RPVNetwork

Grassroots Network of the Republican Party of Virginia

I always think when I visit this site or attend Republican Party functions, if there is any room for moderate voices in the party? Although, I do have conservative values in most of my thinking, I am not totally entrenched in them. I believe that there is a time to raise taxes. I believe there is a time to limit gun ownership. I believe there is a time to allow abortion. I find it ironic that those who are fervently against abortion in all cases are way past their child bearing days and please understand that I am not making light of this issue as I am generally against abortion.
I thought that after the many recent defeats by the Republicans in local, state wide and federal elections we would start getting smarter, but sometimes I have my doubts.
I hear leaders in our party state that we are making strides in making this party a more diverse party and then I look around the room and feel I am in a corporate board room.
We have an opportunity with the upcoming elections to bring more people in the party with the election of candidates such as Bob McDonnell, but I wonder if we will find a way to screw it up.
I would like to see if others share my views on this or if I am a lone fish in a sea of sharks.

Views: 74

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Excellent point Donald- The Liberals/Democrats always campaign on making everyone "equal" hence their attempts at "redistribution of wealth." They promise to take away from the rich and give it to the poor, so that all will be equal. This tactic only destroys any incentive to excell and work hard as your efforts will only reward those at the bottom of the food chain, that live with their hands out. You cannot make those equal that are unequal. The Conservatives believe in the notion that if you work hard and be the best that you can be, you have the freedom and liberty to learn and earn as much as your efforts warrant, and, you get to keep more of what you have worked hard for. Affirmative Action programs have rewarded some with lesser qualifications with jobs and college placement simply because of race or gender rather than because they excelled, which is another form of redistribution by a Liberal Government. It is unfortunate that some Republicans believe that in order to win elections we must participate in these antics.
When the Founders wrote about it being self-evident that "all men are created equal," it is my growing suspicion that what they were really addressing was the then-prevailing monarchy and its overarching rule by the so-called "divine right of kings"--in other words, the authors and signers of The Declaration of Independence clearly did not intend to imply or aver that all men are inherently equal in character, even at birth; just merely(and for that day, in a revolutionary sense) that all are born with equal rights granted by God--that no royal class could claim special entitlement to rule based on God's special favor, design, etc...

Just my interpretation, seeing as it is impossible to reconcile the idea that bastards (like Obama, for example) must be necessarily entitled to the same opportunities as those legitimate offspring whose married parents actually bother to care for, feed, protect, teach, nurture, discipline, and so afford them privileges and advantages early in life that those more indifferent, negligent, abusive, and abandoning/rejecting parents do not.

Affirmative action projects/results such as Mr. and Mrs. Obama can only be concocted at the end of the gun barrel of coercive state power, by activist judicial decree, by artificial manipulation of opportunities and outcomes.

What's the point in doing a good job as a parent, of ensuring that one's progeny has more opportunities (better and greater and unequal opportunity, I say) if the welfare nanny state is just going to step in and insist that every other product of some crack addict's reckless copulations is supposed to be guaranteed the exact same chances and possibilities and outcomes as the child of conscientious and careful procreation?

It's easy to see how this is all connected to where Marx and Engels described in The Communist Manifesto about how the social institution of the family must be destroyed so that the communist ideal can be realized--so that the family could be replaced by the state; so as to enforce the "equal opportunity" regime. Hence our current disintegration and unravelling of the American social fabric, as liberal policies increase, and so few realize why, and almost noone speaks out about what is happening...who wants to publicly denounce our sacred delusions about "equal opportunity"? It's even in the creed of this website...! I bet most never contemplated its full implications.

Sandy Cope said:
Excellent point Donald- The Liberals/Democrats always campaign on making everyone "equal" hence their attempts at "redistribution of wealth." They promise to take away from the rich and give it to the poor, so that all will be equal. This tactic only destroys any incentive to excell and work hard as your efforts will only reward those at the bottom of the food chain, that live with their hands out. You cannot make those equal that are unequal. The Conservatives believe in the notion that if you work hard and be the best that you can be, you have the freedom and liberty to learn and earn as much as your efforts warrant, and, you get to keep more of what you have worked hard for. Affirmative Action programs have rewarded some with lesser qualifications with jobs and college placement simply because of race or gender rather than because they excelled, which is another form of redistribution by a Liberal Government. It is unfortunate that some Republicans believe that in order to win elections we must participate in these antics.
Sandy,

I'm not sure where we disagreed in your last response to me. I believe that the Bush administration was right to go after Iraq and that it was an astounding success militarily. I believe we unfortunately lost the media war on that as we did in Vietnam although that is a bit tougher battle than the actual war.

