Counterpoint From Tea Party Patriots

[M]

Cruz can still stop Trump. Here’s how. Tuesday had been billed as “Armageddon Tuesday” because of the effects it would have on the GOP presidential field. And certainly, for Sen. Marco Rubio (more about that below), Tuesday lived up to the Armageddon moniker. On the surface, Tuesday appeared to be a runaway victory for Donald Trump. With the exception of Ohio, where Gov. John Kasich won, Trump had a great night. Or maybe it’s not that simple, according to an in-depth analysis at RedState. “Trump is only a little more than halfway to the delegates he needs, and is still behind the pace; he can still be beaten, but the only way that happens is if everyone who wants to stop Trump unites behind Ted Cruz.” Stopping Trump is an integral part of the Republican Party’s chances for success in November because, as the article notes: “Trump still isn’t winning majorities, and in most states is pretty far from them. And worse than that: the number of Republican primary voters Tuesday who said they’d consider voting third party in a Trump-Hillary race – even against one of the most long-hated figures by Republicans everywhere – was 45% in Ohio, 43% in Illinois, 43% in Missouri, 39% in North Carolina, and 29% in Florida. And large numbers of Republican voters in each state already think Trump is not honest and trustworthy: 55% in Ohio, 51% in Illinois, 49% in North Carolina, 48% in Missouri, 44% in Florida.” Think about that for a moment. Trump is often considered the runaway front-runner, but he isn’t winning majorities and in prospective head-to-head matchups with Hillary Clinton, he regularly gets blown out. The idea of the inevitability of his candidacy and the notion that he will be able to defeat Hillary Clinton in November are both seriously in question when one examines the polling data with an unbiased eye. Trump’s high unfavorability numbers should concern GOP voters as the primary season continues, especially in an election year where GOP voters really want to defeat Hillary Clinton and begin to reverse the damage caused by President Obama’s agenda over the past eight years. The good news is that nothing is set in stone at this point. Contrary to what the mainstream media is “reporting,” Trump does not have to emerge as the GOP nominee, and based on the delegate count at this point, it seems unlikely that he will go to the RNC convention in July with the requisite 1,237 delegates. The full analysis is available at RedState: Ted Cruz or Bust: Armageddon Tuesday By The Numbers     Rubio exits the presidential field. Florida Senator Marco Rubio’s campaign had been sputtering along for months leading up to Tuesday’s primary elections in five states, and after disappointing results in his home state, Sen. Rubio finally called it quits. We have described in previous newsletters Rubio’s struggle to gain his footing – failing to find a natural constituency and never managing to get much traction with donors or grassroots supporters. His sole victories occurred in Minnesota, the territory of Puerto Rico (which is ineligible to vote in the general election), and Washington, D.C. (home of the Establishment wing of the GOP). In other words, his wins added up to, well, not a whole lot, actually. But give the man credit where credit is due. When he’s on, he can sing like Sinatra. In his speech announcing his decision to suspend his campaign, Sen. Rubio called on Americans to reject the politics of fear and frustration in order to retain what makes the United States a “special” place. The speech was a good reminder to tea party supporters about the tremendous role we have played in the past few election cycles and that, while this election cycle is a reflection of the widespread dismay Americans feel at the Establishment, we can nevertheless find common ground in our shared belief in the American Dream.   His speech’s conclusion reads, in part: “I ask the American people: Do not give in to the fear. Do not give in to the frustration. We can disagree about public policy, we can disagree about it vibrantly, passionately. But we are a hopeful people, and we have every right to be hopeful. For we in this nation are the descendants of go-getters. In our veins runs the blood of people who gave it all up so we would have the chances they never did. We are all the descendants of someone who made our future the purpose of their lives. We are the descendants of pilgrims. We are the descendants of Settlers. We are the descendants of men and women that headed westward in the Great Plains, not knowing what awaited them. We are the descendants of slaves who overcame that horrible institution to stake their claim in the American Dream. We are the descendants of immigrants and exiles who knew and believed that they were destined for more, and that there was only one place on earth where that was possible. This is who we are, and let us fight to ensure that this is who we remain. For if we lose that about our country, we will still be rich and we will still be powerful, but we will no longer be special.” And now that Sen. Rubio is out of the presidential race, he has made some very encouraging comments about Sen. Cruz, calling him “the only true conservative left in the race.” While Sen. Rubio has not officially endorsed Sen. Cruz, those words serve as an important “soft endorsement” for the Texas Senator who just last week picked up the endorsement of another Senate colleague, Utah Sen. Mike Lee. The entire text of Sen. Rubio’s speech can be read at Los Angeles Times: Marco Rubio: 'I ask the American people: Do not give in to the fe...and for more on what he said about Sen. Cruz, see Politico: Rubio: Cruz 'only true conservative left in the race'     GOP settles in for protracted nomination battle.  