View this page "Draft Statement of Principles"

[Edward Grund]

I took the liberty, with my first try at using Google Groups, to
create a page containing my start at a list of principles (only
three), in hope that it will kick off input and discussion by
others. I am a novice at it, and anyone can fumble with using it as
well as I, help yourself!

Click on http://groups.google.com/group/gop_principles/web/draft-statement-of-principles?hl=en
- or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't
work.

[steveo...@gmail.com]

Sorry that I have been off the radar in terms of involvement in the
Stow Republican committee lately...things have been busy at the
O'Riorden houshold.

My 2 cents...If this is supposed to be the statement of principles for
the Stow Republican Committee I think it is a bit harsh, overreaching
and perhaps slightly less "inviting" that one might want a statement
of principles for a town committee to be. While I do not disagree
with any of the principles, I would have to ask, what is the purpose
of drafting such a statement? If it is to define what this group is,
who it is comprised of and what is our purpose, I think it should be
less arresting. If I'm a prospective member reading this, I'm
thinking, "This does not sound like a welcoming, or fun group of
people." Not that this organization should be a comedy troup, but if
we want to be a grassroots organization that encourages new members
then the statement of principles needs to be something less arresting
than statements about Abortion and War. How about something along the
lines of "we are a group that fosters the development and promotion of
conservative values. We endeavor to assist local political candidates
who are part of the party to win elections. We endeavor to grow our
organization by obtaining new members of the community whose values
align with those of our organization while at the same time bring a
diverse set of ideas from which we can improve upon our existing
goals." This is just off the cuff and not thoroughly thought out, but
if the GOP in this state wants to expand (which is really the only
direction it can go expect to become extinct) then it has to become
something young people will want to participate in, without
sacraficing copre values, of course. I have many more ideas and will
be glad to converse with anyof you one-on-one or in this public forum.

Steve

[RossP]

If the Republican Party wants to attract more members and not just
debate outdated issues amongst a dwindling number of members, it
needs to break from it's worn out conservative views.

The republic party should deal with economic issues.

- We believe in individual responsibility
- We believe in not spending more than the tax base can support.
- We believe in not raising, or minimizing tax increases.
- We believe the government should limit it's activities to providing
services that can not reasonably be provided by individual citizens
and private corporations.
- We believe "less government" is better than "More government"
- We believe the government should not be involved in - nor restrict
our personal lives.

[kathy...@yahoo.com]

A great idea, Mr. Grund. If we all keep fumbling, and thinking, we
should be able to come up with a relevant, important statement of
principles.

[Ed]

Thanks top Steve O. and Ross P., we've added to our list of Stow
Republican Town Committee principles.

[Ed]

Steve,
Thank you for you input. I did my bet]st to edit the draft Principles
to reflect them. Please play with it as you like and feel free to add
any other discussions. If you have any pictures that may dress up
banner better than Teddy Bear, please send. ed

On Jul 8, 2:29 pm, "SteveORior...@gmail.com" <steveorior...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[Michael Matatia]

I am unable to access this.

-michael

[Craig]

I would add these points:

- We believe in the constitution and the need for all our politicians
to uphold it as per their oath of office.
- We believe in states rights over federal laws (ie. Only
constitutional issues override states jurisdiction).
- We believe in personal rights and freedoms for which "congress shall
pass no laws against...".
- Taxation is for the funding of government only, not for the
redistribution of wealth.
- We believe in term limits so that we will have politicians who
understand normal working life.
- We believe in the line item veto to be able to cut out pork barrel
spending.

I would modify your points as:

2. We believe that killing a baby in the womb is immoral and should be
illegal and we hold doctors to their oath "to do no harm". However, in
the course of trying to save a mother's life, even as effort is
expended to also save a fetus' life, it may happen that the fetus'
life is lost, which is the baby's fate placed in God's hands.

3. We believe the United States should not initiate combat against any
country or group, unless reasonable proof of imminent deadly attack
against us has been presented to Congress and we declare war. We note
that if a threat to the United States exists (both foreign or
domestic), the president is bound by oath of office to protect us in
any way suitable to counter that threat.

7. We believe it is unjust to use any preferences in employment,
education, and other pursuits except those based on merit in the
public sector. In the private sector, education to this principle is
preferable but we realize that private pursuits sink or swim based on
their own personal choices with their own freedoms allowed for (see
6)!

