Skip to main content

I recently added email contact with the Patriot Caucus in Michigan since I had missed a tea bagger bus tour stop in Grand Rapids less than 2 miles from my home.  Just the chance to peruse their signs and get some shots for here was enough to get me to ensure that I would never miss another chance.

I have only gotten 2 emails from the group so far and I really know little about them.  Below the fold I will give you the latest effort by; the group in Hawaii and will clip information from their home page.  

I would appreciate any information anyone has about this group.  Since all this stuff is always astroturfing, who is in charge of this group?  I am sure it is a tangled web since they are practicing to deceive.

Todays fund raising effort follows:

The Patriot Caucus
A message to all members of The Patriot Caucus

Fellow Patriots,

I'm writing to inform you that thanks to your contributions thus far, we were able to solidify a spot as key sponsor for Friday evening's big debate being held in Honolulu.

The debate, hosted by KHVH News Radio 830, is said to be THE premier debate happening in the special election for Obama's hometown Congressional District!

We're also running about $3,000 in radio ads on KHVH, and we're looking to run ads on several other Hawaii stations. Also, we hope to be able to contribute $5,000 directly to the Charles Djou campaign next Monday.

If you haven't done so, please consider contributing and being a part of our special weekend fundraiser for this effort. You can see the fundraiser, watch Charles Djou's Fox appearance, and join the Facebook event page by visiting our special page set up here.

This is what we're about! Let's go take these seats!

For Liberty,
-Eric Odom

P.S. We've raised the first $11,000 of the $20,000 we need to raise for this effort. Your contribution of $5.00, $10,00, $25.00 or $50.00 is a huge help in this campaign!

They identify themselves on their home page as:

Patriot Caucus is a coalition of tea party activists & organizers who believe we have a duty to engage the movement in electoral activism.

This is the text of their Memorial???!!! to the West Virginia Miners.

As we were listening to the memorial broadcast for the 29 coal miners lost in the most recent West Virginia mine accident we were reminded that American men and women go to work every morning and as they check on their sleeping children wonder how they would grow up without their guiding hand should something happen to them on-the-job, especially after 9-11, when even file clerks were on the front lines of a conflict wrongfully brought to our shores.
On this day that we think about those families who have lost a father, brother, cousin or son so the furnaces that make the steel for the Chevys and the Fords can be fired-up, for it is metallurgical coal that they were mining.
We have to wonder about the men that own "the company store" in our country who commute from their ranches in Montana to Wall Street in their private jets so they don't have to be inconvenienced by taking-off their shoes at the airport because of the policies that their servants in Washington, D.C. who created the conditions that we have to endure in our country today. What do those men feel besides the loss of several days production?
Millions of Americans have lost their jobs in the "Great Recession" that we are experiencing as the big corporations are still firing workers to boost their earnings, even as their stock prices are at the highest level since the "market low" in March 2009.

An example of the founders "Thinking".

Three big wins for the movement
By Eric Odom at January 21st, 2010.
Fellow Patriots,

There are three major stories today that represent significant victories for advocates of small government, especially those within the tea party movement. The first is probably the most obvious… the fact that Scott Brown landed a knock out blow in defeating far left candidate Martha Coakley in the MA special election. The second is news that Nancy Pelosi is now suggesting she doesn’t have the votes needed to pass government control of the healthcare industry. Last but not least is news that the Supreme Court struck down legislation that prevented Corporations from practicing free speech through campaign dollars.

I’d like to briefly discuss the three, and then ask for your thoughts and opinions on each.

  1. The Supreme Court Decision on Campaign Dollars and Corporations

If you missed it today, the Supreme Court made a highly controversial ruling that is certain to spark debate across all sides of the political spectrum. The ruling says the following:

The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.

By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority apparently agreed.

This news, in my opinion, is going to cause a split within the movement. Not one of competition, but one of ideology. To put it simply, this ruling will paint a clear divide between small government advocates and those who are OK with federal government intervention when it comes to this sort of free speech activity.

I say this because my inbox has been lit up all day with emails from all sides of the debate. Some claim it presents a significant danger because of corrupt unions and special interest, progressive corporations, other cheer that it finally gets the federal government out of the way of free speech in the election realm.

Personally, I believe this ruling is long over due, and I believe anyone who advocates against it cannot claim to also advocate for smaller federal government.

Either you want the federal government to be involved in this sort of thing or you don’t. We as liberty minded activists need to stop “picking and choosing” where we wish for the fed to intervene. Our argument should be against virtually every intrusion with the exception of the following:

-Protection of borders (Defense)
Regulation of interstate commerce (Keep it “regular”)

The federal government has failed at both. But in my view, this is all the fed needs to be concerned with. Nothing more. Not the regulation of pot plants, not the regulation of speed limits, not education, not national ID cards… not any of it.

