Have a T-P Pre-Primary to avoid sure defeat // Implement a drive to recruit and organize into each precinct

This discussion needs your direct support or direct critique that I might respond.  Other idea's please start in a new discussion (note: this has been revised after 400+ comments, but if possible read all of them) thank you for your time: (revised July 20th,'13)

I thought it would be helpful (stike that, it's absolutely imperative!!!!)  to have a T Party pre-primary prior to the RINO primary so we wouldn't split our vote.  That thread sort of grew to the following two steps:

The following two step approach would require a temporary meeting of the minds from the various larger conservative Tea Party factions for the following purposes::

1. Having a pre-primary to avoid the late RINO primary so we avoid splitting our vote and being able to get out there now to campaign because we have some serious hills to climb (our message, government news and funding etc.). But the main point here is that we always split our votes in the regular RINO primary, we need to avoid this.  We need some sort of (temporary or other) unified effort of all the un-unified groups for this purpose.  Make sure you don't miss a word utilized here and that the whole 'idea' is understood.  Along with this we also need to have the above bonded with the following item number 2, as follows:

2. Implement a plan to organize and recruit deep into every precinct for the T-Party.

This would include the larger T-P groups to supply their associated local smaller groups with solid information to be distributed and used as a means to educate both door to door and if possible via ads in their local news papers when feasible. (with an increase in some recruiting, this can work - I've checked out the cost).

We have great web sites on the internet but many republican’s, democrats and independents don’t go there.  We need a serious ground team for all of our upcoming elections.  Many of our small groups are getting smaller and many not associated would like to be contacted by us.  Our idea's are solid but we're mainly singing to the choir.  We need to open our doors and windows and move into our communities. This comment needs a bit more explaining but I know it's solid.  In many of my postings in this discussion, I've explained it better and longer.  In short, we need to 'recruit, educate and promote'.  We recruit first, be fed by the larger groups in order to, move into the streets to inform and when feasible w/ just some higher recruiting - IT IS POSSIBLE for the smaller groups to have 's o m e' newspaper exposure on a regular bi/weekly < > time to promote our beliefs. Also, at your local meetings you need a precinct map where you pin-point what precincts your members live in; with a strong eye on having representation in all of your precincts.  This will probably require to hit the streets some time.  This is where we win or not. This has to be a consistent part of some part of all your meetings, to work these precincts, understand this - this is vital.

I hope more of you will catch this vision.  First, understand it ..... thank you for your time.

PS: please help spread this word about this to your friends and other T-Party groups; as many as you can at this url:


Also: The Patriot Vetting Committee (http://patriotvoting.com) has been offering support to get patriot groups together in each state to do this work in a consensus-building manner.

See Lee Havis posting around page 29 (I think) : lee@patriotvoting.com

In order to organize into every precinct, we will need some tools.  Please watch the two video links below.

They deal with the nuts and bolts of American Politics, so they are boring, but, short.

Never-the-less, they contain needed information.  The last link is to the host site, which if we all used it as part of our political tool box would make a world of difference.

OR HERE: =========================

The "True Business of the Precincts" Part 1


The "True Business of the Precincts" Part 2


Welcome to United Precincts of America!

Are you ready to accept the challenge and be American?
The U.S. Constitution is irrelevant without the means of enforcement. The means of enforcement is the Precinct Strategy... the True Business of the Precincts. The Enforcer..? We the People! ― Phil Glass



Hillary has started and has the complete tools and ground work of her former boss:


Views: 3844

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

II agree Walt... we are over regulating everything.  As a child I recall my parents and grand parents discussing food safety issues such as this... they made it an individual choice and responsibility. 

We must accept individual responsibility for our actions... asking the government to regulate every aspect of our lives is absurd and leads to a government of tyranny. I must be responsible for my own life as much as is possible without adversely impacting the lives of others.

Every time we give up liberty for some quasi-form of security... food safety,we loose a little more liberty.  Individuals and businesses alike must be responsible for their actions.

The people can find recourse for dishonest and dangerous acts committed by others under the criminal statutes as they exist. If a business knowingly produces a product that is dangerous and it harms someone, they have criminal as well as civil recourse under our current laws. We don't need an excess of regulation and government bureaucracy to tell us what we can or can not eat.