8. We believe that federal government should confine itself to the
responsibilities outlined in the constitution only!

[Ed]

Craig, Ross, Steve,
I edited your great inputs to our principles, to fit into a concise
list without changing meaning. Let me know what I shoul change.
Hopefully, the list will be good enough after discussion at our next
meeting so that we can open up the group to other Town or City
Committees, to speak from a broader consensus.
Thanks again.

[Kathy Olohan]

So, in other words, Stow Republicans are not going to take a stand against abortion or deviant homosexual behavior.  Are these the outdated issues to which Ross Perry refers?  If Republicans don't stand for Life, they stand for nothing. --- On Sun, 8/2/09, Ed <qua...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Craig Schomp]

> So, in other words, Stow Republicans are not going to take a stand
against abortion or deviant homosexual behavior.

I would also count myself in the group of standing for something, even
if I "lost". That is true for the ideas in the constitution and its true
on valuing life issues. Our problem is simply that we don't have a
leader good enough to spread the message well, Dems are out-marketing
our message (with the help of the media of course) and we need to focus
on turning that around.

--
Craig Schomp
Yahoo IM: craigschomp

[Stephen ORiorden]

Who said Stow Republicans are not going to take a stand on abortion?  Am I missing something or does the latest draft still include the statement against killing babies as item # 2?

 

I think the point I was trying to make and that Ross was trying to make is that the conservative message can be repackaged in a more marketable way.  If done correctly, it can win favor among some independents and gain the party some respect within the community.  Giving up on principles is no way to gain respect, but at the same time, careful consideration has to be given to marketing.  Look at our idiot president, he's was marketed all the way from obscurity to the Oval Office. 

 

We have to think about what our overall purpose is as a party and I for one think it is not to be some fringe group with hardcore views (not that we are), but a group that can win elections and maybe slowly convince more of the population that ours' is the right point of view.  There are a lot of groups that "stand for something" and don't care about losing.  Nazis, Black Panthers.  But they don't win public opinion and actually harm their cause by appearing out of touch and unreasonable.  They don't market themselves well.

 

With this current administration making an absolute mess of everything it touches - from broken campaign promises (see links below) to Cash for Clunkers - now is the time for Conservatives to repackages themselves and their ideals.  If we can't capitalize on the current situation to win favor among the voting public, then God help the Party.

 

And when I refer to marketing and repackaging, I mean things like instead of saying "killing babies in the womb" you can say "abortion".  Instead of talking about "deviant sexual behavior" you can say "we support traditional marriage and family values".  Little nuances like this soften the message and might not turn off a prospective "customer".  All the while appeasing the existing "customers".

 

Oh, and one more thing, I don't believe we should support term limits because we have term limits already.  We call it elections.  If the people are too stupid to change their Representatives when necessary it is our own damn fault.

 

Steve

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/08/geithner-wont-rule-out-new-taxes-for-middle-class.html

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8erePM8V5U

[Ed]

Kathy,
The statement on abortion below from the Principles must be unclear,
because it was intended to say that abotion should be illegal, and
when the life of the mother is endangerd, medical treatments to save
her should weigh the life of the baby equally to the mother's.

"We believe killing a baby in the womb is immoral and should be
illegal. However, in trying to save the lives of a mother and a baby
in her womb, the baby
may die, which is the baby's fate placed in God's hands".

I will try to clarify the staement. Pls let me know if it is
clearer.
ed

On Aug 2, 8:00 pm, Kathy Olohan <kathyolo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So, in other words, Stow Republicans are not going to take a stand against abortion or deviant homosexual behavior.  Are these the outdated issues to which Ross Perry refers? 
> If Republicans don't stand for Life, they stand for nothing.
>