Despite the narrowing field of presidential candidates, the GOP is preparing for a long nomination battle. The GOP’s convention will be held in July in Cleveland, OH, and now that it is already mid-March, the higher-ups within the Republican Party are officially in panic mode. The plan (and the fervent hope!) had been all along that the nominating process would settle down and that by the time March rolled around, there would be a single candidate (preferably not named Donald Trump) emerging as the clear frontrunner. With the convention now just four months away, Politico reports that “some are getting ready for a prolonged, grind-it-out fight that could go on for weeks or even months.” Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Trump’s most serious competitor, “has been particularly aggressive, launching an ambitious, cross-country effort to influence local Republican Party meetings where delegates to the national convention are being selected.” Sen. Cruz’s purpose is simple: making sure that each state sends “Cruz-friendly” delegates to Cleveland.  While the task of identifying and securing pro-Cruz delegates might sound like an overwhelmingly daunting task, it is a project for which the Cruz campaign is uniquely suited. Politico points out that “[t]he nature of the delegate-selection process — a hyperlocal one that typically begins at the city or county level and is finalized at a state gathering — plays to the strengths of the Cruz campaign, which prides itself on its micro-targeting and number-crunching abilities. Chris Wilson, Cruz’s director of research and analytics, is helping to oversee the push, as is Saul Anuzis, a former Michigan Republican Party chairman who is steeped in the art of contested conventions.” For more on the long fight ahead and more details on Cruz’s strategy to secure delegates, see Politico: Republicans prep for long, ugly nomination fight     Changes to binding delegates “unlikely.” And on the topic of the long fight to secure the GOP nomination, one of the recurring issues that we have reported in past newsletters surrounds the question of rules changes for the convention. In particular, one North Dakota Republican National Committeeman, Curly Haugland, has argued that any delegate at the convention should be allowed to support any candidate on the first round of balloting, despite the outcome of the primary election in the delegate’s state. That suggested plan of action, of course, would add additional chaos and craziness to what is already sure to be a chaotic and crazy convention. But at least one person finds Mr. Haugland’s proposed plan unlikely to go anywhere. Morton Blackwell, longtime member of the RNC’s Standing Rules Committee, and current Republican National Committee man from Virginia, spoke with The Daily Caller this week and explained that he believes “it’s highly unlikely that anything relating to the binding of delegations or binding delegates is going to be altered.” For more on this story, see Daily Caller: RNC Rules Member: Changes To Binding Delegates ‘Unli...   Trump and Kasich wimp out of next debate, so FOX News wimps out and cancels, too.  On Wednesday, Donald Trump announced that he would be skipping the Fox News debate scheduled for March 21st in Salt Lake City, Utah. The result? A domino effect. Shortly after Trump’s announcement, Ohio Gov. John Kasich announced that he, too, would not participate in the debate. In response, Michael Clemente, the FOX News executive in charge of the debate, released a statement: "Obviously, there needs to be more than one participant. So the Salt Lake City debate is canceled." Donald Trump, the candidate in this race least afraid of jettisoning political rulebooks, has already skipped one debate, so this makes two debates he has decided to blow off. And the excuse he is using this time is odd, to say the least. Mr. Trump says he was unaware of the debate (bad staffing issue?), and that he is already scheduled to speak before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), “a very important group of people,” as Trump put it. But then, after making the case that he was skipping the debate because of a scheduling conflict, Trump reversed course and suggested the real reason he would not be on the debate stage is that he is tired of debates. “I think we've had enough debates. How many times can you answer the same question?" Sen. Ted Cruz apparently shares our skepticism about Donald Trump’s decision to bail on the debate. On Wednesday night, Sen.Cruz said on FOX New’s “The Kelly File” that Trump’s excuse “is silliness and it reflects his assumption that he thinks the voters can't figure out that he's not telling them the truth."  For more, see CNN Money: Fox News cancels GOP debate after Donald Trump pulls out  AND The Hill: Cruz slams Trump for skipping GOP debate   That’s all for this newsletter. Keep fighting for freedom!

