Open letter to the RNC.

Dear Republican National Committee,

With great concern I put you on notice; you are about to blow the 2014 and 2016 national elections, not to mention the myriad of state and local races that look to be in jeopardy. The reasons for this are many, but primary among them is you don't know who your base is. The base you are supposed to be cultivating is young and middle age conservatives, people who work hard and pay way too much of their "earned income" in taxes. On the surface here are the top 5 things you are doing wrong;

1. You are attacking the Tea Party Conservatives, pretending to cling to the ideals for a few minutes to get elected and then turning around and voting to "compromise", "reasonable limits" and other PROGRESSIVE terminology claiming false reasons for voting what appears to be the opposite of what the CONSERVATIVES want.
2. You pretend to research, poll or collect opinions of a broad spectrum of the target demographic (people that earn money honestly) and at the end of each and every communication you unveil you true intention; SOLICITING FUNDS. Every single one of you would rather I send a check than a letter explaining my position. Start communicating your intention, and follow through with action and you wont have to ask us for campaign funds, we will flood your office with cash! Just stop asking, start acting.
3. Support your conservative colleagues, too many times in the past few elections the RNC has come out against the most conservative candidates, only to get trashed at the polls anyway due to the "friendly fire". We don't empower you county, state and national committees to decide who we want, we empower you to act in the best interest of the republican rank and file, support all candidates equally commensurate with their base of support and do not sling mud at ANY republican primary candidates.
4. Sometimes winning a battle, or losing a battle is better than a draw. If you are going to win, win fight to the last man, drag your feet and use every legitimate rule to stop progressive legislation. Compromise is another word for failing to win, but worse its planned failure to win. Win or don't win but stop with all the "compromise measures" which are doing nothing but slowing the loss of liberty.
5. Biased attacks, rise above the body politic be truthful in all your endeavors. We don't need to play the way the Lib-tards do, we have their play-book read it and counter act, but don't get down in the mud with the hogs.

Don't ask me for another dime until you begin doing what you claim is your goal. Reverse some of this burdensome regulation, roll-back some taxes, limit the size and power of federal and state government, term limits and campaign finance rules can help but you are our representatives.

DO YOUR JOB OR PLAN YOUR EXIT.​

 

Well said.. However, in my opinion, wasted effort... The machine is in control and it is driving any and all that seem to appose their move to dominence...

 

Thank you, and I don't expect them to react to this and take it to heart, but if enough of my fellows here and on other forums take up the banner... No way they can ignore us long. Use my words, use your own, it doesn't matter. If you agree with this sentiment, steal it, copy it send it to your representatives, the RNC local Republican Committees, councilmen etc. Thats where the change MUST occur, only hone can the ground swell be felt and carried into action.

I am pledging now to go to my town council meetings, at least every other month all year. If we all do that our voice will be heard.

 

I gave completely up on the Republicans because "Conservatism" is just a slogan to them. You can give a hog thousands of dollars worth of singing lessons and still, all you'll get is a grunt.

 

After 10 years as a Republican Committeman, I have recently changed my registration to Independent.

They might as well merge the 2 major parties into "Democratic Republicans" these days…in a dark room it is difficult to tell the presidential candidates apart.

 

Great points. I have often considered switching my registration so I could help the democrats be more moderate, but I realize that is futile. But switching to Independent, thats a real statement that is already gaining ground.

At heart I am a libertarian, and practically I have always felt the can't win an election of importance so shied away from that, but now I don't thing the republicans WANT to win any more important elections. But anticipating they will like push Chris Christie - 2016, I can't cosign supporting them any further. Its time for bold statements, a viable 3rd party must arise. The media has painted the TPC into a fine picture, most of america thinks their "gun toten-nuts" and have no idea who they really are, the RNC does nothing to correct this as they want to prevent the TPC from cleaning their chicken coup.

I'm mad as hell and Im not going to take it anymore.

 

You'll vote yourselves free at about the same time you spend yourselves rich...

 

Democrats? Republicans? Pretty much same party. It's not like we have a real choice between them.
Kinda like Catsup or Ketchup IMHO.

 

Good to see the rest are catching up.....

 

Really, who is "you'll" and whats your plan genius?

