St. Louis Area Tea Party for Trump August 28 at 4:00 at Surdyke Harley-Davidson in Festus
St. Louis Tea Party Co-founders Reunite to Take White House
St. Louis, MO, August 16, 2016: Four St. Louis area Tea Party leaders who launched the local tea party movement announced a Tea Party for Trump Rally scheduled for 4:00 p.m. Sunday, August 28, 2016, at Surdyke Harley-Davidson, 2435 Highway 67 South in Festus, Missouri.
Ed Martin Jr., Michelle Moore, Bill Hennessy, and the world famous Gateway Pundit, Jim Hoft—all original St. Louis Tea Party co-founders—have joined the nationwide Tea Party for Trump team along with Dr. Gina Loudon and John Loudon. The Festus rally will kick off St. Louis area tea party activities to provide grassroots support for Donald Trump in key battleground states and their home states. Among confirmed speakers is Jamie Allman of the number one morning radio show in St. Louis Allman in the Morning on KFTK 97.1 FM and The Allman Report on ABC KDNL 30.
“Preventing Hillary Clinton from choosing Antonin Scalia’s replacement on the Supreme Court should be all the motivation any Tea Partier needs to work hard for Donald Trump,” said Hennessy. “This is a no-brainer.”
Asked about the location of the event, Hennessy said, “Tim Surdyke is a dedicated patriot, and Jefferson County is a perfect location for a Trump rally.”
Like past tea party rallies, plans for the Tea Party for Trump on August 28 include a roster of local activist speakers, music, and sign-ups for volunteers. Organizers will contact Tea Party leaders across Missouri and southern Illinois to fill out the roster of speakers. The group has also contacted recording artist Kid Rock with a quirky pitch to entice the hip-hop and rock star to speak or perform at the rally. (Kid Rock has not yet responded.)
Tea Party for Trump’s goal is to provide the teams for phone banks and door-to-door operations. The project will work with other organizations and their strategies in each state.
Tea Party for Trump will begin with Ohio, a state ripe for Trump’s picking, and add additional battleground states as funding and time permit.
It’s time. Everybody’s onboard. Now, we need you at the Tea Party for Trump, Sunday, August 28 at 4;00 p.m. at Surdyke Harley Davidson in Festus, MO. (Hey, hey, hey—it’s only 20 minutes from South County.) And the band is getting back together (mostly). Expect many simultaneous Tea Party for Trump events across the country.
Ed Martin, Michelle Moore,Dr. Gina Loudon, and the world famous Gateway Pundit, Jim Hoft, are founding members of the nationwide Tea Party for Trump. And I am one of Tea Party for Trump’s national spokespersons. (I know, but they couldn’t afford union rates.)
We are committed to raising ground troops to knock doors and make calls in key battleground states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and wherever we can make a difference.
(The South County Republican Club Picnic, originally scheduled for the same time, has been postponed. Again, I apologize for stepping on that event.)
The Festus Tea Party for Trump will energize support in the St. Louis area. But we need volunteers at the event. If you can help, please fill out the brief form below. We will get in touch.
This is coming together fast, so accept my apology if I left something out. It’s going to be okay. We will not let Hillary Clinton pick Antonin Scalia’s replacement. We will not let Crooked Hillary eliminate the Hyde Amendment. And we will not debate anyone about the merits of the Republican nominee.
We are the people who powered the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 2010.
We are the people who propelled Republicans to take over the Senate in 2014.
We are here to take the White House in 2016.
It’s as simple as that. Check out the Tea Party for Trump Founding Members board. It’s a who’s who of original Tea Party organizers from February 2009. In addition to our St. Louis all-starts, there’s Michael Patrick Leahy, Christina Botteri, Lloyd Markus, Eric Olsen, Tom Zawistowski, and more.
On a recent conference call, a senior executive with the NRA said, “I’ve worked alongside the Tea Party, and I’ve worked against the Tea Party. I can tell you, I don’t have any desire work against you folks again.
And that’s from one of our friends! Imagine how the other side must feel.
We’re gonna do this, folks. We’re gonna do this.
And we’re going to start with this call for volunteers to help at the Tea Party for Trump at Surdyke Harley on August 28 at 4:00 p.m. No excuses.