I blamed Blanco and Nagin for what happened in New Orleans and totally agree that we should not be giving any money to people who owned properties below sea level. That was a risk they were willing to take. Again the country allowed the media to portray this as a Bush problem when it should have been hilighting the failure of the liberal government of New Orleans to protect its people. Instead Mr "Chocolate City" Nagen got reelected.

Now we are repeating previous mistakes by continually allowing this financial crisis to be blamed on Wall Street or Capitalism in general. Donald was absolutely right in talking about affirmative action groups pressuring banks into allowing minorities to buy homes they couldn't affort. Wall street was just trying to find ways to make money off of unreliable government programs and rules. I saw yesterday were a college student at Harvard actually asked Barney Frank if he bore any responsibility. I think it was the first time I've heard him asked. I have on numerous occasions even heard Republicans admit that new regulations are needed to prevent this in the future. What they need to do is argue against the notion that this was a failure of Capitalism whenever and wherever it is brought up.

Nick,

I'm not calling you any names. Don't think I have. You are totally neglecting the rights of the unborn child. I do not argue abortion on a moral basis but on a constitutional basis. "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of ?". When you kill a child you are undoubtedly snuffing out that childs life whether it is three weeks after conception or 3 years after birth. If my wife aborted my first daughter my second daughter would not have been her. She still would have been Sarah and Abigail would have been killed. If Abigail fell on the train tracks and I had the choice to let her get hit or push her out of the way and die myself I'd better be willing to push her and die. That's what parents do and it's not a choice it's a responsibility. If the mother's health is in danger???? Give me a brake! First of all that is extremely rare and is a fractional % of all abortions, secondly you could extract the fetus and find a person willing to carry it to term. You could at least make that effort. Incest and rape??? Is that the unborn childs fault. I'll give you this. If you are raped go out and take the morning after pill imediately. I am morally opposed to the morning after pill but I cannot argue it scientifically in the question of rape and forced incest. Bottom line Nick is that there is no gray area in regards to abortion. Those of us against it believe it is the murder of an innocent life and should be fought against until the rights of every child are protected and parents are forced to live up to their responsibilities. I didn't even mention the fact that father's have no right to prevent their child from being murdered.
Brian, first of all, research the circumstances of Obama's being named editor of the Harvard Law Review before you spout off like that. Do it, check the facts, and then try to tell me it wasn't a case of tokenism, that his failure to publish anything whatsoever of note before that and nothing at all during his tenure somehow reflected his superior qualifications and not his correct melanin quotient; that the racial-tensions and controversies on campus at that time did not help usher him in so as to appease the race-hustlers and grievance mongers and social engineers of that situation. Do the research.

And I do understand the difference between opportunities and outcomes, and I say that your flabby and PC mind has yet to penetrate the implications of the mistaken dogma of "equal opportunity"--but being as you've attempted to qualify your GOP bona fides in another post here, I realize that you've most likely spent much of your career "going along to get along," playing the PC game, braying and baaaa-ing the usual nostrums and bromides about "diversity" and "fairness."

I do not consider "equal protection under the law" and equal rights the same as equal opportunities, which you apparently do. As it is, by the way, white males do NOT enjoy equal protection under the law in any sense today, nor have we for decades now, as specially protected groups have had an economic field-day every day, here in the Washington DC area the most obviously...I moreover am saying that there is no incentive for anyone to do a good job as a parent, to ensure that one's child is nurtured and afforded advantages, if the coercive power of the state is brought to bear on the situation such that all advantages are to be erased so that all children are guaranteed "equal opportunity." I don't advocate denying, specifically, opportunities to anyone for any reason per se, however by insisting that all have equal opportunites, that's what you are in fact doing--you'd sieze the "silver spoon" from the mouth of babes of wealthy parents so that children of poor or bad parents can enjoy equal opportunities. That's exactly what you are saying, that there's no point nor incentive nor reason for me to seek advantages and the best relative springboard to success for my children through my own caring efforts and investment, because it would be unfair, in your eyes, that my doing a good job would result in my child having more and better opportunities than the child of some POS welfare scammer or deadbeat absentee sperm-spraying criminal. Whether you realize it or not(my hunch is that plainly you spend little time in reflection and are more involved in office politics and ladder-climbing, in "playing the game" and maintaining the appearance of typical liberal "fairness" and "social justice, etc.) you support the idea Marxist idea that all is to be levelled, and those who actually resist the state's ever-increasing ewncroachment upon family prerogatives are to be disincentivised and their property confiscated so as to ensure "equal opportunity" for all.