> --- On Sun, 8/2/09, Ed <quam...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> From: Ed <quam...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Discussion on draft-statement-of-principles
> To: "GOP_principles" <gop_pri...@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Sunday, August 2, 2009, 5:57 PM
>
> Craig, Ross, Steve,
> I edited your great inputs to our principles, to fit into a concise
> list without changing meaning.  Let me know what I shoul change.
> Hopefully, the list will be good enough after discussion at our next
> meeting so that we can open up the group to other Town or City
> Committees, to speak from a broader consensus.
> Thanks again.
>
> On Jul 8, 2:58 pm, RossP <er...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > If the Republican Party wants to attract more members and not just
> > debate outdated issues amongst a  dwindling number of members, it
> > needs to break from it's worn out conservative views.
>
> > The republic party should deal with economic issues.
>
> > - We believe in individual responsibility
> > - We believe in not spending more than the tax base can support.
> > - We believe in not raising, or minimizing tax increases.
> > - We believe the government should limit it's activities to providing
> > services that can not reasonably be provided by individual citizens
> > and private corporations.
> > - We believe "less government" is better than "More government"
> > - We believe the government should not be involved in - nor restrict

> > our personal lives.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Ed]

Steve,
Thanks for joining in the discussion. Speaking for myself, my
understanding from the meeting was that the Statement of Principles
was to express the principles we stand for in writing, the result of
an interactive give and take of ideas - something that perhaps none of
us can agree with entirely, but reflects a consensus that the majority
of us can sign up to. Based on the tenor of the discussion, it was
not to be an advertisement for new members, but an melting pot of
strongly held individual convictions, reached through compromise.
Anyone agree, disagee?

ed

On Jul 8, 2:29 pm, "SteveORior...@gmail.com" <steveorior...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[Kathy Olohan]

I agree.  I think the 2008 Republican Party Platform is a good reference point.  Probably not every single Republican agrees with every point therein, but it's a good working document of Republican thought; i.e., if you identify with most of these principles, you are a Republican!   I worry about watering our message in an attempt to attract members.

--- On Sat, 8/8/09, Ed <qua...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Ed <qua...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Discussion on draft-statement-of-principles To: "GOP_principles" <gop_pri...@googlegroups.com>

[Stephen ORiorden]

Has anyone read through H.R.3200?  I would like to know if anyone has any information on upcoming town hall meetings with our representatives.  We should all be attending these meetings to show our representatives who they report to and what we think about this.  These town hall meetings are what I consider the most real form of government.  Patriots need to keep attending for this and other issues and let our representatives know that they are just that - representatives.  In case you are interested in the health care bill, please see some research that I have been doing below that will effect families with young children.

 

Section 1904 details visitation for families expecting or with young children, and here is what it says.  States will have to apply for grants to receive funding (i.e. if you don't do the visitation program, you don't get the money).  The bill references a "voluntary visitation program", but it is not clear if it is the states who can volunteer for the funding or families that need to volunteer for the visitation.  I guess we'll define voluntary after the fact, as in "it's voluntary or you can opt out and pay a fee".
 
One of the items it says the program must include is "modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices".  I don't know about you all, but I don't want some 24 year old, kidless, bureaucrat reciting parent tips from some government issued manifesto.  People need to know what is in this bill.  This is an indoctrination of the population.  The intrusion into our lives is unprecedented and if it passes, someone (maybe me) should fight this in the Supreme Court because the little I have read sure sounds unconstitutional.
 
If you're interested, here is a link to the text online.  http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text, section 1904 is the section on visitation.

 

Steve

[Ed]

Steve,
I read H.R. 3200 - not every word, because it is possible to
understand what many parts convey without reading the details. I
found much that is abhorrant - too much to include in a short email.
I'll try to compose and email a list of talking points.

Are you aware of any upcoming town hall meetings in our area? I found
a list of Niki Tsongas meetings after it was too late to attend them.

ed

> If you're interested, here is a link to the text online.http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text, section 1904 is the section

> on visitation.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Kathy Olohan <kathyolo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >   I agree.  I think the 2008 Republican Party Platform is a good reference
> > point.  Probably not every single Republican agrees with every point
> > therein, but it's a good working document of Republican thought; i.e., if
> > you identify with most of these principles, you are a Republican!   I worry
> > about watering our message in an attempt to attract members.
>

> > --- On *Sat, 8/8/09, Ed <quam...@gmail.com>* wrote:

>
> > From: Ed <quam...@gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: Discussion on draft-statement-of-principles
> > To: "GOP_principles" <gop_pri...@googlegroups.com>
> > Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 7:58 PM
>
> > Steve,
> > Thanks for joining in the discussion.  Speaking for myself, my
> > understanding from the meeting was that the Statement of Principles
> > was to express the principles we stand for in writing, the result of
> > an interactive give and take of ideas - something that perhaps none of
> > us can agree with entirely, but reflects a consensus that the majority
> > of us can sign up to.  Based on the tenor of the discussion,  it was
> > not to be an advertisement for new members, but an melting pot of
> > strongly held individual convictions, reached through compromise.
> > Anyone agree, disagee?
> > ed
>

> > On Jul 8, 2:29 pm, "SteveORior...@gmail.com<http://us.mc318g.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=SteveORior...@gmail.com>"
> > <steveorior...@gmail.com<http://us.mc318g.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=steveorior...@gmail.com>

> > > Steve- Hide quoted text -

[Ed]

Steve,
I have seen many scary things in 3200. I sent the article below, on
one of them, to Fox News. I am also tying to document others.
________________
The Houses entry in the health care over hall legislation contains
provisions for organizations called “entities” to provide community
outreach in enrolling people in the new plan and informing them of its
features. Critics believe that this provision of the House Bill is
designed to enable funding of political advocacy organizations,
similar to ACORN, to provide jobs for Democratic campaign workers and
political machine operatives. It contains open ended wording that a
partisan, Democrat dominated Congress can exploit to advantage in the
battle of ideas leading up to the 2010 elections. Many consider this
as just another byproduct of the power hungry self interest that sours
the dialogue on meaningful health care cost reduction.

On Aug 12, 3:12 pm, Stephen ORiorden <steveorior...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you're interested, here is a link to the text online.http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text, section 1904 is the section

> on visitation.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Kathy Olohan <kathyolo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >   I agree.  I think the 2008 Republican Party Platform is a good reference
> > point.  Probably not every single Republican agrees with every point
> > therein, but it's a good working document of Republican thought; i.e., if
> > you identify with most of these principles, you are a Republican!   I worry
> > about watering our message in an attempt to attract members.
>

> > --- On *Sat, 8/8/09, Ed <quam...@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> > From: Ed <quam...@gmail.com>

> > Subject: Re: Discussion on draft-statement-of-principles
> > To: "GOP_principles" <gop_pri...@googlegroups.com>
> > Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 7:58 PM
>
> > Steve,
> > Thanks for joining in the discussion.  Speaking for myself, my
> > understanding from the meeting was that the Statement of Principles
> > was to express the principles we stand for in writing, the result of
> > an interactive give and take of ideas - something that perhaps none of
> > us can agree with entirely, but reflects a consensus that the majority
> > of us can sign up to.  Based on the tenor of the discussion,  it was
> > not to be an advertisement for new members, but an melting pot of
> > strongly held individual convictions, reached through compromise.
> > Anyone agree, disagee?
> > ed
>

> > On Jul 8, 2:29 pm, "SteveORior...@gmail.com<http://us.mc318g.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=SteveORior...@gmail.com>"
> > <steveorior...@gmail.com<http://us.mc318g.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=steveorior...@gmail.com>
>

[Stephen ORiorden]

I've been trying to think of the best way and most effective way to oppose this bill.  I'm not sure, but I think we should all write letters and/or emails to our representatives.  I would be glad to provide a template.

[Ed]

Steve,
A fellow blogger, MINDTINKER, at the Washington Times site provided
the findings below, which may help with your research on Obama's
horrendous bill:

