The Romeo Area Tea Party Presents:

Suzanne Anglewicz
Midwest Field Coordinator –
National Rifle Association (NRA)
National Rifle Association

              When: Monday, July 13th, 2015

             Where: The Palazzo Grande
54660 Van Dyke, Shelby Twp., MI
(South of 25 Mile, east side of Van Dyke)

               Time: 7 p.m.

Suzanne Anglewicz currently works as the Midwest Field Coordinator for NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action covering Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. She also serves as a Staff Attorney for NRA-ILA and previously served as the Manager of Political & Legislative Activities and Legislative Counsel at NRA Headquarters.
Currently, she is working to develop and strengthen NRA’s political and legislative activities at the state level through the creation and implementation of NRA’s programs in support of the Second Amendment. In addition, she coordinates and conducts the Association’s legislative and election workshops, and represents the Association in various public speaking engagements. Suzanne also has extensive political experience working on various local, state, and federal campaigns nationwide.
Suzanne attended Michigan State University earning a Bachelor’s degree in Political Theory and Constitutional Democracy and has also received a J.D. from Thomas M. Cooley Law School. She is admitted to both the State of Illinois and Commonwealth of Virginia bars.
Suzanne is an avid shooter, hunter, and Lifetime member of The National Rifle Association, and has been an employee at NRA since December 2005.

• History & Mission of the National Rifle Association
• Current Debate on Gun Control
• Federal & State Legislative Priorities
• Preparations for the 2016 Election Cycle

Oikophobia — fear and hatred of one’s own culture and people. It has brought down civilizations since there have been civilizations. And now we’re infected, too.



DENNIS PRAGER: ‘Does It Do Good?’ vs. ‘Does It Feel Good?’ Left-Right Differences: Part III

Reason asks: “Does it do good?” Liberalism asks, “Does it feel good?”

A fundamental difference between the left and right concerns how each assesses public policies. The right asks, “Does it do good?” The left asks a different question.

One example is the minimum wage. In 1987, The New York Times editorialized against any minimum wage. The title of the editorial said it all — “The Right Minimum Wage: $0.00.”

“There’s a virtual consensus among economists,” wrote the Times editorial, “that the minimum wage is an idea whose time has passed. Raising the minimum wage by a substantial amount would price working poor people out of the job market . … More important, it would increase unemployment. … The idea of using a minimum wage to overcome poverty is old, honorable — and fundamentally flawed.”

Why did The New York Times editorialize against the minimum wage? Because it asked the conservative question: “Does it do good?”

But 27 years later, The New York Times editorial page wrote the very opposite of what it had written in 1987, and called for a major increase in the minimum wage. In that time, the page had moved further left and was now preoccupied not with what does good — but with income inequality, which feels bad. It lamented the fact that a low hourly minimum wage had not “softened the hearts of its opponents” — Republicans and their supporters.

As second example is affirmative action. Study after study — and, even more important, common sense and facts — have shown the deleterious effects that race-based affirmative action have had on black students. Lowering college admissions standards for black applicants has ensured at least two awful results.

One is that more black students fail to graduate college — because they have too often been admitted to a college that demands more academic rigor than they were prepared for. Rather than attend a school that matches their skills, a school where they might thrive, they fail at a school where they are over-matched.

The other result is that many, if not most, black students feel a dark cloud hanging over them. They suspect that other students wonder whether they, the black students, were admitted into the college on merit or because standards were lowered.

It would seem that the last question supporters of race-based affirmative action ask is, “Does it do good?”

A third example is pacifism and other forms of “peace activism.”

The left has a soft spot for pacifism — the belief that killing another human being is always immoral. Not all leftists are pacifists, but pacifism emanates from the Left, and just about all leftists support “peace activism,” “peace studies” and whatever else contains the word “peace.”

The right, on the other hand, while just as desirous of peace as the left — what conservative parent wants their child to die in battle? — knows that pacifism and most “peace activists” increase the chances of war, not peace.

Nothing guarantees the triumph of evil like refusing to fight it. Great evil is therefore never defeated by peace activists, but by superior military might. The Allied victory in World War II is an obvious example. American military might likewise contained and ultimately ended Soviet Communism.

