believer in jail, and the woman without clean water or health care are not issues, but Jesus in disguise. The human and moral costs of the arms trade, international debt, environmental neglect, and ethnic violence are not abstractions, but tests of our faith. Violence in the Holy Land, tribal combat in Africa, religious persecution, and starvation around the world are not just headlines, but a call to action. As Catholics, we are called to renew the earth, not escape its challenge.”
Viewed in this light, Trump’s divergence from the Church’s teaching isn’t as far as it first appears. Regarding the Muslim refugees a prohibition of entry is neither directly contrary to the Church’s teachings, nor does it preclude following the teachings. The refugee crisis needs attention, and failure to do so violates the prohibition against escaping the challenge. However, the challenge can be addressed in ways that do not require the mass immigration of refugees within our borders. Chaos has already manifested in the wake of refugee actions in Europe. This establishes that simply laying out the welcome mat doesn’t solve the problem. It merely exchanges problems.
In conflicts past the UN has established refugee camps. This would appear to be a solution that complies with the Church’s teachings. The end goal of a refugee crisis should be to have the displaced population return to their homeland and renew the land once peace has taken hold. It would be more accurate to state that Trump deviates from the Church’s position rather than the Church’s teaching.
Illegal immigration also has a similar analysis. Trump indicates he wants to deport all illegal immigrants. On it’s face, there’s nothing impermissible about deporting illegal immigrants, for no harm comes in deporting the serial criminal. The issue isn’t with deportation per se, but is rather with the scope of the proposed deportations. Mass deportations will have a significant negative impact on the families both here and in the country of origin for the deported individual. The lack of remittance will place a strain on the economic well being of the families in the country of origin, and if the deported individual was the main breadwinner for the family also for the remaining family here. While on a micro scale this is a devastating course of action it’s not devastating on a macro scale. The call isn’t to end immigration, it’s a call to end illegal immigration. As workers are deported others can be granted admission to replace the deported workers. It balances out on a macro scale.
The harm and area to be addressed is what happens on the micro scale to those impacted by the deportations. For those who remain, social services can, and should, be setup to deal with the after effects of the deportations. For those who are departed the situation is more difficult. Adjustments in foreign aid could be made to ease the adjustment, assuming that the country of origin has a stable and honest enough government to use the aid for the intended purposes. If the illegal immigrant can make a showing of his life being in danger by deportation the case can be one where the status is kicked into asylum seeking and that process play out before deportation potentially occurs. No solution is perfect, but it also isn’t a call that makes compliance with Church teaching impossible. Once again, it’s a matter of deviating from position rather than teaching.
In the final analysis, Trump deviates from the Church’s positions, but doesn’t espouse an action that violates Church teachings. Clinton violates Church teaching in regards to abortion. While her position on religious liberty doesn’t directly violate Church teaching it does leave complying with the teaching impossible. In the Hierarchy it’s a clear decision.
Dear Chairman Priebus, don’t freak out. We are working to save you from yourself.
I am a wife and mother of three, a business owner, and a grassroots volunteer. I have been Vice Chairman of my county Republican Party and of my local Republican Women’s Club, and I am a first-time delegate to the Republican National Convention.
In the 2012 primary, like so many other Republicans, I was determined to help our Party nominate a candidate who could take the fight to Barack Obama, and articulate the cherished principles of our Party that have made America exceptional. Our liberty — born in the heart of God – is the animating principle of our Republic, and the engine of our prosperity. Nothing this side of heaven is perfect. And I agreed with Sen. Phil Gramm when he used to say liberty is no exception. “Trouble is,” he would say, “it’s better than anything anybody’s ever figured out.” Indeed, all of human history is witness that free markets, smaller government, and individual liberty have done more good for more people than anything ever.
As many like-minded members of our Party, I believed that Newt Gingrich, not Mitt Romney, was the best standard-bearer of this message in the general election. So I did what many grassroots volunteers in our Party do in presidential primaries. I packed up the kids and my Mom, and went first to Iowa, and then to South Carolina to help run phone banks for a campaign that had little organization or money, and looking back, probably began as a promotional effort to sell books and speaking fees. I don’t think Newt ever dreamed he would have to run a real campaign with real staff. But alas, he found himself surging in the polls just ahead of Iowa.
When we arrived a few days after Thanksgiving 2011, the paid staff had just unlocked the door of the Des Moines headquarters. The primary in Iowa was going to be held January 3rd. Not a lot of time to organize. We were literally the only volunteers there except for a lady named Judy from Indiana who had arrived as a volunteer like us, and had been tapped to answer the phone and run the office. We went home for a few days at Christmas, and returned just a couple of days after to help work the final push.
