West Suburban Patriots

an independent Tea Party group in DuPage County, IL

050716 Statement by Carol Davis, Founder & Coordinator of West Suburban Patriots

As the nation worked it's way through the Presidential Primaries, it became obvious that some in our group either did not know our core principles, or did not believe in and uphold our core principles. This statement was made by Carol Davis at the May 7, 2016 Patriot's Breakfast in order to clarify for everyone what our group stands for, so they could make their decision on whether or not to continue their involvement in our organization.

There is an elephant in the room and we can't ignore it. I ask you to listen respectfully for a few minutes. I believe I have earned that respect because I’ve given up my life for 7 years to nurture and grow this group, and to try to grow the conservative movement. I want to make sure that everyone here knows what we stand for, just in case you've wandered in by accident and mistakenly think this is a meeting of the John Birch Society, Phyllis Schafley's Eagle Forum or the Republican Party. We are NOT any of those.

This is a tea party group. Let there be NO confusion – since our inception, we have stood rock solid on our core principles: fiscal responsibility, Constitutionally-limited government, and free markets. These principles have been clearly stated at our events and on our website since our inception. On our banner here, we've shortened them to Personal Freedom, Economic Freedom and a Debt-Free Future, but those abbreviated words still carry the full measure and meaning of our core principles. Everyone on our leadership team believes in and supports these core principles. Our leadership team would vote to dissolve this organization before we would ever consider wavering on these principles.

Let me elaborate on these principles for a moment.
1. Fiscal Responsibility: Honors and respects the freedom of the individual to spend the money that is the fruit of their own labor. Runaway deficit spending by our government compels us to take action because the increasing national debt is a grave threat to our national sovereignty and the personal and economic liberty of future generations. Overspending propels over-taxation, which turns free people into servants of the state.
2. Constitutionally Limited Government: We regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land, as written and amended by “We the People” – not necessarily as adjudicated and abridged by those in black robes. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states' rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.
3. Free Markets: A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible. Our government's interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore, we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and we oppose government intervention into the operations of private business. The collusion of government and business that now exists in our nation is corporatism and crony-capitalism — it is NOT true free-market capitalism.

The majority of us want public servants who have shown by words and actions that they support our core principles. Some of us have worked very hard the past several years on campaigns for those types of candidates, with mixed success. Beginning last September, we polled our group every month about the Republican Presidential candidates. Every single month, Ted Cruz came out on top in our polling, and in every other tea party poll that we found. But, Cruz did not prevail in the Primaries. Many of us Cruz supporters were disgusted by the tactics that were employed to defeat him. It appears that we have once again ended up with a candidate who was rejected by over 60% of Primary voters. This is not the first time this has happened, and we know it won't be the last. But, to many of us the presumed nominee this time is so flawed that we have a real dilemma: do we completely abandon our morals and principles to pick the "lesser of two evils"? Or do we explore other options, even considering a third party? It is up to each of us to decide what to do in November. (I personally will have to see a come-to-Jesus, struck-by-lightening change in Trump before I can consider him, and I’m not necessarily talking religion, simply some solid morals and principles).


So, where does that leave us? West Suburban Patriots will continue with a laser focus to help good candidates who support our principles. We have no time or energy for people who do not support and believe in our principles. We have no patience for anyone who attempts to browbeat or "guilt" us into supporting flawed candidates. If that has become your agenda, there is no room for that here. We have important work to do on our local and state level, including an even stronger push for a Convention of States. We must castrate and neutralize the Federal government, so that the states can continue to take back their rightful power; so Presidential elections become less consequential; while propelling the states and the Congress to do their job asserting their Constitutionally-mandated authority over the Executive Branch. Take heart — there is great progress being made in the states. In the last several years, due to the efforts of good grassroots activists like us all across the country, we have swept over 1,000 seats away from the Left. In 30 states there are now majority-right leaning legislatures and governors. In these states, they are pushing back against the heavy hand of the Feds and they are succeeding. This is because many of us have walked precincts, made phone calls, donated money — we’ve done much more than sit at our computers and be Facebook jockeys as some people do.

We know exactly what has brought us to this point in history. The Marxist/Progressives have been eating away at our foundations for 100 years. The two-party system has assisted our downfall by doing what George Washington warned us it would do — divided the people and weakened the nation. The Democrat Party forced out all of their patriots and blue-dog democrats and it has become the Communist Party USA. The Republican party has abandoned it's principles and platform and made people so angry that some people have lost their ability to focus on their core values. The Republican Party has become exactly what the Left has been portraying them as for decades: the party of old, rich, white men. The Republican brand has now become so tainted that I personally believe there is no resurrecting it, but that is a discussion for another time.

You may have feedback on what I've said. We don’t have time for a discussion now. Our time here is too valuable. We only have 12 of these meetings each year in which to be informed and educated about the issues that matter. It’s obvious that we have a lot of work to do on information and education. I will post this statement as a blog on our website and our Facebook page. Everyone is encouraged to comment there. Thank you for your respectful attention. Now let's get on with our work.