 

It's axiomatic. Further emphasized by comparing it to another well understood axiom. You One cannot spend yourself one's self rich. I certainly could have neutralized it rather than make a statement that you appear to have taken as a personal attack on yourself. It wasn't meant in that regard at all. I was pointing out a logical fallacy.

How can one be free by the vote if another can deny that freedom via the same vote? A question to help open a dialog concerning the logic of voting as a means to or a mechanism of freedom.

By calling me a genius a) you've understood the nature of what I was saying and are heaping high praise upon me, or b) you're attacking me because you didn't and/or disagree with my premise.

 

I took your statement to mean we all are wasting our time voting; or worse contributing to the deepening corruption by allowing/participating in the fallacy of freedom through the ballot. If I assumed too much I apologize. However if you are implying that we should ignore the electoral process as a means to effect change, you are dead wrong. Neither should we rely on it as the sole manner of effecting change, rather one tool in the bag. We need to take a lesson from the "other side" and do some of what they do, buy the media, lobby the legislature and corporate sponsors, boycott, protest, VOTE and most of all make our OPINIONS HEARD.

Telling your paid representatives in an organization that they are NOT acting in your interest is a good idea. Being a member of such an organization is the only debatable point. And I have membership so that they too will hear my opinion. IF the tea party had such a organized structure I would join them too, just to be heard not because I agree or disagree with their platform.

If every conservative bought one share of stock in "liberal media" companies, would would have greater voice. If we each wrote one letter to sponsors of shows that lie and do patriotism disservice, we would have a voice. If we boycott companies and events that go against the grain of traditional American interests we would have a tremendous voice.

If everyone who claims to be a conservative did all three of these, just once a year, we would have nothing left to complain about.
98% of my friends claim to be conservative, and only 5% act conservatively.

 

Tru-dat BTPost, and the several times I have attempted to sway my us reps ( both house and senate, SC and NJ)
I was surprised by the engagement, I didn't always prevail but they definitely seemed concerned enough to personally interact. Aside from the form letter responses I had a phone call from a congressman and a 2week-running e-mail debate with Senator Graham.
Many of them are much more available than we assume, although we aren't getting the purchasing power of the top contributors we should exercise our RIGHT to contact them.

 

So the system is fine and things will be OK if only the right people are in charge? Hasn't worked throughout human history, why will it work now? I don't consider the system to have been a success from the moment it was conceived. After all, we find ourselves at the tail end of a failed state. It has been a valiant attempt at convincing so many that freedom ain't free. It will surely continue in its decline long past any of our life times if it doesn't out right implode before even some of us are pushing up daisies.

How about taking a logical look at the system itself and considering that IT just might be the problem? Nobody represents my interests except for myself. I surely don't trust anybody actively seeking to represent me with such an important task. I do not accept that any other human being has any authority over myself that I do not in turn have over them. Which is to say, none what so ever. Nobody gets to tell me that I can't grow plants and/or trade with others for them. Nobody gets to tell me what I can eat or drink. Nobody gets to tell me that I don't have the right/freedom/means to defend my life from any who would deprive me of it. Nobody gets to tell me that ownership of a modern car/truck/ship/bicycle/etc and travel via such is subject to the whimsical control of another. This sick system has bred an entire culture that believes some make believe entity, the state, has exactly these powers. The state really only exists in our heads. How crazy is that?

Anyway, you didn't really address the question I posed to you in my first follow up. Let me put it this way, are you OK with others having the authority over you to deny your freedom by gathering together and taking a vote? There are plenty of people around that fully intend to do just that. You appear to favor a conservative position by what you've said above. Would having enough conservatives step up and vote the freedoms of liberals away make life so much better? When does freedom ring under this monstrosity we are now saddled with? I say never. It can't. Not as long as some people want and/or allow others to assume authority over them and thereby believe that authority to extend over everybody else.

You're certainly not alone in believing that you're free and a participant in the greatest system yet devised as a means to secure your freedom. You're not wrong either. I just don't happen to agree that you or I are really free. Well we may be free of the tyranny of other states but we certainly are not free of the tyranny of our own. Please don't take any of this as a personal attack! Like you, I'm only trying to express how I fell and in so doing, possibly sway others to at least consider my view point.