As other volunteers started to pour in, we did the best we could, working 12 hours a day. I helped train new callers, create scripts, and compile “best hits” talking points based on the state of the race that day and what seemed to be resonating with voters. We signed people up to speak for Newt at their caucus meeting on yellow sticky notes. I spoke at a caucus meeting.
After Iowa, I was asked by our grassroots Newt team to run a phone bank in South Carolina. I packed up the kids, asked my Mom in Kentucky to meet us, and drove 22 hours to Greenville to work the two weeks prior to the South Carolina primary. Newt ended up winning it (thanks to a stellar performance at the presidential debate there where he took on the media for how it covers Republicans. It was a winning narrative.).
I went home to Lubbock and continued to work full-time as Newt’s National Volunteer Coordinator, an entirely volunteer position for our grassroots team in which I contacted and coordinated volunteers to travel to the primary contests leading up to and including Super Tuesday. I was a stranger calling to ask them to go and stay entirely at their own expense with nothing to offer them but the glamorous work of phone banking and block walking to convince people to vote for Newt in those battleground contests.
When Newt lost the primary, I mourned.
And then, with the general election in the balance, I led a group of Republican Women from Lubbock to Cleveland, Ohio. We spent a week knocking on doors in rain gear for the Romney/Ryan ticket, as hurricane Sandy was blowing in on the east coast.
My point in all this is that anybody who wants to accuse me of being motivated by sour grapes can stuff it.
Mitt Romney was not my choice. But he is a talented businessman whose respect for others is evident. He believes in the power of free markets to “lift all boats.” He is a decent and honorable man – one my children can look up to.
This election, and this “presumptive nominee” are different. The question in this election is not if Republicans can get over the fact that their first choice didn’t win the primary. The question is if there are any boundaries to our Party at all. Does the Republican Party stand for anything? Or are we bound to allow 12 million people who aren’t even Republicans dictate what the Party now stands for and who its standard-bearer has to be? And are we also now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Trump Inc.?
That the majority of Republicans don’t want Donald Trump is a fact of the primary election, and also of recent polling. The vast majority of my constituents as a Republican National Delegate from Texas’ 19th Congressional District who have contacted me say they long for someone else to vote for.
Fortunately, the founders of our Party knew that we needed an escape hatch. That’s why we have delegates, not just a popular vote. An examination of the history of our Party and of legal precedent shows that the delegates to the Republican National Convention may cast a vote for a different candidate than the one dictated by their state’s Presidential Preference Primary or Caucus, when conscience, the good of the Party and our nation dictates they must. This is such a time.
My message to you Chairman Priebus is this: I understand the position you hold, and your belief that you are duty-bound to (nearly daily) embarrass yourself by attempting to embrace Donald Trump as the likely nominee of our Party.
But those of us who are delegates have a different role. Our Party rules say the delegates are the “highest authority” of the Convention. It is the delegates who choose our nominee. So along with other delegates, I am working to save you from yourself.
We are educating the delegates of the historical and legal precedents to vote their conscience, to give them a green light to do so. Our goal is to put forth as the Republican Nominee for President of the United States, someone who is an honorable and vigorous advocate of the blessings of individual liberty, smaller government and free markets – someone who understands that it is only these principles that actually can make America great again. You can thank us later.
Sondra Ziegler, Lubbock, Texas
National Delegate – Place 1, Texas Congressional District 19
Friday on the way to Bryan I was listening to Guadalupe Radio and one of the guests brought up an interesting take on the election. The point raised was that the election is spurring a discussion on is there an American Culture, and if so what is the culture. To a very large degree this election is quickly morphing into that very question.
While many different elements went into the Trump victory in the primary, to a some degree it was fueled by voters who are reacting against black lives matter, rioting (yes these two overlap), benefits for illegal aliens, hostility to the energy sector, and general entitlement. The GOP isn’t a natural fit for many of these new voters, they should be seen as a discrete subsection of the population. The reaction of the enumerated groups and their allies have changed the tone of the election and is quickly pushing this election to become a referendum on the societal and cultural direction of the nation.
In this framework the first question becomes is there an American Culture? The easy answer is sure, Baseball, Apple Pie, and the Fourth of July! A less flippant answer is yes there’s an American Culture, but that it consists of a few core values with significant regional differences. How these core values are implemented and the change in how the values are viewed is what is leading to the distinct clash in societal norms today.
Sociology sets forth a list of nine American Values. These are:
Achievement and Success
Activity and Work
Practicality and Efficiency
Democracy and Enterprise
Organizations that help foreign exchange students prepare for life in the U.S. add:
What’s glaringly missing from the list is “melting pot”, and that’s a very telling omission. The lack of “melting pot” precisely encapsulates the stark contrast in views for this election. The lack of melting pot is why we have seen an unravelling of the American Culture and a changing in what are viewed as American Values.