It is expected that the last two month’s of this fiscal year, interest costs will increase another $45 to $66 Billion. The total FY16 interest cost may be between $426 and $447 Billion.
In FY11, the Treasury paid creditors a record $454,393,280,417.03. (That’s $454 Billion)
With the debt at $19.4 Trillion (that’s 19,400 billions of dollars) what do you suppose the interest costs to the Treasury will be when the annual interest rate returns to normal? (Normal would be 4% to 6%)
In fiscal year 2015, the federal budget was $3.8 trillion. Of that amount only $1.11 Trillion was spent on what budgeters call discretionary items; food and agriculture, transportation, social security & unemployment & labor, science, energy & environment, international affairs, housing & community, veteran’s benefits, Medicare & health, education, government, and military.
The other $2.69 Trillion was spent on interest and what budgeters call mandatory items; spending on programs that are required by existing law. Medicare and Social Security are the two largest mandatory spending programs. They are about 40 percent of the federal budget. Agriculture, Defense, Education, and Veterans Affairs, also require mandatory spending.
As interest costs increase, either discretionary spending decreases or the annual deficit increases. Mandatory spending is unaffected unless Congress changes the law. Those mandatory checks always go out.
So, when interest goes from $426 Billion per year to $600 Billion per year, $174 Billion in programs that serve you and your neighbors must be cut. Or, Congress can increase the money supply to continue paying for the programs, which, as you would expect, will lower the purchasing power of your paycheck.
Of course, we could vote in new leadership and change the trajectory of government expenditures. But, for most of you, that’s way too scary.
France’s population had changed considerably since 1614. The non-aristocratic members of the Third Estate now represented 98 percent of the people but could still be outvoted by the other two bodies. In the lead-up to the May 5 meeting, the Third Estate began to mobilize support for equal representation and the abolishment of the noble veto–in other words, they wanted voting by head and not by status. While all of the orders shared a common desire for fiscal and judicial reform as well as a more representative form of government, the nobles in particular were loath to give up the privileges they enjoyed under the traditional system. —History.com
This is about special years where the old rules don’t matter.
Most of the time, the Republican establishment’s views line up well with grassroots conservatives. Both teams oppose federal regulation and meddling in business. Both teams favor lower taxes. Both teams hold favorable views of business, especially of entrepreneurs. On social issues, the sides sometimes clash, but those are minor squabbles. And the establishment always win. Except when everything bursts like a piñata at a birthday party.
Behind the scenes, the establishment thwarts innovation and uses regulation and enforcement to destroy disruptive competitors. But people don’t see this happening, so they don’t worry about it. And if the people believe today is pretty good and tomorrow will be even better, what’s a little shadiness hurt? Until things rupture like a birthday piñata.
Once in a while, though, the stars align crooked. When things seem to be going badly, the people demand change. When the people see their interests—jobs, income, savings, safety, education, kids—at risk, they become risk seekers. When today seems bad and tomorrow looks worse, we become far more willing to gamble and to take matters into our own hands. Trust in institutions plummets like candy from a piñata on your birthday.
When facing a certain loss, people become risk-seeking. Try it yourself. Say you take your car in for routine maintenance, and your trusty mechanic tells you your transmission has a problem. He says, “I can fix it now for $1,000. If it fails completely, you’ll need a new transmission at about $4,000.”
You ask, “what are the chances it will fail completely if I don’t get it fixed now?”
“About 85 percent over the next four years according to the diagnostics report.”
So here’s your situation: Would you prefer to lose $1,000 for sure, or take an 85 percent chance of losing $4,000 and 15 percent chance of losing $0?
Most people will take their chances. It’s an irrational decision, but it’s what most people do. When facing a certain loss, people seek risk.
When people think their state and their country are on the right track, they become risk averse. We can test this the same way.
You find an old coin in a drawer and take it to a coin dealer. He tells you he’ll pay $1,000 today for the coin, but there’s an 85 percent chance that the coin will be worth $4,000 in four years. Of course, there’s a 15 percent chance that the coin could be worth nothing four years from now.
If enough people take this poll, most people will gamble when facing loss and will take the sure thing when facing a certain gain.
Now, let’s look at Right Track/Wrong Polling. You probably know that about 71 percent of Americans think the country is on the wrong track. You can probably guess that Missourians feel our state is also on the wrong track. People feel we’re on the wrong track because they face diminishing wages, fewer job prospects, zero raises, diminishing savings, increasing crime, and constant terrorism threats.
