Tea Party Big Mouth, Amy Kremer, Claims SHE Started the Tea Party Movement

Amy Kremer (Fox News)

(Photo credit: Fox News)

by Diane Rufino, June 16, 2019

Just recently, I heard something absolutely offensive from Amy Kremer, spokeswoman for Women For Trump (and from what I can tell, the only member!)

This past week-end, Amy was stumping for Dr. Greg Murphy (for US Congress from eastern NC, which is district 3) at one of his events, and as she has done over and over in the past, she used her pulpit to spread the same tired lies about his opponent, Dr. Joan Perry, that she enjoyed spreading when she first came to Pitt County to support him. She went on to accuse Dr. Perry of being a “Pelosi liberal” and of having no intention of supporting President Trump when she gets to DC. It was an offensive rant, and several who listened to her showed expressions of disgust. I guess after hearing Dr. Murphy complain over and over again of the negative campaign ads against him, one would think he would have the decency of not doing the very same thing to Dr. Perry, and especially from his very own platform! But politics is politics, I guess. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. If you can’t let the name-calling and the politically-motivated accusations roll off you, then perhaps politics isn’t for you. If you want to win bad enough, then sling the shit.

There are no tissues in politics and there are no safe spaces. If Dr. Murphy can dish it, it’s best he learn to take it.

But that’s not what bothered me, because I know politics is a dirty game, and I know ambition when I see it and I know what it does to a person’s character and how it affects his or her actions. In other words, I’ve come to accept it. What bothered me was Kremer’s comment that she – yes, SHE – started the Tea Party movement back in 2009.

I couldn’t believe my ears….   Was she really trying to take credit for the whole Tea Party movement? Was she daring to take credit for a movement that can be best characterized as a “grassroots movement”?? Does she even realize that the Tea Party movement is a grassroots movement? Was she conscious during the years 2009-2019? To someone like me who started a Tea party group in 2009, who has worked tirelessly at that group to keep it going and growing to the group it is today, who has worked tirelessly with other Tea Party and like-minded groups to educate on and further the principles on which the movement had coalesced, who has worked diligently and honestly as an activist in ways to expose the abuse and dishonesty and incompetence in government, who has worked in every way possible to compensate for the gross inundation of fake news and political propaganda out there by exposing the facts (collected by doing the hard work of reading and investigating and asking hard questions) and trying to set the record straight, who has confronted the negative accusations about the Tea Party, who has won over hundreds of voters, and who has fought, written, blogged, protested, met with legislators to push back against every bit of progressivism and every bit of government over-reach, there is no more absolute truth than this: There is NO ONE PERSON who can take credit for the Tea Party movement or has the right to.

The fact that Kremer can even suggest that she “started the movement” shows that she fundamentally lacks an understanding of the movement in general. She is nothing more than an opportunist, a woman badly seeking attention and validation.

The Tea Party movement was an organic, grassroots movement started in 2009 when Rick Santelli, a CNBC business news reporter (on “Task Force”) who was reporting from the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade on February 18, 2009, went off on a rant about the government bail-out program. [See the rant here – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcvSjKCU_Zo ] Santelli accused the Obama administration of promoting bad behavior and suggested something novel for DC legislators: “government should reward people who can ‘carry the water’ instead of those who just ‘drink the water.’’ He then posed a question to the Chicago Board of Trade: “Who wants to subsidize other people’s mortgage?” The response was over-whelming. Everyone thought the program was asinine and offensive. They were tired of the government using taxpayer dollars to try to keep people in homes that they will never be able to keep making payments on. As Santelli was hinting to, there is no “right to own a home” in America, no matter how much Democrats want it to be so. The so-called “Second Bill of Rights” that they so love to promise to their voters (something FDR had come up with in 1944 – to include the “right “to a job, food, clothing, recreation, a home, medical care, sound education, economic equality, and freedom from the fear of unemployment, old age, sickness, and unfair competition) is not a list of inherent rights, attaching automatically to our very humanity, but rather a list of services that will have to be provided to some at the expense of others. Santelli ended his rant with this invitation: “We’re thinking of having a Chicago Tea Party in July. All you capitalists who want to show up on Lake Michigan, I’m gonna start planning it…”

