TAKING OVER THE CRA/NFRA AND THE CHALCEDON FOUNDATION

This California recall has enabled us to take a close look at the inner workings of California politics, and of some of the shadowy interests which manipulate teh GOP to serve the interests of a numerically small but very noisily ideological group of malcontents from within the party. I have taken the time to come up with links to articles and excerpts of what is contained within so as to provide FReepers with some of the connections which exist between various individuals and groups within the California Republican Party, as well as the beliefs espoused by each.

When reviewing these excerpts (and they are all fairly lenghty, be forewarned), keep this working set of names and definitions in mind:

Howard Ahmanson, Jr. - Heir to vast savings and loan fortune, a 20 year contributor and former board member of the Chalcedon Institute. Prolific donor to campaigns of CRA members, and a particular patron of Tom McClintock.

Mark Rushdoony - Dead pseudotheologian and proponent of doctrine of Christian Dominionism.

Chalcedon Foundation/Institute - "Think tank" which advances the cause of Christian Dominionism in America.

Christian Dominionism - an ideology that the United States shall be governed under a Christian moral code with heavy emphasis on Old Testament rules as a matter of civil and criminal law.

California Republican Assembly - an organization which claims to consist of grassroots California Republicans

John Stoos - Former Vice President of the California Republican Asssembly, long time Chalcedon contributing writer and staffer and now a political aide to Tom McClintock.

Rod Martin - Eastern Region Vice President of the NFRA, Editor-Director of the Vanguard.

NFRA - National Federation of Republican Assemblies, the umbrella organization set up by the founders of the CRA, which is to give the movement a nationwide focus.

Writing in the February 1997 issue [of Chalcedon Magazine], Stoos described how "a small group of Christians" first began to take over the California Republican Assembly in 1988 and came to dominate the state Republican Party itself. Stoos said what happened with the CRA "may well be a good model" to export "to facilitate the same type of successes across the country."

"In recent issues, Chalcedon writers have considered how those who believe in the Lordship of Christ and dominion mandate should involve themselves in American politics," Stoos wrote. "We agreed that Christians should not approach politics as 'wanting a seat at the table' as if the Creator of the Universe or his vice regents need to ask permission to be involved."

Political involvement in a constitutional republic, he continued, "is a natural obligation" for Christians who want the freedom to "preach the Gospel and further God's Kingdom."

The CRP debacle began in 1988 when Pat Robertson challenged President Bush in the Republican Primary. Although Robertson lost, he energized the Christian Coalition nationwide. In California they joined with the large and powerful California Republican Assembly and ran an effective though losing grassroots campaign.

After Robertsons loss to Bush, the leaders of the two groups had a meeting to discuss starting a third party. (Well documented in the Chalcedon Magazine by John Stoos.) They decided that as a third party, they could have a lot to say about philosophy but little or nothing to say about governance. They decided instead to take over the California Republican Party, control the party platform and the $20 million budget during each election cycle. The CRA-dominated coalition ran a stealth campaign in County Central Committee elections and was successful at winning a majority. They elected a Chairman and Board of Directors that was so dominated by the radical-right that they did not invite Governor Wilson to the 1992 convention, would not let him attend and demonstrated against our sitting Republican U.S. Senator when he was the keynote speaker. The CRA continued to consolidate its control of the CRP to such an extent that by 1994, every office and board member of the CRP was a member of the CRA and no one else was allowed to run. During the six years they had absolute control, the party suffered the worst three defeats in its history. During that time, CRA members and even officers of the party attacked Republican candidates in General Elections, costing us several seats. Although there were many such attacks, including the CRP Chairman initiating lawsuits against Republican Assembly candidates, the ones that could be the most costly were the attacks by a CRA Unit President and his associates on Congressman Steve Kuykendall and candidate Jim Cuneen. While Republicans in the rest of the country were trying to save our Speakership in the House, they were trying to hand it to the Democrats.

While the CCR was busy getting started and growing to over 25 Chapters around the state by 1997, the CRA had completed its takeover of the CRP to the extent that they outnumbered Mainstream Republicans by about 1200 to 400, and the counties by about 50 to 8.

While belief could not be mandatory in a Biblical society, and unbelievers could live and work among the people of God, not all religious practices would be permitted. A Biblical society would have to restrain religions based on murder, aggressive revolution, or other civilization-destroying practices. Exodus 22:18, 20 and Deuteronomy 18:10-12 indicate that the practice of occultist religions or religions involving sacrifice to idols was a capital crime under the civil law given to Moses. I did not mention this fact in my reply because it would invite hysterics over witch trials rather than an understanding of my broader point — that the state, and therefore the idea of "crime," is necessarily religious. My correspondent evidently wants official state toleration for all religions, including outright paganism, Satanism, and witchcraft. I wanted her to see the impossibility of this pluralism.

Pagans and occultists should not be ignored by Christians as fringe groups of little significance. R. J. Rushdoony, in The Institutes of Biblical Law, pointed out the danger posed by such groups in the past:

At the end of the Middle Ages and in the early years of the modern era, a widespread outbreak and revival of pagan and anti-Christian occultism was responsible for a massive assault on Christianity, an attack on tithing, the mainstay of Christian society, a sexual revolution aimed at destroying the family, and a revival of cannibalism, human sacrifice, and related acts.