[Thomas Vincent Coffey]

As you're surely aware, the nostrum that "we gotta vote R down the ballot to save our Republic" is infantile malarkey. Since History hasn't been taught in our so called 'education system' for generations, it isn't surprising that most voters are unaware of how the parties evolved.

Our only principled conservative party was the Southern Agrarian/Rural Democrats of Calhoun, Henry, Jefferson, Madison, Pinckney, Rutledge; among others. Fatally tarred by slavery, they were unable to break the strangle hold of the Plantation Class on Southern economics and politics. Consequently Civil War defeat brought their demise.

The North was in the grip of the Mercantile Class who morphed into the Capitalists, the engine of our Industrial Revolution. To a man, they were Republicans of the progressive left having absolutely nothing to do w/principled conservatism. The GOP of today reflects this from the top down to local Alderman.

Suspicion here is that the raging animus toward Trump, among the R establishment, is driven by their cold realization that his ascension to office means their end as a party. Hence their frenzied behavior is predictable.

[M]

Thomas,

Are you saying that there were Republicans before the civil war? Not withstanding that the Republican Party broke from the Democratic Republican Party in 1856 over the issue of slavery. the Republicans were against it and what became the Democratic Party wanted it to continue as an institution in perpetuity.

That being said, I don't give a damn who anyone votes for for President because we don't have a good candidate running in my opinion. What I do strongly advocate is to have everybody go to the polls and vote against the known flagrant Progressives holding office if their opponent is more conservative than they are. That would have to be determined by Vetting to see how the candidates have voted over their terms in office. I prefer voting for true conservatives first and foremost then look at whomever is the most conservative person running no matter which party they hail from. What I want to see is getting the most conservative Congress, State Legislatures, and even Local positions filled to offset and hopefully stop the crap that has been raining down on us from the Progressive/ Elitist/Socialist/Democrats for way too long.

[Thomas Vincent Coffey]

What are you talking about??? The first R POTUS candidate was Fremont of California in 1856.

My core point was direct and simple.The R Party does not and never did have anything to do w/Principled Conservatism. NOT FOR A DAY!

It was and remains a secular progressive lefty gaggle of political hustlers whose support derives largely from the crony capitalist gang who infest DC.

The R's legislative and executive support, post Civil War till the Great Depression; for exorbitant tariffs and later corporation and personal taxation is mute testament to that reality.

Its platforms are pablum for the little people who dutifully queue up on election day to pull the R lever. We have had a Janus headed duopoly in DC for the last 100+ years, which is why nothing fundamental ever changes. Apparently you never noticed.

[M]

Thomas,

A small history lesson on the Democratic party and the formation of the Republican party;

The Democratic Party was originally formed in 1792 when supporters of Thomas Jefferson began using the name Republicans, or Jeffersonian Republicans, to emphasize its anti-aristocratic policies. This party was called the Democratic-Republican Party, and it was organized by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson in 1791. The purpose of the Democratic-Republican Party was to stand in opposition against the Federalist Party in upcoming elections. After the War of 1812, the Federalist Party lost most of its support and disbanded, leaving the Democratic-Republican Party without opposition. From 1815 to 1832, the organization of the Democratic-Republican Party faltered. Without the pressure of competition, splits formed within the Democratic-Republican party.  This split up the party several different ways.  Particularly the split led to,  in 1828, the modern Democratic Party, along with another political party known as the Whig Party. In 1850, Democratic members of Congress passed what is known as the Compromise of 1850. In 1852, the Whig Party disbanded, leaving weak opposition against the Democrats for that year’s election. Democrats who opposed slavery eventually left the party and joined those who were left-over from the Whig Party in the North to form the Republican Party in 1854. By the election of 1860, the anti-slavery Republican Party gained widespread popularity. Throughout the election, the Republican Party focused on the issue of slavery. They felt that the slaveholders and slavery-supporters had taken over the government, and that these pro-slavery Democrats were voting against the progress of liberty. This incredibly powerful message led to the election of Republican Abraham Lincoln in 1860, who was as you may have deduced, the first Republican President. Where was the Republican Party born then?;  Following the publication of the "Appeal of Independent Democrats" in major newspapers, spontaneous demonstrations occurred. In early 1854, the first proto-Republican Party meeting took place in Ripon, Wisconsin. On July 6, 1854 on the outskirts of Jackson, Michigan upwards of 10,000 people turned out for a mass meeting "Under the Oaks." This led to the first organizing convention in Pittsburgh on February 22, 1856.

The gavel fell to open the Party's first nominating convention, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on June 17, 1856, announcing the birth of the Republican Party as a unified political force.

 

[M]

Thomas,

Here's a little sidebar addendum;

The Republican Party name was christened in an editorial written by New York newspaper magnate Horace Greeley. Greeley printed in June 1854: "We should not care much whether those thus united (against slavery) were designated 'Whig,' 'Free Democrat' or something else; though we think some simple name like 'Republican' would more fitly designate those who had united to restore the Union to its true mission of champion and promulgator of Liberty rather than propagandist of slavery."