With that rant, and that simple call to peaceful protest and civil disobedience, Tea Party protests immediately began popping up everywhere. People, young and old, met in fields, in parks, in parking lots, in stadiums, at intersections, etc to protest the government bail-out program and its plans to control national healthcare. After those initial protests, Tea Party groups organized all over the country – in towns and cities, each in their own way and having their own unique flavor. Some organized as larger monthly group meetings and some organized to meet om a smaller scale – in intimate “table-talk” groups. Some focused on planning big events and protests, some focused on education and learning, some focused on griping, some organized for the purpose of infiltrating their local GOP to weed out the overbearing establishment influence, some organized mainly to vet Tea Party candidates for all types of offices, and some focused on such useful goals as serving as government (local, state, and federal) watchdog groups. Some groups didn’t last for more than a few years (with members moving into the GOP to pressure that group to return to stronger and more principled conservatism) while many others are still going strong (serving as the conservative beacon of their counties). All, however, have achieved one important goal – to promote the principles on which the Tea Party movement began, as inspired by Rick Santelli’s rant – limited government, constitutional government, fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, and free markets. All have helped to swing the political pendulum further to the right and all have helped to demonize establishment conservatives. All have served an important role – to help educate and inform their local voters; to make more responsible voters out of them. All have made a difference.

Almost immediately, Tea Party members were able to figure out the stark reality – that all of the current problems and troubles in our country stem from one thing and one thing only – a government that has grown too aggressive and bloated, concentrating too many government powers in DC (far more than were delegated to it under the US Constitution), that has become abusive and reckless with those powers, and has become too intrusive and controlling in the lives and affairs of We the People, with our property, and in our businesses and livelihoods. The federal government has never met a law it doesn’t like or a problem it doesn’t want to solve (with more laws, bureaucracy, and tax dollars, of course). A people who understand and appreciate that our nation’s problems stem from the refusal of all three branches of the federal government to confine itself to the limits imposed by the Constitution can engage in politics, whether as an activist, a party member, or a voter in a manner that will help restore proper constitutional balance and restraint. We can only help to get our “house” in order when we are willing to stand up and fight for those principles that can make it so. Being an American, to we Tea Party folk, is not about wearing red, white, and blue shirts, waving an American flag or a “Don’t Tread on Me (Gadsden flag), marching on Washington DC, or any other type of similar demonstrative act…. It’s about taking the time to know our founding history, reading our founding documents, and understanding – truly understanding – what makes our country so unique and so intelligently designed to exist as a free nation; that is, to be able to secure and protect the God-given rights and other liberty rights that individuals are naturally entitled to. And it’s about being willing to fight for them, particularly in the arena that matters most – in speech and expression, and in the political arena. We represent the best in America, her ideals and her assurances…. Not the ones that politicians offer but the ones that the Declaration, the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights articulate.

The gains made by the Tea Party movement have been made on the local level, by well-meaning folks committed to restoring proper governance in our country and committed to educating and spreading the word to their communities. The success of the movement is not related to the success of Women for Trump or groups like that, but rather to the success of groups in towns and cities all over the country in being effective spokesman for our founding principles.

I’ve never heard the name Amy Kremer before this spring. The first time I heard her name was on a local radio program when she had come to Greenville to endorse Greg Murphy for the US House. It was also the first time I had her of her organization, Women for Trump. I immediately discounted her of having any meaningful influence because she totally lacked any credibility. The talk radio show host almost seemed to be holding back laughter from the ridiculousness and the idiocy of her answers. Kremer or her group have never come to Greenville, NC or any other town in eastern NC. They have never once contacted either the ENC Tea Party or the Coastal Carolina Taxpayers Association (CCTA), which is the largest, most active Tea Party group in the state. Kremer supposedly worked for Tea Party Express several years ago. Yet, that group also has never come to Greenville, NC or has never contacted the ENC Tea Party or CCTA to see what they are doing or what they might need help with.