The pubic will best suited to decide what they want and what is or is not safe, thru the free exercise of choice and open markets.

Col. Nelson said: "... we are over regulating everything. As a child I recall my parents and grand parents discussing food safety issues such as this... they made it an individual choice and responsibility."

Yes! And I remember exactly the same thing. Indeed, we kids got basic food safety instruction from parents and grandparents, and those -- it was girls then -- who took home ec, got even more of that.

The problem is that we regularly hear stories of people who got sick from THIS or were injured by THAT and these days our instant reaction is There Ought To Be A Law. But we always assume that the law would actually make things better: We have a hard time recognizing that the enforcement would be imperfect, sometimes plain stupid, and not rarely, corrupt.

(Remember the thread about the magician who is being required by USDA to have a disaster plan for his rabbit?) AND WE DO NOT EVEN CONSIDER THE OPPORTUNITY COSTS OF SUCH LAWS.

I can tell you that burgeoning laws intended to stop 'puppy mills' have the primary effect of meaning fewer choices of dogs and the greatest loss is in in-the-open breeding by people who have done it for decades and have a track record behind them. The costs and risks to be legal and in the open now are simply too high. Tomorrow's dogs will come from Mexicans: Some of them will be in Mexico, smuggling the puppies in to sell at a flea market This Weekend Only! Such sales are illegal in many places but the police can't be everywere and if the puppies are snatched up in an hour ...

And some will be Mexicans back in the hills in America. None of these people will have meaningful guarantees, none will be paying taxes, and nobody will know anything about their animal care practices because if you're hidden, NOBODY can inspect.

Loss of in-the-open breeding is an 'opportunity cost' of laws that practically everyone thought were supposed to do something good -- but 'practically everyone' has no clue about the world of dog breeding. Why do these laws happen? Because people -- the Humane Society of the U.S. would be the main example -- make very good money promoting them.

And that same story plays out (with varying details) in many, many other areas of the economy. Someone makes a lot of money if a law requiring X and forbidding Y passes; that someone invests in convincing lawmakers to pass the XY law, and that's it: Short of economic collapse, nothing can be done.

Until we get over the notion that whatever someone tells us to dislike should be forbidden by law because that would be good for America, we are not going to turn back toward liberty.

Repeat after me: "I really don't know anything about that, so I am not going to support a new law."

Now try this: "Congressman, I don't think you have a clue about either the subject of S. 666 OR what's in the bill. DO NOT PASS THAT BILL."

(You think the SPONSOR of a bill knows what's in there? Nah ... I've explained bills to sponsors a few times. Many of them are written by professionals specifically to be hard to understand. I have a partly done project of explaining to the Attorney General of one of the states that contrary to what he believe -- and he IS both capable and sincere -- his state DOES NOT have excellent pet animal laws.)

Okay, for extra credit: "We have so much trouble with the 'reforms' from the laws we have about 'SPQR,' why don't we just REPEAL ALL THOSE LAWS and see if things don't get better?"

America's not ready for such a radical program just yet, but it'll happen.
Walt you're missing the point.  Money has corrupted the political process, and money is the distinct advantage of the ruling establishment.

The most important thing for me to come out of a Tea Party Primary process would be the neutralization of "money" in the political process.  We desperately need to take money out of the process, and return to a process based on principles.

Not only can a TP Primnary do this, I believe that removing the influence of money from the process should be the focus, raison d'être, and cause célèbre driving the TP Primary forward.  If we are to take back our country, it will be through the neutralizing of money and the undue influence wealthy and powerful groups have on our governance and the Rule of Law.

Prop 37 involved  a specific issue of Contract Law, called False or Deceptive Advertising.  Prop 37 deals specifically with the issue of genetically modified foods; food produced from genetically modified organisms or altered using genetic bio-engineering techniques.  Do consumers, as purchasers entering into contract with product providers, have the legal right to know what they are buying is what the producer claims?  And what's the legal recourse to resolve this situation?