Spend some time in thought and reflection about things before you just unthinkingly parrot the PC line.

If you remove the incentives for parents to ensure that their offspring have better opportunities than the children of slackers and/or scumbags, and you create an environment where the family unit itself becomes obsolete and under attack, as we have been steadily witnessing for decades now, because liberals like you are all too ready to insist that the property of others be taken and made available to give equal opportunities to the heirs of derelicts.

Brian W. Schoeneman said:
Donald, equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are different concepts. Everyone deserves the right to fail or succeed on their own merits, which is what equality of opportunity is all about.

Equality of outcome is the marxist ideal of everyone having the same, regardless of effort, intelligence, or any other factor.

Your comments about illegitimate and legitimate offspring are reprehensible. You are apparently advocating that we deny opportunities to those whose parents made bad decisions. That isn't the fault of the child, so the blame shouldn't be placed on the child. For someone who has zealously argued about the protection of the unborn from abortion, you seem to callously disregard what happens to those children after they're born. Are the unborn children of crack addicted mothers less worthy of protection? If not, then why are they less worthy of having the chance to succeed as your own children?

Affirmative action is a bad policy, and we can all recognize that. The reasons for its existence have long since left American life. There is very little structured, state sponsored racism left in this country. No affirmative action program elected Obama to the Senate or to the White House. And while he and his wife may have benefited from affirmative action in getting into Harvard, they certainly weren't given any extra credit during law school. He didn't get elected Editor in Chief of the Law Review through affirmative action. Both of them are prime examples of what happens when someone is given the opportunity to succeed. He took it and ran with it. That's what America is all about.

Liberty isn't compatible with equality of outcome. But liberty is critical to making equality of opportunity work. If we remove unnecessary impediments to success, we give every individual the chance to succeed - it's not a guarantee, and it takes hard work, dedication and sacrifice. The chance of failure is real. But we must provide people with the opportunity to succeed or fail on their own merits.

Donald Joy said:
One significant problem in America is that most people, even so-called "conservative" Republicans, out of their good intentions, mistakenly believe that equal opportunity and liberty are compatible concepts...they are not.
The overwhelming majority, it is plain to me, simply have never really thought through the implications of the above concepts, haven't realized that they are mutually exclusive. Until the electorate comes to the reckoning that we must decide between liberty and equal opportunity, the Marxists will mainly carry the day, because it has become a philosophical taboo to even contemplate that "equal opportunity" could be anything other than a good thing for our society/economy...it is not. Liberty surely is.
Here you go folks, here is Brian's Bio on his personal page.

County or City of Voting
Fairfax
Brief Background/Bio on yourself
is a veteran speechwriter and political professional with over half a decade of bipartisan experience in Washington. He most recently served as Special Assistant and Senior Speechwriter to the Secretary at the United States Department of Labor, where he was responsible for outreach to organized labor and was a member of the Secretary's speechwriting team. As a member of the senior staff, he was primarily tasked with serving as the issue expert on organized labor, and handled the workforce development and organized labor speechwriting portfolio for the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Labor.

Prior to his appointment, Mr. Schoeneman was Executive Director of the American Maritime Congress, from 2006 to 2008 where he represented both management and labor interests on behalf of the maritime industry. Before AMC, he was Director of Government Affairs for the Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association (AFL-CIO), the nation's oldest maritime labor union. While at MEBA, he was responsible for overseeing the union’s political and legislative departments. Under his leadership, MEBA's Political Action Fund raised and contributed nearly three quarters of a million dollars to maritime friendly political candidates in both parties, and maintained a 90%+ win rate for supported candidates in the 2004 and 2006 election cycles. He also significantly increased bipartisan contributions, making MEBA one of the most Republican friendly labor unions on Capitol Hill.

He began his political career began in 1995 as a legislative intern to a Republican state representative.