Again, there is a certain audacity that Kremer has in claiming she started the Tea Party movement. As I said earlier, too say something so outrageous simply means that she lacks a fundamental understanding of what the Tea Party movement was, is, and continues to be about. The Tea Party movement is THE PEOPLE – much like the Sons of Liberty in the colonial days. The movement is comprised of ordinary folks who love their country, who are enamored with the system of government and the principles upon which our country was founded, who are deeply appreciative of those who created and adopted our founding documents, for the great wisdom and foresight they had and used, who refuse to sit on the sidelines and allow further government abuse and tyranny to go unnoticed and uncontested, and who volunteer their time and energy to be active in politics on all levels. The Tea Party is not a top-down movement, but rather a grassroots, bottom-up movement – by the People, For the People No one person is the face of the Tea Party and no one person is responsible for it. Just as the intolerable actions of the British King and Parliament caused the colonists to get off their seats and into the political arena (“No taxation without representation!”) and into action (acts of civil disobedience to frustrate the enforcement of the laws passed by Parliament enacted without representation by the colonies), the intolerable actions of our own federal government have inspired a new generation of American patriots to get out of their chairs and into the political arena.

If Amy Kremer wanted to truly act in the best interests of the Tea Party, she should have contacted the REAL Tea Parties in eastern North Carolina, which SHE DID NOT EVEN ATTEMPT TO DO !! Local Tea Parties would have a far greater handle on the candidates than someone like her could ever have. But she is more interested in putting her own name and her own ego before the movement – something a true Tea Party activist would never ever do. She is more concerned in elevating her own relevance than in elevating or promoting the Tea Party movement.

Kremer is a fraud and a hack. She is a lobbyist, not a Tea Partier. She is offensive and an opportunist.

ELECTION 2016: Strong Women Know Better!


by Diane Rufino, Nov. 7, 2016

Two weeks ago, I attended a Trump rally in Kinston, NC – about 25 miles from my house. I got there early and stood in line for nearly 2 hours, enjoying every minute chatting with a great group of people. While in line, I was interviewed for TV (a Canadian outlet) and one question I was asked was whether I put off by the lewd conversation that Donald Trump had back in 2005 in private with a male friend of his. I responded that although it may have been offensive, not once did I consider withholding my support for him. When he tried to push further, I told him I will not answer any more questions about the topic. I told him that the issue was settled back in the late 1990’s when Bill Clinton did things most unbecoming of a president (let alone a married man) and the Democrats refused to engage in condemnation because “what he does in his private life is his business and no one else’s. It was the Democrats who defended him and Hillary who fought for him (and by “fought,” I mean used the full coercive and harassment capabilities of the federal government), and for the Democrats to now rely almost solely on that old private audio as a means to assassinate Trump’s character for the same office they recently abused and vacated is the height of hypocrisy.

“I’m a big girl,” I told the reporter. “I know men aren’t angels. In fact, I imagine most men talk more like Trump than Pope Francis about women when they are in a locker room with their male buddies.” The reporter said: “Understood,” and then moved on. We had a great conversation, all on tape, and in fact, we spoke again later in the evening.

Once inside the rally, my son and I had about two hours before Trump was expected to arrive in his magnificent 747. Again, we had a wonderful time meeting and chatting with lots of like-minded folks. Just as I was ready to go look for something to drink, a journalist with the Globe and Mail stopped me. She said she had overheard me talking with others and wanted to know if she could ask me some questions for an article she was writing. The second question she asked was about my reaction to the audio where Donald Trump spoke lewdly about women. Of course the question would be asked. Of course, that question apparently is more important than what issues have me supporting Trump.

No doubt, it is a very popular question among reporters and journalists. Certainly, the topic dominates the main stream media, which only leads me to believe that women must be terribly thin-skinned and incapable of talking about nothing more than how insulted and offended they were over the old conservation. Of course, these same women must live in a cave without a radio, TV, or access to scandalous Hollywood magazines. They must have never heard a rap song, watched a music video, engaged in conversation with anyone of the modern era (casual sex is in!), listened to Howard Stern, gone to a frat party, gone to a bar, gone to any movie in the last 10-20 years, or read anything about the Kardashians or any other celebrity talk about sex, sex tapes, going out without underwear, or having breast and buttock enhancement. We live in a culture where women contour their bodies surgically and dress provocatively for the express purpose of attracting the attention of men. We live in a culture where women objectify themselves and men objectify them as well. In some parts of society, women specifically objectify themselves in order to be treated as a sex object!! We had a president (1992-2000), Bill Clinton, who objectified women. He objectified them so thoroughly that he sexually abused and harassed them. He viewed them for one purpose only – for sexual gratification. In documented encounters, Governor Clinton and then President Clinton, would meet a woman for the first time, and in fact, within mere minutes of the meeting, unzip his pants, try to introduce them to “little willie,” and then ask them to “give it a kiss.” And in an effort to cover for her husband and help save his presidency and reputation, Hillary Clinton objectified those poor female victims. Bill destroyed their dignity and Hillary destroyed their reputation.