As you know, the 9th and 10th Amendments place the issue of Contract Law with the States and individuals, and not the Federal Government.  So Prop 37 was well within the Constitutional rights of the people of California.

The thing is, the Federal Government has breached the Constitution; in this case with a series of "truth-in-labeling" acts based on The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act of 1966.  Which, strangely enough looks to be Constitutional and consistent with Article I, Section 8 concerning weights and measures and national standards.

Of course I would agree with you Walt that the bureaucrats are running wild with rules and regulations that are totally choking off free enterprise commerce and individual freedom.   But without a reasonable and fair system of Contract Law we would have anarchy and chaos.  The Rule of Law isn't much if there isn't a legal process and system for laws to be made and contractual differences to be adjudicated.

Look at what the Prop 37 supporters were up against.  Monsanto is protected by, and specifically exempted from truth-in-labeling laws by a Presidential executive order.  The order was issued by President George Herbert Walker Bush in 1992, mandating that there would be no Government agency related health or safety tests done on GMO food products, and that these new "foods" would not require any truth-in-labeling disclosure. 

Now officially called "The Doctrine of Substantial Equivalence", meaning GMO food products would be legally considered the same as their natural "non GMO" food equivalents, this executive order also mandated the labeling of any food product as "GMO free" would be prohibited.  Meaning natural, organic and traditional farm products could not legally disclose the competitive risks and benefits to the consuming public.  

Incredibly, the GMO companies rushed to file for exclusive patent rights on their seeds, claiming them to be "unique" and "different" from ordinary, natural seeds.  Just the opposite of what the executive order that established an official "Doctrine of Substantial Equivalence" claimed.  And now the Monsanto mad scientists are suing natural farmers out of existence, cl;aiming patent infringement if there's even the slightest of chance of cross pollination having occurred.  

The effect of the tsunami of lawsuits unleashed on law abiding small business farmers is that the Monsantos of the world are buying up and taking control of massive amounts of valuable arable land.  And it's not to grow natural food.  This is classic monopolist behavior, yet there are no Department of Justice enforcing the Sherman Anti Trust Act, protecting a free and open marketplace.  When you buy an organic heirloom tomato, paying top dollar for a very specific process promise, and then discover later that it's really a Monsanto tomato genetically modified with the DNA of a frog and a mutation that allows for the embedding of an insecticide in the DNA itself; what do you do?  The Federal government has shut down all avenues of legal recourse.

And you thought bureaucrats running wild with nanny state nuisances was problem enough.  Where are you left when the perps have written the law itself, and you're denied legal recourse?

But wait, we're not done yet.  The prohibition on labeling GMO foods has been fully reaffirmed by Presidents Clinton, Bush II and Obama.  Should anyone be surprised that Monsanto scored huge with Obama?

The recent defeated Agricultural Appropriations Bill contained a provision so audacious and reaching that the bill is euphemistically called "The Monsanto Protection Act". The bill "required" the Secretary of Agriculture to grant permits for planting or cultivating GM crops - even if a federal court has given an injunction against such planting.  Monsanto literally is being granted immunity from Federal and State law.

This past March, the Senate passed a continuing resolution to fund the federal government through September, avoiding a government shutdown.   Tucked into the 587-page bill were two provisions worth millions of dollars to large agribusiness concerns. The first of the provisions was designed to limit basic protections for livestock farmers, effectively giving large meatpacking corporations free rein to manipulate the livestock market.  The second provision exempts biotechnology giants like Monsanto and Dow from judicial review; allowing them to sell and plant genetically engineered crops even if a court of law orders them to stop.  The provision "orders" the USDA to ignore any judicial ruling regarding the planting of genetically modified crops; State, Federal or local.  

If this isn't the heavy hand of a big government out of control, what is?  The lawsuit behind this big government mandate, tucked into a continuing resolution - emergency funding bill and called the "farm assurance" rider, is a 2010 controversy in which a local judge ordered a halt on the planting of Monsanto Roundup Ready beets until an environmental imp[act study could be conducted.  The USDA stepped in to over ride the judge's order, allowing the Monsanto Roundup Ready beets to be planted, immediomente.