Supporters of pacifism, peace studies, American nuclear disarmament, American military withdrawal from countries in which it has fought — Iraq is the most recent example — do not ask, “Does it do good?’

Did the withdrawal of America from Iraq do good? Of course not. It only led to the rise of Islamic State with its mass murder and torture.

So, then, if in assessing what public policies to pursue, conservatives ask “Does it do good?” what question do liberals ask?

The answer is, “Does it make people — including myself — feel good?”

Why do liberals support a higher minimum wage if doesn’t do good? Because it makes the recipients of the higher wage feel good (even if other workers lose their jobs when restaurants and other businesses that cannot afford the higher wage close down) and it makes liberals feel good about themselves: We liberals, unlike conservatives, have soft hearts.

Why do liberals support race-based affirmative action? For the same reasons. It makes the recipients feel good when they are admitted to more prestigious colleges. And it makes liberals feel good about themselves for appearing to right the wrongs of historical racism.

The same holds true for left-wing peace activism: Supporting “peace” rather than the military makes liberals feel good about themselves.

Perhaps the best example is the self-esteem movement. It has had an almost wholly negative effect on a generation of Americans raised to have high self-esteem without having earned it. They then suffer from narcissism and an incapacity to deal with life’s inevitable setbacks. But self-esteem feels good.

And feelings — not reason — is what liberalism is largely about. Reason asks: “Does it do good?” Liberalism asks, “Does it feel good?”


This column was originally posted on

Personal Libert Digest New

morality concept

Advancing deviancy advances collectivism

Following a week or more of in-your-face coverage of Bruce Jenner’s posing as a woman on a magazine cover and exposing his psychological problems to the world, the Occupation Safety and Health Administration has issued a four-page guideline for employers to provide transgender-friendly restroom facilities. Coincidence? I think not.

The mainstream media glorified Jenner for his “courage.” ESPN, one of the leading proponents of perversion today, picked Jenner as its recipient of this year’s Arthur Ashe Courage Award to be presented at the ESPY Awards in July. This was too much for even Bob Costas to stomach.

The OSHA guidelines, while not yet binding but likely soon will be (especially once the Supreme Court OKs gay “marriage”), will require employers to ensure restrooms are accessible to people according to their “inner gender” as opposed to their natural plumbing. But assigning gender-confused people their own restroom is not acceptable to the agency. Among the best policies, OSHA writes, are for the employer to provide “additional options, which employees may choose, but are not required to use” include:

  • Single-occupancy gender-neutral (unisex) facilities; and
  • Use of multiple-occupant, gender-neutral restroom facilities with lockable single occupant stalls.

So “Men” and “Women” on the restroom doors no longer will have meaning and, under the guidelines, will likely just be removed. And that man ogling your wife or daughter can follow them into the restroom with no questions asked.

A New World Order in social evolution has emerged over the past couple of decades, and it’s not the world your granddad knew.

How has the American nation fallen so far that a growing number of the masses and almost all the politicians not only accept but endorse the sodomites and “gender-confused” and all the sick things they do? The answer is: tolerance. The politicians and the propaganda machine have taught Americans to tolerate everything except that which is godly.

Fyodor Dostoevsky warned that without God, all bad things are possible.

Note that all major religions focus on “tolerance.” They tolerate everything but Christianity.

All those bad things have come to pass in America’s toleration of sodomy and the “gender-confused” as a “civil right” and “lifestyle.”

The secret truth is that sodomy is so much more. It is the secret ritual of political power. It is a recruitment tool for global collectivism. Globalism, with its underlying principle of collectivism and its secret ritual of sodomy is not primarily an economic or political development. Globalism, collectivism and sodomy are the result of moral decline on a mass scale.

We now have in this country state-approved abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, a “green” movement that exalts nature above people and much, much more.

Included in this “much, much more” would be Keynesian economics, gun control, confiscatory taxation, mass government spying, unquestioned support of Big Brother Government to the point of neighbors snitching on each other, corporate-government development of laws and public policy, and media-government collaborative propaganda.

It is all collectivism. It is all totalitarianism. All of these features of Nazism are features of modern democracy. One of my favorite formulas revealing the true nature of collectivism is: Communism = socialism = Nazism = democracy = occultism. The past 100 years will go down in history as the most successful hundred years of collectivism, led by the socialist democracy of the United States.