In other words, the vast majority of Americans are facing a certain loss if things keep going the way they are. In the 1990s, when Bill Clinton was president, things were going well and people expected things to get better. Then, we were facing a certain gain.
In 1997 we learned the President had sex with an intern in the Oval Office, his wife blamed a vast right-wing conspiracy, and Bill Clinton lied repeatedly under oath about the affair. Yet the American people opposed his impeachment. Sure, they told pollsters they opposed impeachment because sex is a private matter, not a national concern. But any psychologist will tell you the real reason was risk aversion. If tomorrow’s likely to be better today, why would you take the chance of making it worse?
In the 1990s, people were risk averse. We avoided disruptions that could derail our right-track future. Now, though, we’re risk-seeking. We’re willing to take a chance with massive changes because doing nothing will make our lives worse day by day. We all know that.
Great Expectations = Great Disappointments
My favorite historians and my favorite psychologists agree on this: people believe the future will be a linear progression of the recent past. When we feel better off today than we did six months ago, we believe we’ll feel even better six months from now. But if we feel worse off today than six months ago, we assume we’ll be in worse shape six months later.
Most of the time this strategy works. The problem is that eventually that trend line breaks. And we have no idea when that will happen or why. A financial collapse, a terrorist attack, a criminal indictment of the Democratic candidate for president. Anything can snap a winning streak. Anything at all.
Look at that Gallup chart above. When Drudge first introduced us to Monica Lewinsky, satisfaction with America’s direction was in the high 40s. It had been rising steadily since 1992. From that perspective, the risk of deposing a president seemed ridiculous–like turning down a sure $1,000 for the chance of turning it into $4,000 in four years.
Beginning with 9/11/2001, though, the regression line turns south. And stays there. And this time is different.
As you can see, the line usually goes up gradually, drops sharply, then begins its upward ascent quickly after a shock. But that didn’t happen after 9/11. The trend line jumped a bit after Obama’s election, but the overall regression curve has been negative for 15 years.
Everybody now expects tomorrow to be worse than today. Projecting out, we all know that if nothing changes, America will lie in ruins in 20 years. People now in their 50s will be homeless or dead. People in their 20s will be living in government squalor or holding down four jobs just to survive. The American Dream will look like a nightmare scene from an Upton Sinclair novel.
When the institutions are rigged and the future looks bleak, who you gonna call? Generation X.
Here’s the best description of Gen X written when we were young in 1993. From 13th Gen: Abort, Retry, Ignore, Fail:
As a group, they aren’t what older people wish they were, but rather what they themselves know they need to be: street-smart survivalists clued into the game of life the way it really gets played, searching for simple things that work in a cumbersome society that offers little to them.
As a generation, we had our fun young and became hardened realists during that steep decline in expectations. We knew the world was looking for a chance to fuck us, and it did.
Unlike all other generational archetypes, though, the Nomads of Generation X won’t fold up and cry. We don’t need no stinking safe spaces. While Millennials think of themselves as snowflakes, we think of ourselves as cinders. Both fall from the sky in winter, but a little sunlight melts the snow. Us carbon cinders will be here forever. Heat only makes us harder. Generation X is a base element. If we get in your eye or shoe, we hurt. If we get in your head, you’re dead.
As I said before, 2016 is the Gen X election. Gen X was the first generation in American history that expected to be worse off than its parents. And we are, so don’t say we never get anything right. For all our playful fatalism, we see through the bullshit of the establishment. We know why the Farm Bureau broke tradition to support a Democrat for governor: the Republican establishment told them to. We know a bottom when we see one.
When you mix a bleak forecast with Gen X attitude, you get a wild combustive. You get 2016.
Greitens and Trump
There are a lot of similarities between the messages of Eric Greitens and Donald Trump. Be careful with this. While I support both men, Eric Greitens is a remarkably polite man by Midwestern standards while Donald Trump skates on the edge of politeness by Brooklyn standards. (And those two standards are very different. Believe me.) Their styles have nothing in common.
But their messages are remarkably similar. And their message is: it’s time for someone outside the political class.