He earned his Master of Arts degree from the Graduate School of Political Management at the George Washington University in Washington, D.C. in 2004 and his Bachelor of Arts from the George Washington University's political science program in 2001. He is a 2011 Juris Doctor candidate at the Columbus School of Law of the Catholic University of America.

In 2008 he was elected President of the Graduate School of Political Management Alumni Association at George Washington University, which he helped found. He also serves on the George Washington University Alumni Association Board of Directors. His professional affiliations include the Propeller Club of the United States, where he serves on the Board of Directors of the DC Port, American Bar Association, the Federalist Society, the Republican National Lawyers Association and the National Republican Club of Capitol Hill.

He is an officer of John Blair Lodge #187, AF&AM and a member of Annapolis Lodge #89 AF&AM.

Locally, he is active in Virginia politics. He currently serves as an At-Large member of the Fairfax County Republican Committee, and was elected as a Delegate to the 2008 Fairfax County Republican Convention, the 2008 8th Congressional District Republican Convention, and the 2008 Virginia State Republican Convention. He is an active commenter on the Too Conservative blog, and writes his own at www.digitalsurvivors.com.

He resides in Fairfax, Virginia with his fiancee, KayAnn.

__________________________________________

Take it as you will. " BIG LABOR SUPPORTER", "COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVE" and someone who has stated that he could "CARE LESS ABOUT SOCIAL ISSUES." Claimed to be a "FORMER BUSH APPOINTEE." "CURRENT LAW SCHOOL STUDENT." "A SPEECH WRITER." Holy crap, how ever could any of us have not known how educated and important this man is??? Don't ever call him names (as I have done, wow is me) because he doesn't like to be called those bad bad names like RINO. POO poo to you for calling him a "moderate", shame on you.

Brian- In all reality, you really really need to get a life where you have an inkling about what the Republicans/Conservatives really want. Have you checked on the Tea Parties lately? They are not now only about taxes. It has gone far beyond taxes and clear into the lack of want of the "nanny state form of government" which you seem to support. I read alot of Republican/Conservative sites, and, by all definations you are the kind of Republican that has fallen out of favor, much more so than you accused my views of being a loser for Republicans. For me Sir, you are a loser. Yikes, I called you another name.
I'm wasting my time with someone as devoid of intellectual horsepower and integrity as BRINO. Next time do your research before you try to debate me; I'm bored with your inanity and lack of rigor. Hussein may have been elected to the helm of Harvard Law Review, but that doesn't mean he was most qualified--he most certainly wasn't--just as his fraudulent and sham election to President wasn't based in any remote way on his qualifications. Sheesh, he isn't even Constitutionally eligible to be POTUS! You know very well that his usurping of the offcie had as much to do with race politics as it did with illegal foreign campaign donations, voter registration fraud, and his history of having multiple opponents thrown off ballots on technicalities and as the result of dirty tricks, like repeatedly having the previously sealed divorce records of opponents opened for public scrutiny and sensation. Merit, huh? ...98% of blacks voted for merit I suppose?

What's wrong with name-calling, anyway? If one is a liberal moron, it is appropriate to point it out. You are a liberal moron.

Compassion and "Christian" magnanimosity are for the private individual, not for the coercive power of the state to enforce by denying opportunities, liberty, property, and privileges to those whose parents provide and will it to them so that the products of indifference and neglect can be granted "equal opportunity."

Just because I argue that equal opportunity is not a right nor should it be government policy does not mean I seek to deny opportunities to nor punish anyone--I insist that you admit that that is exactly what you are supporting, though--your levelling mentality would punish the successful and reward the irresponsible. I do, by the way, generally tend to see the products of parents as a continuation of their spiritual character.

And while I will fight for the God-given right for an unborn infant's life to be protected, I will not support the idea that the coercive power of the state be brought to bear against me, my property, my liberty, and my progeny so as to guarantee that every other child be given the same advantages as those I seek for MY child--because I am not a communist as you clearly are.

In my private life, I insist that I be permitted to use my personal resources as I see fit to charitably assist those who are disadvantaged, but unlike you, I refuse to accept that I must be forced to do so at the barrel of a gun by statist egalitarian thugs in the name of the "equal opportunity" gestapo.