Monsanto went on a lobbying blitz spending over $6 Million to make it the law, requiring the USDA to continue to hammer, disregard and otherwise thwart lawful redress.

Monsanto Roundup Ready crops are genetically engineered to survive massive doses of the powerful insecticide once known during the Vietnam War as "Agent Orange".

And last but not least we have Obamacare, where the government gets to define that all-embracing list of permitted disease, disease definitions, diagnosis and treatments.  The government will control in great detail the practice of medicine and what a healthy lifestyle means.

Since GMO crops are protected from the courts and totally exempted from government testing and regulation, Obamacare could easily be said to have been designed to cover up the health effects of consuming massive amounts of insecticide embedded directly in the crop DNA.  Obamacare is designed to conceal what could be crimes against mankind. But we'll never know.  Our elected representatives have made sure of that.

Unfortunately the GMO story, sordid and sad as it is, is but a small slice of the corruption and loss of liberty that has taken place in this once great Republic.   But it's truly an instructive slice.

We don't know the half of it.  But I do believe we all know where to start the cleanup.  We need to take back the local election process if we are to take back out country.  We need to neutralize the one-two punch advantage the ruling elite establishment has: money and rule-making-position.  A Tea Party Primary can do that.

And what a great first step that would be.


Walt, all I'm asking is that I have access to the information I need to make an informed decision, and I will take responsibility for my decisions.  

But when a company contrives, purchases and uses the instruments of government to conceal and make illegal that access, even going so far as to deny me legal redress, then what do I do?  Their concealment has not only corrupted the political and judicial systems, it's corrupted the marketplace.

It's beyond me how anyone can justify such reprehensible behavior.  And I would be the first to say that if a man of Tom McClintok's character and quality can be bought and sold, any man can be bought and sold.  But there it is.  

The system is broken, and it won't be fixed merely by seeking to elect people of good character and moral principles.  The system itself must be fixed at the point-of-contact, where citizens select their representatives and vote on propositions and authorizations.


"So where does the liberty of the woman end, and the right-to-life of a child of God begin?

The founding documents do not say"

I believe that the Constitution does address this issue.  The only people who can't see it are those who don't want to.

If the innocent life of a child has no meaning, then what makes your life have any value?

The future child did not ask to be born or be created.

If it's life can be ended, because, it inconveniences another, what gives you the right to life.

In one of Shakespeare’s plays he talks about a problem they were wrestling with at the time.  That is the problem of suicide.  If two men die, one from suicide and one by accident, but, both die from drowning, how do they resolve this.

One man's soul is lost but, the other's is saved, but, they both drowned.

In Shakespeare’s play he says, If the water comes to the man, then his soul is saved, but, if the man goes to the water, then his soul is condemned.

If a women is pregnant and a medical problem comes upon her, that threatens her life or the life of the child, then a decision has to be made and that is between her and her doctor, no one else.

But, if she goes to the doctor, because her social interactions actions led to something that is inconvenient, that's not OK.

If it was OK, then that woman that strapped her kids into the car and sent it down the boat ramp into the water, drowning her two children, is guilty of nothing, except performing a late term abortion.

I repeat, if an unborn child has no inherent right to life then you have no inherent right to life.

If you have no right to life, then you have no right to liberty or a pursuit of happiness.

Without the right to life there is no Constitution and there is no bill of rights

And I'll go one step further, if you have no inherent right to life, then at the end of your life when you can't work like you used to and now your an inconvenience to the state, then the state has every right to form death panel and be rid of you. 

Wow...Gary..wasn't sure if you're giving up or posting rhetoric ...must say you said a lot...I like your passion and conviction and that's important. I'll take my licks and move forward and never give up ...The Tea Party won the house..not the establishment.. We must establish a brand with respect and that takes a strong voice , unity, organization and that doesn't take a lot of money but perseverance and commitment.

Michael... I agree with you except on one point.  It will take a lot of money and resources too do battle with the entrenched political apparatuses of both major parties.  Unity, organization and leadership are not cheap... you get what you pay for... unless it is corrupt.