A conference committee drew up an agreed-on list of reforms, everyone shook on the deal and it appeared that conservatives had won an impressive victory. The conservative leadership still managed, however, to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

First, they sent liberal staff off to draft the details of the reforms, creating over four hundred pages of legal jargon to implement the few simple reforms. The final product actually moved California to the Left of the reforms signed by President Bill Clinton! When this was pointed out to the conservative leadership, they simply said it was the best they could get!

Next came their favorite legislative game: Announcing major reforms, while voting to do just the opposite. There were the obligatory debates, and when the dust had settled, only Senator Dick Mountjoy and Assemblyman Tom McClintock were willing to vote NO, after speaking against the phony reforms in the public debates.

Chalcedon and most other orthodox Christian reformers do not undertake to establish a national or state church (and thus do not deny the validity of the separation of church and state, properly understood); rather, we endorse and practice Christian establishmentarianism: the prevalence of historic, Biblical Christianity in all areas of modern life. We advocate a disestablished church but an established Faith.

All consistent Christians are thus intently disestablishmentarian and establishmentarian: To press the claims of Christ in all spheres is necessarily and simultaneously to disestablish Satan’s kingdom and establish Christ’s kingdom.

And it is the establishment of Christ’s kingdom which is destined to prevail.

Chalcedon supports only one form of "racism": God blesses, nourishes, and honors the Royal Race of the Redeemed, all of those of whatever physical race that have placed their faith and trust in Jesus Christ, and God curses the race of the First Adam, all of those who live in unbelief, rebellion, and work-righteousness (Rom. 5:12-21). This is the only "racial discrimination" the Bible knows anything about. God discriminates in favor of covenant-keepers, and discriminates against covenant-breakers (Dt. 28). Some may object that He favors the race of Israel in the Old Testament era, but it must be immediately noted that His choice was not fundamentally racial, but religious. For this reason, Gentiles could become a part of the Jewish race, and thus a part of the covenant people of God (Gen. 17:12-13). The non-racial aspect of Biblical Faith is clear from Ephesians 2:11-15:

Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace....

All converted Jews and Gentiles stand on the same plane of blessing in God's sight, just as all unconverted Jews and Gentiles stand on the same plane of judgment in God's sight. The race God favors is the race of the Second Adam; the race He disfavors is the race of the First Adam. And this has nothing to do with physical race.

From radical fringe to kingmakers in a decade — how did they do it? "Basically, there's two places you have influence: one is in the nominating process in the primaries, where you can elect people in ideological agreement with your views, and the other is in the party structure," says former CRA vice president John Stoos, a former gun lobbyist, member of the fundamentalist Christian Reconstructionist movement, and senior consultant to the State Assembly. "And who pays attention to this stuff? You literally have to plan months and years ahead to know where the openings are."

Larkin felt the wrath of the CRA when he ran for the California Assembly in 1996. In 1992 he had angered the CRA by launching a campaign to wrest control of the party's Ventura County Central Committee away from the conservatives. In reprisal, the CRA backed conservative Tom McClintock, who defeated Larkin in the 1996 primary and ultimately won the general election.

"They're organized and dedicated," says Larkin, "and mainstream Republicans are neither, so a very small group can take over."

Ahmanson's patronage benefits several nonprofit think tanks, including the Claremont Institute, where McClintock worked for two years after losing his 1994 run for state controller, and the Chalcedon Foundation, which promotes a brand of Christianity known as Christian Reconstructionism. Chalcedon produces journals for which McClintock political aide John Stoos routinely writes.

In the 1980s and 1990s, Ahmanson served on Chalcedon's board of directors and was its largest benefactor, giving it at least $733,000. He remains a donor to the nonprofit organization, which was founded by Rousas John Rushdoony. Often called theologian to the religious right, Rushdoony, who died in 2001, advocated a nation ruled by Biblical law, a vision that assigned the death penalty for 18 sins, including murder, rape of a betrothed virgin, adultery and sodomy.

Ahmanson could not be reached for comment. But at a news conference this week, McClintock said he knew nothing about Ahmanson's theology, other than that he is a Christian. [compiler's note - take from that what you will]

Our Founding Fathers firmly held to the conviction that religious freedom was fundamental to a free society. We also express the conviction that we are a God-fearing people, according one another the equal right of religious freedom and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God.

Parents bear the final responsibility before God in the rearing of their children. Parents have been commanded by God to love their children and lead them in the paths of truth. Parents must be free to discipline their children in love and direct their education without government intrusion.

We believe with the framers of that document when President Adams stated, "This Constitution will not work except with a religious people."

Even these numbers understate the case. In California, for instance, where the study rightly noted reverses, Christian conservatives in the powerful California Republican Assembly were nevertheless able to overturn the “foreordained” outcome of their party’s gubernatorial primary, badly upsetting left-wing Los Angeles mayor Richard Riordan with conservative underdog Bill Simon. A Simon win in November would guarantee their dominance in the party, and dramatically increase their influence in both state and nation.