I am not rich, I came up from a broken home, and I'd bet that I have struggled much more in my life than have you, have had fewer opportunities from the starting gate. But I will not endorse scuttling the free-enterprise system of individual liberty for one of deluded and dumbed-down affirmative-action socialism, which is what you advocate and which has almost completely eclipsed our economic situation here in the U.S...I have served my country in hostile areas overseas on active military duty and in the National Guard, I have protected 3 Republican Presidents, Congressional delegations, foreign heads of state, and served on Attorney General John Ashcroft's protective detail for 2 1/2 years, as well as in a Homeland Security hq command center. The dereliction of duty that I have witnessed in the interest of tolerating, accepting, and even embracing communism as some kind of "diversity" agenda has made me utterly disgusted with the ignorance and refusal of people like you to be honest about your true motives and your part in the decline of America.

Brian W. Schoeneman said:
Ah, yes. More name calling. Like I said before, he wasn't "named" editor of the Harvard Law Review. He was elected to the position. Today, Harvard Law Review has a writing competition for membership, so he wouldn't even have been in a position to run for editor if he hadn't competed in the competition and been selected. Those competitions are done on a completely blind basis - I just did one. And if when he went through Harvard had the traditional grade-on rule, he would have had to have had the grades (which are again done on a blind basis) to make it on. While affirmative action may have gotten him to Harvard, he succeeded there on his own merits.

Equal protection under the law and equality of opportunity are not the same concepts, and I recognize the difference. Equality of opportunity is a goal that we should be working towards. Equal protection under the law is a constitutional right. Spare me the nonsense about whites being unequal. That's the kind of whining one expects from Democrats, not Republicans. This has nothing to do with being PC. It has everything to do with being a compassionate human being and a good Christian.

And, no, I don't believe for a second in any kind of leveling. We should be removing barriers to success and ensuring that everyone has an opportunity to succeed. That doesn't mean everyone gets the same outcome.

You chose to be a parent. You have a responsibility to your child to give them every advantage that you can. That's not something you do because you want them to succeed - it's something you do because it's the right thing to do. Like I said before, all your comments about welfare parents and criminals ignores the fact that the children have done nothing wrong, and punishing them because of the sins of their parents is completely antithetical to what it means to be an American. Here, you fail or succeed on your own merits, not because of who your father was. We didn't fight the war of Independence to create a new aristocracy at home. No one is saying that we should take what you've given to your children and give it to everyone else. But there shouldn't be barriers erected to keep other children from succeeding simply because they didn't have the luxury of two parents at home, a stable family, or financial comfortability.

I don't believe in providing incentives to people for doing things they should be doing anyway. You should be working to give your children every advantage. The fact that some other parents don't do that is no reason to punish the children.

Instead of assuming that I haven't thought at all about these issues, perhaps you can answer my question from my last post to you: you are pro-life and have made it clear you think we need to fight to defend innocent life. So why do you seem completely indifferent to what happens to that life after it gets here? Why is it that you seem to argue that children born to single unwed welfare mothers deserve the highest level of protection before they are born, but once they get here they deserve nothing because of who their parents are?

Donald Joy said:
Brian, first of all, research the circumstances of Obama's being named editor of the Harvard Law Review before you spout off like that. Do it, check the facts, and then try to tell me it wasn't a case of tokenism, that his failure to publish anything whatsoever of note before that and nothing at all during his tenure somehow reflected his superior qualifications and not his correct melanin quotient; that the racial-tensions and controversies on campus at that time did not help usher him in so as to appease the race-hustlers and grievance mongers and social engineers of that situation. Do the research.

And I do understand the difference between opportunities and outcomes, and I say that your flabby and PC mind has yet to penetrate the implications of the mistaken dogma of "equal opportunity"--but being as you've attempted to qualify your GOP bona fides in another post here, I realize that you've most likely spent much of your career "going along to get along," playing the PC game, braying and baaaa-ing the usual nostrums and bromides about "diversity" and "fairness."