How, it is true that Donald Trump has been critical of women in the past, oftentimes focusing on their looks, and treating them, often times, as exactly what they were – beauty pageant contestants. A woman enters a beauty pageant implicitly holding herself to an extremely high standard of beauty and shapeliness. Let’s face it, a top beauty pageant is not for women who are overweight, out-of-shape, not attractive in a bathing suit or evening gown, or not classically attractive. Sad to say, but a top beauty pageant that allows such contestants could not theoretically hold itself out as a true (physical) beauty pageant and certainly would not get the viewership that sponsors and advertisers expect. I am a woman and although I find it a bit demeaning, I acknowledge the purpose it serves. I am not going to fault it or those who demand that it hold to its high standards of physical beauty and perfection. And other women shouldn’t either. If they are offended, they are free to start a different kind of beauty pageant.

Hillary Clinton focuses the bulk of her attacks on Donald Trump by claiming that he is unfit to be president on account of his past comments regarding women. Her ads show a child being exposed to the liberal media which of course, spends the overwhelming majority of its time replaying an old audio or rehashing some old comments, and then asks whether he is fit to be president. The only time a child would ever be exposed to such insults is at the hand of the media, so is a child harmed by Donald Trump or the media? In her ads, Clinton says: Donald Trump has “spent a lot of time demeaning, degrading, insulting and assaulting women.” I have heard these political adds ad-nauseum on the radio and on TV. I find it troubling that whenever I pull up an article on Donald Trump that reports that he is going up in the polls, immediately there will be a pop-up ad from Hillary Clinton bashing Trump on his treatment of women. It happens EVERY single time. I guess that’s another scheme engineered by the liberal media to promote Clinton over Trump.

If that is the only thing Hillary Clinton can attack Donald Trump on, then Trump is an excellent candidate after all!! Trump, on the other hand, has an almost exhaustive list of items he can criticize Clinton on, least of all is her failed record, her deleted emails, her handling of Benghazi, her dogged determination to force national healthcare down the nation’s throat (during her husband’s administration), her dubious associations, her use of classified information and mis-appropriation of American interests to her own benefit as Secretary of State (thru the corrupt Clinton Foundation), her support and cover-up of her husband’s serial sexual abuse of women, her many scandals, and her many many allegations of corruption.

Donald Trump was, and never intended to be, a career politician. He didn’t have his eye on a political office. He didn’t groom himself to be the smooth-talking, politically-correct candidate who could win over every voter and every demographic. He was more suited to being the brass, living-large business tycoon, beauty-pageant manager, and reality show star. He never contemplated having his life laid out under a microscope for voters to examine and he never groomed himself. The notion that just because a man is a politician and has hugged women and kissed babies and has won over crowds means he is a wholesome, honorable human being was thrown out the window with President John F. Kennedy, President Lyndon B. Johnson, and most notably President William Jefferson Clinton (Bill).