In some states many good candidates will find it difficult to pay the fees it takes to register as a candidate for national office...  thousands of dollars are often required not to mention the costs for keeping a multitude of campaign records and bookkeeping or risk going to jail.

Thanks!  Please go back and read all of these postings too.

 DO IT NOW !!!!!!!

Sounds good to me..already voted on the Allen West site...

Well, maybe you can persuade Allen to backtrack on NDAA, "Patriot" Act, voting for big budgets, Pigford and not exposing Obama's ineligibility, although I see signs he now realizes the latter mistake.

I'm all in as long as we stick to what made us a powerhouse, lower taxes, limited Government  and Constitutional adherence and repel Health care. once you add social issues we became divided.




Political Cartoons by Tom Stiglich

Political Cartoons by AF BrancoPolitical Cartoons by AF Branco


JUST IN->  Pelosi Announces House Resolution To Condemn Trump’s ‘Racist, Xenophobic Tweets’

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced Monday that Democrats will offer a resolution condemning President Donald Trump’s “racist” tweets against Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Ilhan Omar (D-MN).

Pelosi wrote a letter to House Democrats announcing that they will draft a resolution to condemn Trump’s “racist” tweets against progressive Democrats.

“This weekend, the President went beyond his own low standards using disgraceful language about Members of Congress,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi wrote.

“This morning, the President doubled down on his attacks on our four colleagues suggesting they apologize to him,” she added. “Let me be clear, our Caucus will continue to forcefully respond to these disgusting attacks.”

President Trump taunted the “squad” of far-left first-term progressive Democrats on Sunday, telling them to go back and fix the places they came from before telling the rest of the country what to do.

Trump’s tweets caused an uproar amongst the media and Hollywood celebrity classes, and now, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D–TX) hopes to capitalize on the president’s message by condemning them in Congress.

Lee said she will draft a resolution of condemnation.

“Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee will be drafting a Resolution of Condemnation for the words used by President Trump about four members of the House of Representatives over the weekend,” Jackson Lee’s office wrote:

Sheila Jackson Lee  @JacksonLeeTX18

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee will be drafting a Resolution of Condemnation for the words used by President Trump about four members of the House of Representatives over the weekend.

Donald J. Trump  @realDonaldTrump

So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly......

Donald J. Trump  @realDonaldTrump

So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly......

Donald J. Trump  @realDonaldTrump

....and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how....

Donald J. Trump  @realDonaldTrump

....and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how....

Donald J. Trump  @realDonaldTrump

....it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!

President Trump’s remarks seemed particularly directed at Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), who is a former Somalian refugee.

Omar said Friday that the president “shouldn’t be in office” and told an audience of high school students that America was failing to uphold its promise to be a just society.

Rep. Omar said Trump was “stoking white nationalism” after he tweeted that some progressive congresswomen should “go back” to where they came from.

“You are stoking white nationalism because you are angry that people like us are serving in Congress and fighting against your hate-filled agenda,” Omar wrote:

Ilhan Omar  @IlhanMN

As Members of Congress, the only country we swear an oath to is the United States.

Which is why we are fighting to protect it from the worst, most corrupt and inept president we have ever seen. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1150381394234941448 

Donald J. Trump  @realDonaldTrump

So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly......

Ilhan Omar  @IlhanMN

You are stoking white nationalism bc you are angry that people like us are serving in Congress and fighting against your hate-filled agenda.

“America's answer to the intolerant man is diversity, the very diversity which our heritage of religious freedom has inspired.” -RFK

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez claimed Monday that President Trump’s remarks serve as the “hallmark language of white supremacists.”

President Trump tweeted Monday that Democrats need to apologize for the “foul language” and “terrible things they have said”:

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump

When will the Radical Left Congresswomen apologize to our Country, the people of Israel and even to the Office of the President, for the foul language they have used, and the terrible things they have said. So many people are angry at them & their horrible & disgusting actions!

Donald J. Trump  @realDonaldTrump

If Democrats want to unite around the foul language & racist hatred spewed from the mouths and actions of these very unpopular & unrepresentative Congresswomen, it will be interesting to see how it plays out. I can tell you that they have made Israel feel abandoned by the U.S.


© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service