I do not consider "equal protection under the law" and equal rights the same as equal opportunities, which you apparently do. As it is, by the way, white males do NOT enjoy equal protection under the law in any sense today, nor have we for decades now, as specially protected groups have had an economic field-day every day, here in the Washington DC area the most obviously...I moreover am saying that there is no incentive for anyone to do a good job as a parent, to ensure that one's child is nurtured and afforded advantages, if the coercive power of the state is brought to bear on the situation such that all advantages are to be erased so that all children are guaranteed "equal opportunity." I don't advocate denying, specifically, opportunities to anyone for any reason per se, however by insisting that all have equal opportunites, that's what you are in fact doing--you'd sieze the "silver spoon" from the mouth of babes of wealthy parents so that children of poor or bad parents can enjoy equal opportunities. That's exactly what you are saying, that there's no point nor incentive nor reason for me to seek advantages and the best relative springboard to success for my children through my own caring efforts and investment, because it would be unfair, in your eyes, that my doing a good job would result in my child having more and better opportunities than the child of some POS welfare scammer or deadbeat absentee sperm-spraying criminal. Whether you realize it or not(my hunch is that plainly you spend little time in reflection and are more involved in office politics and ladder-climbing, in "playing the game" and maintaining the appearance of typical liberal "fairness" and "social justice, etc.) you support the idea Marxist idea that all is to be levelled, and those who actually resist the state's ever-increasing ewncroachment upon family prerogatives are to be disincentivised and their property confiscated so as to ensure "equal opportunity" for all.

Spend some time in thought and reflection about things before you just unthinkingly parrot the PC line.

If you remove the incentives for parents to ensure that their offspring have better opportunities than the children of slackers and/or scumbags, and you create an environment where the family unit itself becomes obsolete and under attack, as we have been steadily witnessing for decades now, because liberals like you are all too ready to insist that the property of others be taken and made available to give equal opportunities to the heirs of derelicts.

Brian W. Schoeneman said:
Donald, equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are different concepts. Everyone deserves the right to fail or succeed on their own merits, which is what equality of opportunity is all about.

Equality of outcome is the marxist ideal of everyone having the same, regardless of effort, intelligence, or any other factor.

Your comments about illegitimate and legitimate offspring are reprehensible. You are apparently advocating that we deny opportunities to those whose parents made bad decisions. That isn't the fault of the child, so the blame shouldn't be placed on the child. For someone who has zealously argued about the protection of the unborn from abortion, you seem to callously disregard what happens to those children after they're born. Are the unborn children of crack addicted mothers less worthy of protection? If not, then why are they less worthy of having the chance to succeed as your own children?

Affirmative action is a bad policy, and we can all recognize that. The reasons for its existence have long since left American life. There is very little structured, state sponsored racism left in this country. No affirmative action program elected Obama to the Senate or to the White House. And while he and his wife may have benefited from affirmative action in getting into Harvard, they certainly weren't given any extra credit during law school. He didn't get elected Editor in Chief of the Law Review through affirmative action. Both of them are prime examples of what happens when someone is given the opportunity to succeed. He took it and ran with it. That's what America is all about.

Liberty isn't compatible with equality of outcome. But liberty is critical to making equality of opportunity work. If we remove unnecessary impediments to success, we give every individual the chance to succeed - it's not a guarantee, and it takes hard work, dedication and sacrifice. The chance of failure is real. But we must provide people with the opportunity to succeed or fail on their own merits.

Donald Joy said:
One significant problem in America is that most people, even so-called "conservative" Republicans, out of their good intentions, mistakenly believe that equal opportunity and liberty are compatible concepts...they are not.
The overwhelming majority, it is plain to me, simply have never really thought through the implications of the above concepts, haven't realized that they are mutually exclusive. Until the electorate comes to the reckoning that we must decide between liberty and equal opportunity, the Marxists will mainly carry the day, because it has become a philosophical taboo to even contemplate that "equal opportunity" could be anything other than a good thing for our society/economy...it is not. Liberty surely is.
Wow, Sandy, I just saw this after posting my last lambasting of the RINO just below...we have a bona-fide big-labor communist mole among us...! Good work for putting this up.

Sandy Cope said:
Here you go folks, here is Brian's Bio on his personal page.

County or City of Voting
Fairfax
Brief Background/Bio on yourself
is a veteran speechwriter and political professional with over half a decade of bipartisan experience in Washington. He most recently served as Special Assistant and Senior Speechwriter to the Secretary at the United States Department of Labor, where he was responsible for outreach to organized labor and was a member of the Secretary's speechwriting team. As a member of the senior staff, he was primarily tasked with serving as the issue expert on organized labor, and handled the workforce development and organized labor speechwriting portfolio for the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Labor.