Cheers!

 

Byte, in answer to your first question: YES thats exactly how it works and it has worked in human history, it has never been on this large a scale or permanent. Its a viscous cycle like so many things. If you are looking for utopia, stop wasting your time, that can only come in the next life and only if you are living much closer to god (or the electro magnet, or the aliens, or whatever you think caused MAN) than I expect I am.

I don't think I am "truly free" nor do I think anyone else think anyone in sight of another man is "TRULY FREE" but there are limits to what one man can expect of another and expect to do for himself. Society and government in general is a compromise between "total freedom" and "complete anarchy" and "being alone". If all men were totally free, no man would be truly free outside the use of immediate and direct force. By this I mean if you left your castle, you are no longer free from the whims of the next more powerful "freeman".

What we are talking about as the model of the "right system" is where every man can do as he pleases as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's life and the pursuit of the same. Yes that is a simplistic model of the goal, but it has worked in the past and will work again in the future. Yes the system is flawed, and the system should be "improved not changed". The worst way to correct it is for every man to be completely free, free to pollute, steal, rape and murder? No. Free to plant food where he likes, yes. Free to plant noxious weeds on his neighbors property? NO. You imply (and I doubt you mean to) that there scan be no rules where there is "LIBERTY", which in modern parlance we take for "FREEDOM but that is not how you are defining it.

Yes the system is both perfect and imperfect you have a perfect system in that it can cane with the times, and will of the "collective people" which is not a simple majority. The Bill of rights guaranteed limits to the change, the amendment process if allowed to work makes it EXTREMELY DIFFICULT for one group to impose limits on the freedoms of another or an individual. Remember that the 3 governing documents are supposed to be;

• The Declaration of Independence, with literally no force of law it only laid out the reasons for separating from England's Monarchy
• The United States Constitution, the "charter" of the new government. Contingently ratified by the several states (state means Sovereign Nation)
• The Bill of Rights (1789-1791), the first 10 amendments that the constitution's ratification by the states was contingent upon.

Nowhere in these documents is the claim that men will be FREE to do anything specific (except exercise their rights under the constitution), the declaration states we shall be free to enjoy Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, and certainly not TOTAL FREEDOM to do whatever whenever. That was never part of my country, and I would not be in favor of that.

It is implicit that we will have taxes to be paid, and how they will be assessed, and whom shall pay them (the states) and what they should and should not be used for. The problem here is that after just a few congresses and a couple of court rulings this was watered down, and the States failed to EXERCISE their power to legislate within their own borders and treaty with the other states. They (the States) were only enjoined (prohibited) from a few actions, infringing on specific liberties of individuals. Of the bill of rights 9 out of 10 protected explicitly the people (individually and collectively) and only the 10th protected the States from the Federal Government.

The trick is that longevity is what has always lacked, with long term storage everything decays; especially morals. The founders had the right idea, but probably didn't go far enough restricting the power of the Fed and Courts. That said the second error was direct taxation and finally the biggest problem (IMHO) is professional politicians. For as much as some of the founders didn't aspire to power they all felt they would "self limit" and may have assumed the rigors of office would dissuade others. In their time they could not go home for the weekend, call the kids or video conference (I know you know this but I want to put it in perspective of the time). You were as likely to be killed or injured by your horse or the weather as crime or disease. And trust me they NEVER anticipated a 2.6 TRILLION dollar budget. If they even though that any government could be so cavalier and wasteful I expect they would have built some provisions for better distributing power.

Part of our modern day problem is also the cabinet, the appointed executives that derive their power from ever increasing budgets. Today there dis so much overlap, and competition to grow faster than the other departments that it actually gets in the way of each department doing well what their charter calls for.

You make an argument for a "Sovereign Man" type of society, that was never the framers intent and I am not aware of any large group (let alone a nation) where that has worked in history, I wish it could I would be second in line to enter that realm. IMO this can only work within a vast wilderness where your per suits reasonable can't interfere wight he per suits of another due to distance between. (some over used quote: "My definition of conflict is two men in the same country" IDK where thats from...)