Face it: the political class made the mess we’re in. While the political class thinks it can fix it, it can’t. We all know that. And two of Greitens’s opponents recognize the people’s distrust of establishment politicians. From STLToday.com:
“Sometimes, you just are on the wrong end of a phenomenon,” said Catherine Hanaway. She made history more than a decade ago as Missouri’s first female House speaker and was attempting to repeat the feat at the gubernatorial level. “We got hit with the tidal wave of the ‘outsider.’”
Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder concurred. “[Greitens’] entire campaign was based on being an outsider, at a time when that appears to be compelling nationally and in Missouri,” said Kinder, who had hoped to cap his unbroken 25 years in state government by seizing its top prize.
One thing I’ve noticed since getting deeply involved in politics is that many of the politicians don’t know how they’re manipulated. Neither do their supporters. Neither do the voters.
Rest assured that we’re all manipulated a lot. For example, if I asked you to think of a children’s birthday tradition right now, what would pop into your head?
If you’re from the Midwest and you read my blog, there’s about a 5% chance that piñatas are part of su familia birthday tradition. But I’ll bet way more than 5% of you clicked on piñata. Because I anchored piñata way up top. I wasn’t even subtle about it.
You probably knew that when you saw the options. But you clicked piñata anyway. And you’re probably justifying your choice now, telling yourself you’re into diversity or you really like piñatas. But if you clicked the piñata on this post, it was because I anchored you at the top.
We’re all victims of our brains.
So are politicians. It’s not their fault that they become tools of the lobbyists. It’s human nature.
And the voters let it happen for many years. Until, finally, the results we’re getting aren’t worth the comfort of sitting back and letting someone else handle things.
At these moments, we take control. We leave the comfort of our living rooms, fire the political class, and usher in a new political class.
2016 is a great year to be alive. The political order that took power after WWII is dead. The people who earned their power in 1945 were dead long ago. Usurpers took their place and tried to play the same game. But these usurpers failed. They didn’t have the mettle. They never earned their chops.
So we’re shaking the Etch-a-Sketch. We’re taking things back to zero and turning the knobs ourselves for a while. We’re taking a chance on Trump and Greitens because, at this point in time, it’s actually riskier to not gamble on something very different.
In 2016, we’re all Gen Xers. We’re all “street-smart survivalists clued into the game of life the way it really gets played.” In 2016, the outsiders have the inside track.
You might be wondering why the Missouri Farm Bureau endorsed Democrat Chris Koster instead of Republican Eric Greitens. The Farm Bureau endorses Republicans about 99% of the time.
If you’re thinking it had to do with policy or personality, you’re thinking wrong. (And, no, it wasn’t because of Koster’s hair, Mark Reardon.) This was all about the establishment vs. the people. It’s about power and control. Greitens threatens the establishment.
Since “the establishment” is vague, I’ll give it a name. In fact, I’ll give it two names. In Missouri, the establishment is Ann Wagner and Roy Blunt. (But mostly Wagner.) And Rex Sinquefield is their financier.
To understand this, let’s look at how Wagner played the Republican gubernatorial race. Remember, Ann is running for Claire McCaskill’s senate seat in 2018.
Think about this:
If you’re Ann Wagner and you want a senate seat, wouldn’t you push your friend Catherine Hanaway to run for governor? Win or lose, Catherine’s 2016 run for governor would take her out of the race for U.S. Senate in 2018, would it not? That takes away Wagner’s most formidable rival for money and votes.
When Tom Schweich died, why wouldn’t Ann encourage John Brunner to run for governor? John hinted to me that Ann encouraged him to run when we met for coffee in April 2015. (I didn’t secretly tape that conversation, but maybe he did. Ask him.) His wife told people, too, at a Lincoln-Reagan dinner in 2015. People recall that she seemed upset about it at the time. I’m sure Ann had heard that Brunner was thinking about running for Claire’s seat. Plus, John could finance his own campaign for governor. The establishment wanted Brunner to spend his own money to kneecap Eric Greitens. That didn’t work, but, as you know, the establishment sabotaged Brunner in the final weeks of the primary. John has now lost two statewide races in a row, blowing upwards of $30 million of his own money in the process. No wonder Mrs. Brunner was upset.