Views: 469

Comment

You need to be a member of West Suburban Patriots to add comments!

Join West Suburban Patriots

Comment by Paul Minch on May 20, 2016 at 11:39am

Interesting points from the "Time To Get Tough" book is Trump's support of NOPEC, to try to get rid of the OPEC cartel, and aversion of ethanol subsidies.  Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa supports NOPEC, but also supports ethanol subsidies.  This may explains Trump's expression of support for ethanol subsidies in the Iowa Primary.  He could live with ethanol subsidies if it means passing NOPEC.

Thanks!

Comment by Paul Minch on May 20, 2016 at 8:44am

FROM THE PAST:  Not everyone knows that when the first George Bush ran for President after Reagan's second term ended, he considered Donald Trump for Vice President before picking Dan Quayle:

http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/704772

TODAY:  I like to be an informed voter, so I have read almost all of Donald Trump's books (I read "It Takes a Village" by Hillary Clinton too, that was tough).  If I have to pick ONE book of Donald Trump that I would suggest you read, it would be:  "Time To Get Tough" from 2011.  I think you'll see that he has had the same suggestions to Make America Great Again for years.

Thanks!

Comment by Carol D on May 18, 2016 at 3:18pm

My sincere and heartfelt "thank you" to all of you who have called and emailed me since our May 7th meeting, expressing your support. Making that statement was very difficult, because I knew it had the potential of upsetting a few people. But, I also knew it needed to be said for the following reasons:
•We cannot have animosity and turmoil at every meeting for the next 6 months. It had been building since we began the Presidential polling, with a couple of people shouting & complaining that the polling was "rigged". That is ridiculous.
• Divisive meetings could turn off any newcomers to the group. There may be many newcomers as we move toward the November election and people seek information.
• There are good candidates who count on our meetings to meet their constituents, rally support and get their message out to the public. Infighting at our meetings denies those candidates that opportunity.
• The goal of our meetings is to become informed and educated about important issues. We only have 12 Patriot's Breakfasts each year — we can't afford to waste time at a single one.
• The conflict over the Presidential race was potentially a big distraction.
Again, thanks for all the support. Better to move forward with a smaller group (if some choose to leave), than with a big group of people who are not committed to the core principles upon which West Suburban Patriots was founded.

Comment by Carol D on May 15, 2016 at 11:01pm

Thanks for the info and the link, Paul. I will check it out this week. I do like Gingrich's way of thinking outside the box. He's come up with some good solutions in the past and has a proven ability to get things moving in a positive direction. The Contract with America was a great way to hold feet to the fire and it got some things accomplished.

Comment by Paul Minch on May 14, 2016 at 10:01pm

It sounds like trust is a concern. In this article, the Trumps supported Ronald Reagan in 1979, which might not be well known. Maybe that gives him some more credibility.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3077773/Trump-trademarked-s...

We've been burned before. Politicians say one thing, and then do something else once they get in office. If only they put out a Contract With America, so it would be harder to go back on their word. We had a Contract With America once before, with Newt Gingrich. That's why I hope he is the running mate chosen.

Please let me know your opinion on whether that helps with the trust concern.

Thanks!

Comment by Carol D on May 12, 2016 at 5:17pm

I can't speak for Ted Cruz. I don't know why he chose not to go on the attack against opponents, but chose to try to focus on an issues-based campaign instead. Unfortunately for him, his strategy couldn't be implemented due to the circus that the Primary was turned into.

I can speak for myself: I'm one of those wonks who actually LIKE campaigns in which the candidates focus on discussing and debating the issues. In the course of those debates, "personal stuff" may inevitably pop up, i.e. support of our military and overseas personnel vs. Hillary's treatment of the Americans in Benghazi. Then it becomes fair game for discussion.

It appears that a great majority of the general populace (present company excluded, of course!) has become too "dumbed down" to care about the critical issues that are destroying this once-great nation. They evidently prefer "bread and circuses" more. It is what it is. It's very possible that it's too late to turn that attitude around, but for many people who call themselves Conservatives, they seem to be determined to keep trying.

Thanks Paul.

Comment by Paul Minch on May 12, 2016 at 8:12am

Since there are so many Ted Cruz supporters in the West Suburban Patriots, maybe you can answer my question:  Why in the world did Ted Cruz say that if he won the nomination, he would concentrate on the issues only when debating and running his campaign against Hillary?  He wouldn't get into any personal stuff.

Isn't that what McCain and Romney did in their campaigns?  As I have heard others say, isn't that like acting like you're in a boxing match when your opponent is treating it like a street fight?  Why would you repeat the mistakes of the past, in my opinion?  We kicked this idea around after the Meeting on Saturday too.

Thanks!