Shoot, just post it:

"Blood Feud: California Republicans' Unholy War"

Posted by Arthur Bruzzone
Monday, January 20, 2003

In California, religion is not politics. Politics is religion, and it's personal.

For now, the Democrats are at peace, but within the Golden State's GOP, vendettas, grudges, long memories, and vicious personal attacks are the norm . What started out 12 years ago as a clear cut battle between social conservatives and religious activists versus moderates has deteriorated into a battle of strange alliances and bedfellows, and with blurred battle lines.

Credit California's political culture of demonization for helping to intensify the current battle for state GOP party chair. Meanwhile, the White House waits in the background trying to remain neutral, and eyeing California as a battleground state in the 2004 presidential campaign.

First some background. As President Ronald Reagan's term was coming to an end in 1988, social conservatives in California looked for a new mission. Many activists were discouraged by Washington politics and set out to work locally. During the 1988 presidential campaign, the membership of the then little known GOP volunteer organization, the California Republican Assembly (CRA,) swelled with many supporters of GOP primary presidential candidate Pat Robertson. By the time the 1989 CRA convention got underway in Costa Mesa, these new members--joined by longtime CRA members of similar opinions--had a majority of the delegates. They swept into office a new slate of CRA officers.

In 1990, a highly organized group of local Christian fundamentalist candidates captured over 60 positions on San Diego county's school and hospital boards. The tactics and strategies used to takeover the California Republican Assembly and the San Diego county board seats would be used repeatedly in the next 12 years to dominate California GOP party apparatus: stealth, grassroots organization, and firm discipline in getting out the vote.

By 1991, the California Republican Assembly had gained control of 36 of 58 Republican county central committees. They elected Jim Dignan state party chair, and now controlled the California Republican Party. They have dominated the party ever since. Every party chairman since 1991 has been essentially decided by the California Republican Assembly including the current chair, Shawn Steele.

But in 2001, Gerald Parsky, President Bush's closest advisor in California, headed an effort to curtail the power of the state chairman, institute new financial controls, and ''professionalize'' the GOP's political operations. The eventual reforms were far less than intended. But the Party's vice chairman, Bill Back--also a California Republican Assembly endorsed officer--lent guarded support for the reform effort, which infuriated fellow CRA member, party chairman Steele.

One group supporting Parsky and the reform effort was the Lincoln Club of Northern California, led by its chair, Duf Sundheim. The club had been formed originally as donor group to support moderate candidates in the San Francisco Bay Area, but has since broadened its mission to include support for conservative Republicans, and to be more active in political projects.

Which brings us to the present battle for state party chairman: Vice Chair Bill Back vs. Duf Sundheim. And this is where the politics of personal vendetta replaces the politics of religious principles--and where the battle lines become cloudy. For the current party chairman, Shawn Steele, is supporting Duf Sundheim and opposing his CRA colleague, Bill Back. Gerald Parsky, according to the Washington Post, had given Back private backing. But more recently, Parksy, who worked closely with Duf Sundheim on the reform effort, has stated publicly that he will endorse no one in the chairman race. Parsky and Steele despise each other. An anonymous periodical newsletter, called ''Parsky Watch,'' has viciously attacked Gerald Parsky.

The campaign for party chairman has been no different. Following in the wake of Senator Lott's demise, a newsletter Back distributed to party leaders in 1999 was released to the press. In the newsletter, Back included an article, not written by him, which suggested that blacks in America might be better off if the South had won the Civil War. Then a video tape interview was distributed in which Sundheim warns against voting for candidates on the basis of race or ethnicity.

The February convention when state delegates will select the next chairman is still weeks away.

Sundheim has been gathering endorsements of key party leaders including the California Congressional Delegation. Back supporters will count on what has been the traditional strength of the California Republican Assembly. Using proxy fights and control of local central committees to collect votes, and dominate the floor fights that are sure to occur at the February convention.

The party infighting delights Democrats. They now control every statewide office and both chambers of the state legislature. In the end only about 100 of the 1,400 convention delegates--most of them members of the California Republican Assembly--may decide the victor. Back will try to keep them within the CRA fold, while Sundheim will appeal to the dismal record of the CRA-controlled party over the last several years. Both have assembled seasoned political consultants for the upcoming battle.

And what of the White House? The Bush administration is fiercely loyal. Parsky remains their California representative. The White House would prefer a smooth transition in party leadership. That would favor Back, but the White House has taken no formal position in the race, and, in recent days, has moved farther away from the battle. In any case, whether Back or Sundheim wins, they hope the California Republican Party will be less interested in ideology, and more concerned with developing a modern party operation to turn out voters and winning.

The 2001 Republican campaign victories proved that voter turnout is becoming the key to winning close elections around the country. The California presidential race could be close. President Bush needs a disciplined California operation to take the Golden State. Since the battle for party chairman is crossing ideological lines, and pairing moderates with social conservatives, it appears that ten years of ideological battles have taken a toll. The California Republican Party wants to win, again. That mission is shared by the White House and both candidates for party chairman.

Write to Arthur at bruzzone@rightturns.com

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.