Prior to his appointment, Mr. Schoeneman was Executive Director of the American Maritime Congress, from 2006 to 2008 where he represented both management and labor interests on behalf of the maritime industry. Before AMC, he was Director of Government Affairs for the Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association (AFL-CIO), the nation's oldest maritime labor union. While at MEBA, he was responsible for overseeing the union’s political and legislative departments. Under his leadership, MEBA's Political Action Fund raised and contributed nearly three quarters of a million dollars to maritime friendly political candidates in both parties, and maintained a 90%+ win rate for supported candidates in the 2004 and 2006 election cycles. He also significantly increased bipartisan contributions, making MEBA one of the most Republican friendly labor unions on Capitol Hill.

He began his political career began in 1995 as a legislative intern to a Republican state representative.

He earned his Master of Arts degree from the Graduate School of Political Management at the George Washington University in Washington, D.C. in 2004 and his Bachelor of Arts from the George Washington University's political science program in 2001. He is a 2011 Juris Doctor candidate at the Columbus School of Law of the Catholic University of America.

In 2008 he was elected President of the Graduate School of Political Management Alumni Association at George Washington University, which he helped found. He also serves on the George Washington University Alumni Association Board of Directors. His professional affiliations include the Propeller Club of the United States, where he serves on the Board of Directors of the DC Port, American Bar Association, the Federalist Society, the Republican National Lawyers Association and the National Republican Club of Capitol Hill.

He is an officer of John Blair Lodge #187, AF&AM and a member of Annapolis Lodge #89 AF&AM.

Locally, he is active in Virginia politics. He currently serves as an At-Large member of the Fairfax County Republican Committee, and was elected as a Delegate to the 2008 Fairfax County Republican Convention, the 2008 8th Congressional District Republican Convention, and the 2008 Virginia State Republican Convention. He is an active commenter on the Too Conservative blog, and writes his own at www.digitalsurvivors.com.

He resides in Fairfax, Virginia with his fiancee, KayAnn.

__________________________________________

Take it as you will. " BIG LABOR SUPPORTER", "COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVE" and someone who has stated that he could "CARE LESS ABOUT SOCIAL ISSUES." Claimed to be a "FORMER BUSH APPOINTEE." "CURRENT LAW SCHOOL STUDENT." "A SPEECH WRITER." Holy crap, how ever could any of us have not known how educated and important this man is??? Don't ever call him names (as I have done, wow is me) because he doesn't like to be called those bad bad names like RINO. POO poo to you for calling him a "moderate", shame on you.

Brian- In all reality, you really really need to get a life where you have an inkling about what the Republicans/Conservatives really want. Have you checked on the Tea Parties lately? They are not now only about taxes. It has gone far beyond taxes and clear into the lack of want of the "nanny state form of government" which you seem to support. I read alot of Republican/Conservative sites, and, by all definations you are the kind of Republican that has fallen out of favor, much more so than you accused my views of being a loser for Republicans. For me Sir, you are a loser. Yikes, I called you another name.
Brian, get in touch with me after you've successfully grasped that liberty means the freedom to enjoy advantages (unequal opportunity) over others, to pass them along to one's chosen beneficiaries; that refusing to subsidize depravity and failure is not punishing anyone for their choices--it is really that allowing them and their products to suffer the consequences of their own poor decisions is the essence of personal responsibility and freedom.

Seriously, I wish not to engage you any further until you can demonstrate that you are able and honest enough to make simple abstract distinctions in concepts.
...and I must yet instruct you as to the dubious "legality" of your precious majority decisions--if two men decide to rob a third man, it is called "theft." What if they first vote to rob him? That is what you call majority decision, "democracy." And that is why the Founders sought to enact federalism(as opposed to democracy, which is merely mob rule) as much as possible, which has been eroded and dismantled egregiously over the generations by people like you and your Lani Guinier mentors...

You think it's okay and Constitutionally legal to seize, by majority strong-arming, the property of producers and their chosen beneficiaries in order to "level the playing field" of opportunity for looters, non-producers, and their spoils.
What you fail to recognize is that every outcome is also the springboard for further opportunity, and that every opportunity is the result of some preceeding outcome. By advocating governmental involvement in the arbitration of opportunities, you are endorsing the coercive state deprivation of private property and liberty by those who desire to determine what is and isn't "fair." You cannot have it both ways; either you beleive in liberty, or you don't. Thus far you've convinced me that you don't.