Comment by Paul Minch on May 12, 2016 at 7:08am

That's sad - some people irritated some other people, so they left the group.

Comment by Carol D on May 11, 2016 at 12:31pm

Thanks for your feedback, Paul. This blog spot is where we have time for discussion — not during our once-per-month meetings during which we have a very limited amount of time, (ESPECIALLY when we have a guest speaker waiting, whom we've invited to speak and who sacrificed his Saturday morning to be with us). It would have been very rude and inconsiderate toward our other speakers to have launched a free-for-all discussion at that time. And please, let's not hear any of the whining about "that's not fair!"— that's the kind of claptrap we consistently hear from the Left. Real conservatives know that "life ain't fair" and we just get over it and move on with our lives. As I said at the meeting, I've earned this bully pulpit. When others have sacrificed what I've sacrificed for the past 7-8 years and built a group with 750+ members, then they will have earned the right to get up to the microphone and voice their opinions as I did on Saturday. I have always welcomed feedback, suggestions and rebuttal. That is why I do not "run" this group — I "lead" it. There is a HUGE difference between those two things. That's why this group has a leadership team whose input I value and why I sought their approval of and feedback on that statement before I gave it on Saturday. That statement had the backing of our leadership team.

This is not about Ted Cruz, nor is it about Gerry Schilling, nor any of the other Trump supporters, nor about me. I never made it about that — Gerry chose to make it about that by putting the spotlight on himself by storming out during our meeting. If he had been considerate as I asked, he would have listened politely. But, sadly, I fully expected that might happen. Most Trump supporters are great people and wonderful friends. A few however, have allowed their obsession with seeing Trump as Messiah to turn them into mean, angry stalkers, whose attitude seems to be, "I will FORCE YOU  to LOVE  Trump as much as I love Trump, or else"! That is NOT the way to win converts to support your candidate. In fact, one of the factors that compelled my statement was I had been contacted by three different long-time members of our group shortly after Trump was declared the candidate. These long-time members contacted me to say, "Goodbye". They were giving up and would no longer be part of WSP because the selection of Trump was so abhorrent to them. They felt they had wasted years of trying to instill a love of liberty and a love of our principles into the culture. One woman specifically told me that she could not face coming to our meetings and being subjected to "that loud group of Trump supporters browbeating me for the next six months". So, THAT is what I, as the leader, was faced with.

As I tried to emphasize in my statement, I was speaking for the MAJORITY of our group, who had been polled for months and months and consistently supported a candidate other than Trump. That does not mean that some of them haven't become or won't become Trump supporters. As far as I'm concerned, there were several viable and worthy candidates throughout the Primary process, and for a very long time I kept a very open mind about all of them, but NOT ONE OF THEM is a Messiah or a silver bullet who could single-handedly resolve the issues in our nation. I was simply giving voice to what the MAJORITY of our group have TOLD ME. As the leader of this group, it is my role to try to find the CONSENSUS and build cohesion in the group. United we stand, divided we fall. This does NOT mean that we all must be FORCED into supporting the same candidates!!! We have never been monolithic like that, BUT we have been laser-focused on our principles. THAT was the entire point of that statement. Sadly, a few very sensitive Trump supporters chose to take it personally. IT IS NOT ABOUT YOU (Trump supporters) — it's about our group and the health of the group going forward. We have a LOT of REAL WORK to do, and these kinds of distractions are energy-sapping and pointless.

My personal opinion: I think there is a big difference between what Trump claims he will do, and what we can realistically expect him to be able to actually accomplish. We've been though almost eight years of a POTUS who thinks he's all-powerful. Do we need 4-8 more years of that? Plus, for me, it's a matter of trust. I do not trust him. The ONLY person who can convince me that Trump is trustworthy, is Trump. We'll see how he does at that. Browbeating me is not going to help. How about compellingly arguing for his issues and principles? I have yet to have a Trump supporter take that approach with me. Instead, they harass me, insult me, accuse me of being a traitor, etc.

Paul, thank you for always being open, kind and a voice of reason in these tumultuous times.

Comment by Paul Minch on May 10, 2016 at 7:53pm

I'm confused. It says everyone is encouraged to comment, but it says we don't have time for a discussion now.

I love to debate.

My question is:  What are the things that Ted Cruz would have done if he became the POTUS that is different from what Donald Trump has said he wants to do? I didn't think there was much of a difference on what they are proposing to do. We kicked this question around after the Meeting on Saturday.

I'm encouraged to hear that Trump has the right message, but confused about him being the wrong messenger.  I love analogies.  If I order a book from Amazon.com, do I stay home from work to see who delivers the book? If he has a pink Mohawk, and I don't like his hair, do I return the book that I was really eager to read because I don't like the messenger? Our current POTUS really knows how to deliver a speech beautifully (so people say), but if you don't agree with the message, doesn't the messenger not even matter?

Thanks!

© 2017   Created by Carol D.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service