Without melting pot, we no longer have equality of opportunity. We have a focus on equality of outcome, regardless of if the outcome places the best people in the position. Without melting pot we see independence take on greater importance than democracy and enterprise. This in turn fuels the lack of melting and makes society become even more segmented.
The two candidates offer stark choices. One believes that progress is measured in terms of achievement and success , enterprise, and science. The other believes progress is measured in material comfort. One believes that achievement and success comes from activity and work. The other believes that achievement and success is measured in equal outcome and the degree of material comfort.
These changes in values draws into question the role of government and how the rest of the values are carried out. The Federalist Number 51 states, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” The reaction to Trump’s nomination establishes that men are not angels. The view that violence is entirely permissible and justified to disrupt Trump’s rallies shows that we’ve reached the tipping point and everyone must decide what type of governance the future will hold. We can have a government of democracy and enterprise lead by a candidate who knows he is no angel, or we can have a government of material comfort lead by a candidate who acts as if she were an angel.
The Federalist Number 51 also states, “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” This is the danger in the upcoming election. The Supreme Court is split 4-4 and the next President controls the direction of the Court. A leftist Court takes us back to the abuses of the Warren Court. There’s no longer any auxiliary precautions to check the exercise of power that we’ve seen in the past eight years. The election isn’t just about who leads for the next four years. This election is about the basic view of what does America stand for. Either we maintain our American Culture, or we become part of the world culture that has taken root in Europe and drives decision making at the United Nations.
Well, Super Tuesday is over, and as Republicans survey the rubble left in its wake, we need to get an answer from our front runner to this question: “Mr. Trump, what will you build?” The answer to that question will not only decide the fate of our party, but also our country.
As I described in my last post, I came of age as Reagan set about designing and building a New Republican Party. His blueprint called for creating a new conservative party that restored the edifice of Madisonian government built on the foundation of the individual, the family, faith, private enterprise, and local and state responsibility, and to relight the beacon of America to guide the world away from the darkness of communism and toward a model of freedom. He called his vision “A Shining City on a Hill,” and he persuaded the GOP and the country to help him build it.
But almost as soon as he left office, all the old factions that he had tried to blend into this “new” party began to fight against each other to alter the blueprint to fit their own agendas. Soon, as we fought, the liberals and progressives reasserted themselves to continue their decades-long remodeling of our culture and politics away from the Madisonian model and towards a hyper-secular, European, democratic-socialist model of national, top-down governance. While we splintered, they remodeled; and, eventually, we and our elected leadership were reduced to simply forming picket lines of protest around the progressive worksite.
By 2009, many people had enough and wanted to break through the picket lines and tear down what the progressives were changing. By last summer, the anger of those wanting to stop the progressive work had reached a fever pitch, but our party leaders appeared incapable of doing anything but protest and picket.
Enter the great deal-maker and developer, Donald Trump. I, for one, do not believe that he was the best candidate to lead, restore, or unite our party going into the 2016 election; but, frankly that was never his intent. Instead, it is now clear that he planned to demolish both the Republican Party and the Washington “establishment” and start the construction work all over again. To those whose frustrations had boiled-over, Trump’s demolition of the remnants of the New Republican Party of Reagan was welcome, because they viewed it as the first step toward demolishing all that was wrong with what had been built over the last generation since Reagan went home to California. But the problem is, none of us really know what Mr. Trump plans to build after the rubble is cleared (other than a wall paid for by Mexico), and many of us fear that he really has no plan for rebuilding America after the demolition is finished.
But a good real-estate developer—and Trump has been a very successful developer—does not start demolition work without a plan for what he will build in its place; nor does he start a historical restoration of a landmark without a researched plan for the restoration work. So, it is time for The Donald to show us his blueprint to “Make America Great Again.”
This plan must not be just for one building, but must encompass rebuilding the entire “Shining City” that has been left in ruins by the work of modern progressives (and the neglect of post-Reagan conservatives). It must include clearing rubble and building new structures for a new century, as well as carefully designing restorations of great landmarks of our traditions and principles. It also must include a plan for relighting the beacon of freedom and stability to protect the world against the new threats we face in this century. If his design incorporates a strong foundation and infrastructure of the individual, family, faith, private enterprise, and local and state responsibility upon which a modern, Madisonian city will be built, I believe he eventually can persuade our party and our country to follow him to “Make America Great Again.”
But if his plan is just to demolish the ruins of the “Shining City” without more, then we conservatives must stop this project now before we lose the last remnants of what we worked so hard to build over two generations.
Mr. Trump, if you truly want to “Make America Great Again,” it is time to show us your plan.