The great irony is that because of the occult power of collectivist propaganda, when one criticizes any of the things of collectivism he is the one who is falsely branded a “fascist.” As the kids on the playground exclaim, it takes one to know one!

Personal Libert Digest New

obamacare concept

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hand down a ruling later this month that could have devastating consequences for Obamacare. The badly misnamed Affordable Care Act, which established Obamacare, states very clearly that federal subsidies for health insurance would be offered only to people who signed up through state exchanges.

But when 37 states refused to establish state exchanges for the federally mandated health insurance, the federal government agreed to provide subsidies to people who got their coverage through the federal exchange. As a result, an estimated 6 million people are getting federal subsidies who otherwise would not qualify for them.

This is the basis of King vs. Burwell, the lawsuit now before the Supreme Court. At a news conference on Monday, Obama displayed an interesting bit of bravado when he declared, “There is no reason why the existing exchanges should be overturned through a court case.” Why, of course there is, Mr. President. It’s called obeying what the law says, not what you wish it said.

Trying to sound more optimistic than he probably is, the president went on to say, “This should be an easy case.” In fact, he added, “It probably shouldn’t even have been taken up,” by the court.

Hmmm, telling the nine justices on the Supreme Court that they shouldn’t even have agreed to hear the case in the first place probably isn’t the best way to get them on your side. But Obama said he is so optimistic that the Supreme Court will rule in his favor that his administration hasn’t even discussed a back-up plan, in case the court rules against the policy. Besides, he added, “Congress could fix this whole thing with a one-sentence provision.”

Of course, that is not going to happen. Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wy.), who is the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, said: “Let’s be clear: If the Supreme Court rules against the administration, Congress will not pass a so-called ‘one-sentence’ fake fix.” And he added, “Instead of bullying the Supreme Court, the president should spend his time preparing for the reality that the court may soon rule against his decision to illegally issue tax penalties and subsidies on Americans in two-thirds of the country.”

We’ll know by the end of this month how the Supreme Court will rule. But remember, this is the same Court that said Obamacare was constitutional because it is a tax — despite the fact that Obama was adamant it was not. This wouldn’t be the first time the court turned logic and plain language upside down in one of its rulings.

Still, I suspect the president’s bravado is because his advisers have warned him that the court is likely to rule against him. Otherwise, why would he try to browbeat the court before it issues its ruling, with comments like this one:

I think it’s important for us to go ahead and assume that the Supreme Court is going to do what most legal scholars who’ve looked at this would expect them to do.

Sounds like somebody whistling past a graveyard, doesn’t it? If Obama were really confident that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the federal subsidies, he’d skip the smug comments and just smile for the cameras.

Of course, this wouldn’t be the first time that the president played fast and loose with the truth. Shame on us if we’d expect anything else from him.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

–Chip Wood


WHEN: Monday, June 22, 2015 @ 7 pm

WHERE: The Palazzo Grande Banquet Hall

54660 Van Dyke (South of 25 Mile Road)  Shelby Township, Michigan 48316

The Benghazi Brief: Operation Zero Footprint

What Washington D.C. Doesn’t Want You to Know!

The Benghazi Brief will give you an understanding of how and why, in the post 9-11-12 era, terrorists attacked our U.S. embassy in Benghazi. Gary Kubiak, leader of the SE Michigan 9.12

Tea Partywill deliver a fascinating presentation revealing the White House’s underlining mission in both Libya and Syria. Learn why Hillary is not the only one who never wants the

American public to know the truth about the attack and the circumstances surrounding it. Discover why both Democrats and Republicans want to keep the real story hidden from the

light of day. Each time Gary’s video is posted on Facebook, it mysteriously disappears from the page! The brave men who died in the Benghazi attack deserve to have the truth be known!

Gary Kubiak

Gary worked 38 years in the printing paper industry. 30 of those years as a salesmen in the metro Detroit area, selling to commercial print shops.

He has been retired now for over 4 years. He is currently the president of the SE Michigan 9.12 Tea Party. “While serving in the 912 TP, I’ve gotten to know great patriotic people who

want to make a difference in preserving our freedoms of this great country.”