The fact is at the current state we don't have to "trust anyone to work in my best interests" we are free to represent ourselves and gain supporters that are like minded, and remove representatives that change or no longer represent what you or I want. Thats the beauty of our system, anyone can run for president, even a hypocritical (maybe foreign-born) man of questionable parentage, limited intelligence and NO MORALS. The fact is we failed to expose him (and 10,000 others) before election, and failed to remove him on the second opportunity. We may even blow our next chance and the chance after that before the shit hits the fan, but we can still use the stage, pulpit, press, assembly before other less palatable (more effective? maybe) means. Nor should the "conservatives come to power and restrict the rights of liberals" that is not what conservatism is about. Conservatives believe that individuals should be preserved and protected regardless of their position, you can't protect "liberals" from "no restrictions" you can only prevent them from restricting others (which is not their right) by protecting everyones rights equally. True conservatives don't desire to impose a will, or GOVERN OTHER MEN ! government is to be restricted from doing much to anyone outside the laws agreed to by the "representative majority, with the restrictions of constitution". And if any man were to disagree and feel encumbered by such government (of a State) he is free to move to a favorable State of his choosing where the laws are somewhat different and opportunity to his liking (as we are today free to move about the states without any approval from government).

I recently moved from a northeast state to the south east, to PERSUE Greater liberty than my fellows in "New England" enjoy. I have liberty to carry a gun, purchase land, erect a home, raise stock, and persue all with virtually no interference from the state. Yes there are rules and laws, rules and laws are simplest to change when they are commissioned at the lowest level (Town-County-State) and that is where the power of the people truly flows from and rests. If I don't like the sherif, I can run for sherif, and if enough people don't like the sherif we can replace him both at the ballot and mid-term. The fact that the Federal Government has completely ignored its limits and responsibilities has more to do with whom we elect and re-elect than it does with the imperfect system that has grown from them.

Maybe it is time for a second (third really) revolution, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the other tools at our disposal. No we should ramp up every avenue of returning to a "more perfect" society, regardless of how futile it seems at time, I don't mean to suggest one shouldn't be ready to revolt, or even threaten to. But if a revolution is to come, it will arrive on time even if we pursue avenues to lessen the necessity. And then who is most likely to assume power? The most beneficent person of the country? The most godly? The most willing to permit Sovereign-men? No not likely, if history teaches us anything at all it is that in a revolution there is always a power vacuum, and that vacuum is almost always filled buy the most power hungry despot in sight. Sure it would be a change, but for the better? I prefer to sharpen my sword at home and make my speeches in public. I will fight to protect my family from harm, crime, tyranny or otherwise all while I continue to make my opinions and desires know.
Some grumble and groan publicly without ever visiting a voting booth, contacting a representative or expressing a cogent opinion to the press.

You and I both are part of the solution, this discussion is a great freedom (A RIGHT) that few really appreciate for it is truly rare on this planet, yet common among the people of the UNITED STATES because it is guaranteed but the imperfect constitution.

 

I apologize for hitting "POST" prematurely, I wanted to address / support your last paragraph. Yes your opinion is valid and respected by me, I only caution that too much freedom can be dangerous (AKA French Revolution) and the way more or new freedom is attained is to be considered carefully.

Yes our votes count less than they should, this is because lobbyists votes count more than they should. If we have a common enemy it is those evil doers that lobby congress for selfish restrictions on others and not for freedoms for all.

 

Better statement, IMHO, is the Libertarian party...

 

I actually registered as an Interdependent but then really couldn't do much during the caucus. So many good points have been throuwn out on this topic. I feel that the R party does shove these horrid Federal candidate at us. I still can't figure out how McCain ended up on the ticket and Beohner??

I do believe that my vote counts. Many say that it is per-determined but I refuse to accept that. I have a vote thus my vote/voice counts. If I believed that my voice and my vote mattered none then there would be nothing left to fight for.Some say that all politicians are all the same, one is no different from the other, well I believe that some are good, some are really trying. If I believed everyone in DC or anyone that held political office was bad then where is the hope for our country. I choose to be optimistic.

 

Was talking over coffee this morning about this.. Pointed out that if you really want to change d.c., you have to start at home.. clean up your city, county, state politicians.. And elect only worthy people that will represent YOU and your views. When everyone takes that approach that will be when washington starts to change for the better.. Just my opinion...