Wagner and Blunt can’t control Greitens making him a threat to the establishment. When Greitens won (by 10 points no less), Ann and Roy went to work for Koster. Publicly, they’ll say they support their party’s nominee for governor. Don’t trust what they say. Believe what you see their friends do. In the shadows, Wagner and Blunt will undercut Greitens and support the Democrat. They’ll tell traditionally Republican organizations and businesses like the Farm Bureau to endorse Koster. That’s just the way the establishment works. As Brunner’s consultant, David Barklage, told me at lunch in 2014, “We can work with Koster.” They’re working with Koster.
Not convinced? Establishment bonds trump party loyalty. Koster used to be a Republican, so it’s not hard for Republicans like Wagner and Blunt to work with him. I have reports that some Missouri business executives are encouraging their employees who supported Greitens in the primary to support Koster because he’ll be good for their businesses. It’s a subtle threat, and it could be illegal. But it’s happening. I’m hearing stories every day. If you work for a company whose senior executives donate to Wagner and Blunt expect some gentle nudges to support Koster.
Look, Eric Greitens is a major threat to the establishment. He has no allegiance to the ownership class. He has no allegiance to the Republican hierarchy. Greitens’ allegiance is to a purpose, and his purpose aligns very well with ordinary people. Firefighters, cops, and teachers love him, so do veterans and their families. And I see huge numbers of young people working for Eric when I go his office in Crestwood. So many young people. The establishment despises these ordinary people.
The Missouri Farm Bureau endorses whoever their highest paid politicians tell them to endorse. You can surmise that the MFB endorsed a Democrat because Ann Wagner and Roy Blunt told them too. They’ll get a pat on the head and some federal money. Expect more organizations with ties to Wagner and Blunt to endorse Koster. It’s just the establishment trying to save its power and control. And it says more about Wagner and Blunt’s power and control than about Greitens’ amazing qualifications.
So don’t sweat it, Greitens fans. Just add the Missouri Farm Bureau to your list of corrupt organizations. And remember: Rex Sinquefield’s donation is pretty much the kiss of death in Missouri elections. (Rex’s $11 million went 0 for 4 Tuesday. I was 5 for 5 and cost me almost nothing.) He’s a smart guy and a DuBourg grad, but Rex Sinquefield couldn’t pick a winner in the hall of fame. We have the numbers.
Why did Trump beat Ted Cruz? Probably the biggest reason is that Trump talks purpose while Cruz talks policy and principles.
When people hear Trump, they hear a purpose that aligns with their purpose. I know I do. And it’s similar to the purpose Arthur C. Brooks explained in his great book, The Conservative Heart.
Ted Cruz never seemed to have a purpose, just policies and principles. Cruz spoke of abstract principles and left it to the people to figure out if those principles would make their lives better or worse.
To paraphrase Steve Jobs, it’s not the voters’ jobs to figure out how your principles improve their lives. In fact, if you focus on your purpose, you never have to mention your principles.
Here’s a great example of Trump’s simple purpose. At a recent rally in Portland, Maine, protesters with whistles interrupt Trump’s speech. Here’s how he handled the interruption:
Perfect. Pay attention to Trump’s words, because they will hook just about any sane adult:
And what are we looking for? We want strong military, we want jobs, we want good education and healthcare, right? We’re looking for the same things sort of. You want to have a good life, you want safety.
What everyone hears when Trump speaks is just that: jobs, safety, education, healthcare that works. When those things are in place, there’s a chance for living the good life.
That’s all people want.
This is really important to understand, folks. Purpose trumps policy. Actually, purpose determines policy. Principles guide policy, but neither policy nor principles can influence purpose. Purpose is much higher.
By purpose, I mean your end goal. Mine is this: to build a society where every person experiences the dignity of meaningful work, including jobs that give satisfaction and fulfillment, fostered by a government that protects its people and institutions from attack and leaves them alone to live their best lives, successfully or not. That is my purpose, and very few people oppose it. Who would say “no” to dignified work and freedom?
And here’s where the principle comes in.
History shows that constitutionally limited government, free markets, and fiscal responsibility are the best means to those ends, which is why I support those means. But that’s the ONLY reason I support those means. I try to keep the means subordinate to the end, even if I sometimes mix them up.
Trump doesn’t talk about his principles and doesn’t spend too much time on policy. His focus on is on his purpose, and his purpose is remarkably similar to mine and to Arthur C. Brooks’.