Sec. 152, Pg. 50-51 - HC will be provided to ALL NON-US
citizens. . . . . Sec. 163, Pg. 59, Lines 21-24 - Government will have
direct access to your bank accounts for electronic funds
transfer. . . . . Sec. 201, Pg. 72, Lines 8-14 - Government is
creating an HC Exchange to bring private plans under government
control. . . . Sec. 205, Pg. 95, Lines 8-18 - The government will use
groups (i.e., ACORN & AmeriCorps) to “inform and educate” (sign up)
individuals for government plan. . . . Sec. 223, Pg. 124, Lines 24-25
- No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No
“administrative or judicial review” against a government
monopoly. . . . Sec. 312, Pg. 145, Lines 15-17 - Employers MUST auto-
enroll employees into public option plan. . . . Sec. 313, Pg. 150,
Lines 9-13 - Businesses with payroll between $251,000 and $400,000 who
do not provide public option pay 2-6% tax on all payroll. . . . . Sec.
401.59B, Pg. 167, Lines 18-23 - ANY individual who does not have
acceptable care, according to government, will be taxed 2.5% of
income. . . . Sec. 59B, Pg. 170, Line 1 - Any NONRESIDENT alien is
exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay for their health
care.) . . . Sec. 441, Pg. 203, Lines 14-15 - “The tax imposed under
this section shall not be treated as tax.” Yes, it says that. . . .
Sec. 1151, Pg. 280 - The government will penalize hospitals for what
government deems preventable readmissions (incentives for hospital to
not treat and release). . . . Sec. 1162, Pg. 341, Lines 3-9 - The
government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans (Part
B), HMOs, etc. This will force people into a government plan. . . .
Sec. 1177, Pg. 354 - Government will RESTRICT enrollment of special
needs people! “Extension of Authority of Special Needs Plans to
Restrict Enrollment.” . . . Sec. 1233, Pg. 425, Lines 4-12 -
Government mandates Advance (Death) Care Planning consultation. Think
Senior Citizens and end of life. . . . Sec. 1714, Pg. 769 - Federal
government mandates eligibility for State Family Planning Services.
Abortion and government control intertwined. . . . Sec.1751, Pg. 800 -
The government will decide which Health Care conditions will be paid.
Say “RATION!” . . . and more . . . . http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=19319

Also, read what his chief health advisor, Ezekiel Emanuel (yes, Rahm's
brother) thinks should be implemented (his ideas appear within the
proposed health care plan HR3200). . . . .http://www.lancet.com/
journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2809%2960137-9/
fulltext . . . .He calls it "Complete Lives" healthcare system, but
read it and you will see that life, in his mind is "complete” after
about forty years of age and does not fully begin until about fourteen
years of age; therefore, ages 14 - 45 get preferential consideration
in healthcare decisions.

The following are added findings of my own: The Bill is a
bureaucratic nightmare, creating 12 new agencies, committees, and
commissions, 4 new Trust Funds (think Social Security Trust Fund), and
20 new big spending programs, and will add to our health care
problems. Also, Sec. 113, page 21, encourages age discrimination and
permits the elderly to pay twice the premiums of the young. May I use
your findings, in my blogging and emails to the media?

On Aug 12, 3:12 pm, Stephen ORiorden <steveorior...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you're interested, here is a link to the text online.http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text, section 1904 is the section

> on visitation.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Kathy Olohan <kathyolo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >   I agree.  I think the 2008 Republican Party Platform is a good reference
> > point.  Probably not every single Republican agrees with every point
> > therein, but it's a good working document of Republican thought; i.e., if
> > you identify with most of these principles, you are a Republican!   I worry
> > about watering our message in an attempt to attract members.
>

> > --- On *Sat, 8/8/09, Ed <quam...@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> > From: Ed <quam...@gmail.com>

> > Subject: Re: Discussion on draft-statement-of-principles
> > To: "GOP_principles" <gop_pri...@googlegroups.com>
> > Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 7:58 PM
>
> > Steve,
> > Thanks for joining in the discussion.  Speaking for myself, my
> > understanding from the meeting was that the Statement of Principles
> > was to express the principles we stand for in writing, the result of
> > an interactive give and take of ideas - something that perhaps none of
> > us can agree with entirely, but reflects a consensus that the majority
> > of us can sign up to.  Based on the tenor of the discussion,  it was
> > not to be an advertisement for new members, but an melting pot of
> > strongly held individual convictions, reached through compromise.
> > Anyone agree, disagee?
> > ed
>

> > On Jul 8, 2:29 pm, "SteveORior...@gmail.com<http://us.mc318g.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=SteveORior...@gmail.com>"
> > <steveorior...@gmail.com<http://us.mc318g.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=steveorior...@gmail.com>
>

[Stephen ORiorden]

Wow.  That is a lot to take in.  Please feel free to use any of my comments in your blog and send along the URL so I can take a look at your blog.

I knew Ezekiel had some far out ideas, but I had no clue he was that much of a wacko.  Isn't he over 40 himself?  He must be just another self loathing liberal.