These are things the STATES should control. Not the federal government.

Again, you’re either for less federal government or you aren’t.

With regards to free speech in political funding… we might not like that unions can put private dollars into the process. But in a free America, they have every right to do so. The federal government should never, EVER have the authority to come in and tell a private company or individual what it/he/she can and can’t spend money on.

Period.

  1. Did we kill government run healthcare?

A few weeks ago we announced that if Scott Brown won in MA, we believed it would be the death of federal government mandated healthcare. It looks like we were right.

Though reeling from a seismic political loss, House Democrats rejected the quickest fix to their health care dilemma Thursday and signaled that any agreement on President Barack Obama’s signature issue will come slowly, if at all.

Democrats weighed a handful of difficult options as they continued to absorb Republican Scott Brown’s election to the Massachusetts Senate seat long held by Edward M. Kennedy. Several said Obama must forcefully help them find a way to avoid the humiliation of enacting no bill, and they urged him to do so quickly, to put the painful process behind them.

House leaders said they could not pass a Senate-approved bill, standing by itself, because of objections from liberals and moderates alike. Such a move could have settled the matter, because it would not have required further Senate action. Brown’s stunning victory restored the GOP’s power to block bills with Senate filibusters.

This by no means should be viewed as a reason to stop fighting the bill, but it certainly suggests we’re slowly starting to get a competitive edge in the battle to keep government out of our lives.

In fact, I would argue that this is the time to step up our efforts and push back even harder. In this particular case, we certainly want to kick them while they’re down to ensure they can’t get back up.

  1. Scott Brown and what his wins means for us

A lot of you have lashed out at us for helping Scott Brown win in MA. This is understandable as Scott Brown might not be the most libertarian Senator of the bunch, but a lot of you seem to miss the larger point and strategy in doing so.

First of all, we needed a candidate who had a chance. The movement never would have been able to unify behind a candidate that didn’t have a viable chance with enough time to pull off a win.

Kennedy, the independent candidate for the race, never had a chance. He never came anywhere close to having a chance. I know, many of you will say “we could have given him a chance if we wanted to,” but that doesn’t fly with me. We “could have” won many races in the past, but we didn’t. We “could” have won with Doug Hoffman in NY23, but we lost.

We need to be thinking strategically, not just emotionally. As I told the New York Times over the weekend…

“For us, this is not so much about Scott Brown as it is about the idea that if we really collaborate as a mass movement, we can take any seat in the country.”

If we would have tried to support Kennedy in MA, we would have lost. Government healthcare would still be alive, and we would have a much more difficult fight ahead of us in 2010 because we would still need to prove to ourselves what we can accomplish through unity.

But think about it, we defeated the machine in MA. We defeated the liberal pick for Senator. We defeated the winning vote for government healthcare.

That was the goal for us in the MA special election. It wasn’t to get a libertarian elected; Rather, it was to put up a significant roadblock in the progressive plan to push our country further into socialism.

This week our movement was able to stop a super majority, virtually kill government takeover of healthcare, and the supreme court ruled against government blockades of political free speech.

In my opinion, this is Historic.

For Liberty,
-Eric Odom

This is their endorsement list.

Endorsements: Rick Barber for Congress (AL-2), Adam Kinzinger for Congress (IL-11), Marco Rubio for Senate (FL), Pat Toomey for Senate (PA), J.D. Hayworth for Senate (AZ) and Allen West for Congress (FL-22).

Endorsement Coming Soon: Nevada Senate, Nevada CD-3, Arizona CD-1, Arizona CD-5, Arizona CD-8, Colorado CD-4, Idaho CD-1, New York CD-23, Arkansas Senate, Colorado Senate, New Mexico CD-2, Washington CD-3, Arkansas CD-1, Iowa CD-3, Illinois CD-10, Michigan CD-7, Indiana CD-9, Tennessee CD-8, Mississippi CD-1, West Virginia CD-1, Virginia CD-5, Pennsylvania CD-12, New Hampshire CD-1, New Hampshire CD-2 and Georgia CD-12.

Watch List (Considering): South Carolina CD-5, Ohio CD-1, Ohio CD-6, Ohio CD-13, Ohio CD-15, Ohio CD-18, Ohio Senate, Maryland CD-1.


Well, If you have gotten this far and are still coherent, What do you think?

Originally posted to J Edward on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 06:42 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site