Freedom of association, whether you like it or not, means the prerogative to discriminate for whatever reason one wishes. If an employer would rather not go to the workplace each day and spent the majority of his/her waking hours in association with someone of a given race, or gender, or hairstyle, or belief, or sexual deviancy, or handedness, or whatever the hell they particularly would rather not be around, then the state deprives them of freedom of association by mandating that they must hire and associate with anyone that they'd otherwise not. Again, whether you agree with the ethic of liberty to discriminate, you simply can't convince me that "equal employment opportunity" and liberty are not mutually exclusive--if you insist on "equality" in opportunity, you are in fact unavoidably bringing the simultaneous aspect of outcomes into the equation, and are by necessity impinging on liberty.

It goes back to my basic point that liberty and equal opportunity are not compatible, which is a fundamental principle of economic philosophy that even most conservatives just overlook, because after all, everyone wants to appear and believe that they are good people, and not evil "racist" greedy bigots or what have you...we've been brainwashed (whites that is have, mainly) to believe that preference and protection for one's own tribe and kin is somehow bad, because if there is disparate impact of a standardized exam or whatever upon incompetents or derelicts, of course it can only be due to some real or imagined legacy of white male oppression, never to the character of those "impacted" blah blah blah...

Brian W. Schoeneman said:
Donald, I don't agree with you that "unequal opportunity" means "the freedom to enjoy advantages over others." I'm not arguing that you don't have the freedom to enjoy advantages over others. If you succeed and make more money, get a better education, etc. you are of course entitled to enjoy those advantages. There's nothing wrong with that. That's what equality of opportunity is all about - giving people the same chance to gain advantages as anyone else. The outcome isn't what's important. If someone has equality of opportunity and fails, that's fine. They have no one to blame but themselves. That's all anyone can ask for in life.

My point has been and still is that people should have the opportunity to gain advantages over others, and be free from unfair impediments to doing so. I'm not talking about wealth transfers or welfare. I'm talking about fundamental things like access to education, freedom from racial discrimination, etc. How can anyone be opposed to those things? They harm no one. They take nothing from you, me, or anyone else.

The essence of personal responsibility doesn't include blaming children for the behavior of their parents. How can you hold someone responsible for something they didn't do?

I don't think I'm having any trouble handling simple distinctions in abstract concepts.

Donald Joy said:
Brian, get in touch with me after you've successfully grasped that liberty means the freedom to enjoy advantages (unequal opportunity) over others, to pass them along to one's chosen beneficiaries; that refusing to subsidize depravity and failure is not punishing anyone for their choices--it is really that allowing them and their products to suffer the consequences of their own poor decisions is the essence of personal responsibility and freedom.

Seriously, I wish not to engage you any further until you can demonstrate that you are able and honest enough to make simple abstract distinctions in concepts.
And Jeez, "access to education," for crying out loud? I suppose you'd insist that forcibly taking property away from producers in order to fund public schools for everyone's children, regardless of their productive contribution or lack thereof, isn't depriving them of their rightful liberty to their own products? Come on, stop being intellectually lazy and dishonest.

What about marriage? Should the state be able, for purposes of "fairness" and "social justice" to require that economic opportunity be equalized through forcing members of characteristically more prosperous racial groups to marry members of typically less well-off racial groups, so as to even things out? Just with whom and where sits the authority and responsibility for meting out all this alleged entitlement to opportunity, anyway?
WOW. This has been quite the spririted debate while I was at work all day. Good job everyone.

Brian,

I came from a poor family. My father and mother both worked two jobs so that we could have it better than they did. My father grew up with 5 or 6 brothers and sisters living in a 1 bedroom house at any given time. The boys were shipped off to their uncles farm in the summer time to work. I am very happy to have had the struggles that I did as a child and I have it much better than my parents did. I did not afford college so I sometimes confuse my principles with my principals but I am now in the process of making sure my children have it better than me. It is no ones responsibility but mine to do that. The government has no place in helping me or anyone else realize their potential. It's not your true potential if someone else has to help you get there. Also remember that no government has any money to spend that is their own. The only money they have is that which they take. If a child is born into poverty than they should struggle to make sure their children have it better than themselves. And so on....

RSS

****************************

 

U.S. DEBT CLOCK

****************************

 


 

 

(sales help fund this site)

 

Badge

Loading…

© 2021   Created by Tom Whitmore.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service