The elections of 1854 saw the Republicans take Michigan and make advances in many states, but this election was dominated by the emergence of the short-lived American (or 'Know-Nothing') Party. By 1855, the Republican Party controlled a majority in the House of Representatives. The new Party decided to hold an organizing convention in Pittsburgh in early 1856, leading up to the Philadelphia convention.

As the convention approached, things came to a head — and to blows. On the floor of the Senate Democratic representatives Preston Brooks and Lawrence Keitt (South Carolina) brutally attacked Charles Sumner with a cane after Sumner gave a passionate anti-slavery speech which Brooks took offense (he was related to the main antagonist of Sumner's speech, South Carolina Senator Andrew Butler). Both representatives resigned from Congress with severe indignation over their ouster, but were returned to Congress by South Carolina voters in the next year. Sumner was not able to return to the Congressional halls for four years after the attack. Brooks was heard boasting "Next time I will have to kill him," as he left the Senate floor after the attack.

On the same day as the attack came the news of the armed attack in Lawrence, Kansas. As a direct outgrowth of the "settler sovereignty" of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, an armed band of men from Missouri and Nebraska sacked the town of Lawrence and arrested the leaders of the free state. The anti-abolitionists had made it clear that "settler sovereignty" meant pro-slavery. Labeled only as "ruffians" by Southern politicians, Horace Greeley was quick to decry both events as plots of the pro-slavery South. "Failing to silence the North by threats. . .the South now resorts to actual violence." The first rumblings of the Civil War had begun. The stage was set for the 1856 election, one which held the future of the Union in its grasp.

[Thomas Vincent Coffey]

What in heaven are you ranting and raving about????????

So the catalyst behind  the rise of the GOP was slavery.

SO WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!

That issue had absolutely nothing to do w/principled conservatism, which was born in the Greece of Antiquity, nurtured by the Scholastics and later by the English Whigs.

Try getting real.

[M]

Thomas,

That has no relationship to my original article. It's in my considered opinion just a distraction from what must be done to preserve the Republic.

Besides how much more principled can you get than to strike out on your own and tackle the major proponent of slavery by starting your new party that diametrically opposes what the original party stood and still stands for. If you don't believe me see LBJ's remarks on launching his "Great Society" which was and is an abysmal failure that we will continue to have to pay for.

The main thing is to vote in whom ever is less of an opportunistic self centered Progressive Socialist regardless of which party they hail from and keep doing it until the progressive movement has been voted to obscurity. Remember it will take many years to restore the Republic, but if you really intend to, it must start now,instead of later.

[Hankelvis]

But Ted stood against them and he took advantage to propel his career..just like Trump so what is wrong with picking a Christian candidate over a billionaire?

The unions took over the schools and even supply the "healthy lunch" the kids toss in the trash.

They teach the union teachers to teach union ideas to your childrenand you cannot fire them.

Oh and they bus thousands of Mexicans in illegally on union buses from S. America so the unions can build more and more public schools at 10M a pop using union labor because for every x number of families schools must be built. This nets unions billions a year. See a pattern here?

nostrum [nos-truh m] noun

1. medicine sold with false or exaggerated claims and with no demonstrable value;quack medicine.

2. a scheme, theory, device, etc., especially one to remedy social or political ills; panacea.

3.a medicine made by the person who recommends it.

4.a patent medicine.

[Hankelvis]

They are teaching that every white person had slaves. The truth is noone could afford them and whites were just as ignorant and poor as blacks with a slight status advantage that afforded them nothing. Some blacks did not leave their plantations even when freed and many fought alongside southerners because the whole thing was over freedom of choice and states rights until Obama er Lincoln created a wedge issue. Am I wrong?

[M]

Rhodes,

I understand your reasoning about that, but that is the very reason we lost to Obama in 2012. Too many people stayed home and did not vote for anyone. If that happens again I'm positive the progressive forces will be celebrating taking down the Republic and destroying the Constitution within 2 years of a 2016 loss to the progressive democrats. If the people can't see that, they will deserve to be savaged by the enemy, and they will have thrown their Liberty and Freedom away just to have a Pyrrhic Victory where they can say I took the high road and didn't hold my nose and vote for any establishment types. 

[M]

Rhodes, 

If you are not 'Interested" in the "standard" packages, then do your own vetting of the available candidates in both parties and choose the ones who are the LEAST Liberal/Socialist/Progressives. We can't sit back and not vote, and we don't have to vote along party lnes. What we DO have to do is to check out all the candidates running for Congress/State Legislatures/and even Local Politics and choose the ones who are the most Conservative based on their voting records. If you don't want to do that to try and change us for the better, you are part of the problem along with everyone else who won't do the background checks and then go and vote.

[Hankelvis]

Why are people posting crap articles from CNN propagandists?