As bad as some of the comments he said back in 2005 (11 years ago!!), they are NOTHING compared to the lyrics in a typical rap song (and I hate to use the word “song” because rarely does one meet the criteria). Barack and Michelle Obama have embraced rap artists in their administration and have entertained their music and their concerts in the White House – with their children. Beyonce and Jay-Z, Ludacis, Kendrick Lamar, Killer Mike, P. Diddy, and others. Ludacris sings the song ‘Fatty Girl’,” which contains the lyrics? “Yo girl you taste like a Cinnabun/ so sweet from the thighs to the cheek/ sex on the beach check the size of my meat.” In 2013, Michelle Obama invited Kendrick Lamar, the rapper who sings/raps “The Bitch Don’t Kill My Vibe.” Knowing his reputation, he was asked by the White House to structure his performance for young children since there would be many in attendance. His concert was to precede a fireworks display. Instead, he spent his hour and a half using the “N” word, the “F” word, and the big daddy of them all, the “C” word. The White House had ever heard such vulgarity ever before. Michelle Obama’s hypocrisy and Hillary’s hypocrisy is astounding. Michelle Obama allowed her daughters, Malia and Sasha, to listen to Lamar’s “Hol’ Up”: “Stewardess complimentin’ me on my nappy hair/If I can f*** in front of all these passengers … Back in this bitch in the back of that bitch/ Wit’ my back against the wall and yo’ bitch on the edge of my d—/ Jump off/ I call a bitch a bitch, a ho a ho, a woman a woman.” Jay Z, who has been invited many times to the White House with his wife Beyonce (who supports the Black Lives Matter movement), is worth $520 million and a major campaign contributor and fundraiser for the Obamas. He raps such fine wholesome songs as the one called “Pussy.” It’s lyrics ooze of child pornography. Here are some of its lyrics, and notice how they “celebrate” women: “I-I know this girl we call her Sweet Cooch Brown/ Hands down Miami had the bombest pussy in town/ One dip in the girl pool, thatz all it took/ One sample of the snappa and ya ass was whooped.”

Now, I don’t know what all that means, but I know that Donald Trump has never talked like that.

I read an article, authored by Brandon Morse (RedState), in which he discussed Hillary’s attack of Trump on his lewd comments in her campaign ads. He writes “I’m sure to some women this might be affecting, but I imagine to many women, [these ads] would come off as slightly insulting. In an attempt to highlight Trump’s chauvinism, Hillary just makes women come off as fragile, and insecure. By trying to make him seem like a jerk, she painted women as weak. What Hillary has essentially done is to go after an ‘insecurity vote……If that’s not insulting to women, I’m not sure what is.”

Morse then comments on the actual response to Clinton’s ads. He emphasizes that overall, the ads have far more “down” votes than “up” votes. [44,300 votes to 26,000 votes]. In other words, the ad is more offensive than persuasive; most of the women who view such an ad find it denigrates them.

Morse concludes: “I also find it Hillaryous that she of all people would release this video seeing as she’s married to one of America’s most notorious cereal adulterers. Trump may be bad, but in terms of sexist men, there’s not many who can rival the absolute horror to women that Bill Clinton was [and who knows, might still be], and Hillary Clinton was right next to him, defending the man every step of the way.”

I agree with Mr. Morse. I am insulted by Hillary’s allegations and campaign ads that make it seem that women vote only with their emotion and their fragile sensibilities. The thought that women can’t vote more responsibly and for more important issues than the mere fact that, as a celebrity and a man who was not known for being a man of class and culture, he said some unkind and lewd comments about certain women is downright insulting.

I am proud to be a woman. I am proud to belong to the gender that nature trusts with the reproduction of the human race, the gender that gives life and in most cases, protects the life being developed. I’m proud to belong to the gender that is deemed strong enough for the greatest responsibility of them all – for the nurturing and raising of children. A woman has a thick skin, thick enough to deflect insults and hurtful comments from her children and from other mothers. A woman has the humility to put the interests of her family before herself and has the good sense to know when it is in her children’s best interests (and even her husband’s best interests) to put her career on hold or even aside. A woman is the glue that often holds her marriage together and her family. A mother never thinks of herself; she always puts her children first. She will never let her children down, including in the decisions that will affect their lives.

I don’t know what breed of woman Hillary Clinton is reaching out to with her ads insinuating that women shouldn’t vote for Donald Trump on account of the mere fact that he has said some inappropriate things about women in the past but these are not the women that I know. The women I know put their country first. They put the well-being of their family first; they put their children first. They put their feelings last.

If women were truly as shallow as Hillary Clinton believes (or hopes), then nature would have done a fairly poor job of selecting her for the critical role she was created for.



Brandon Morse, “Hillary’s Ad Attacking Trump’s Piggish Nature Comes Off Making Women Look Fragile,” RedState, September 27, 2016. Reference at: http://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2016/09/27/hillarys-ad-attacking-trumps-piggish-nature-comes-making-women-look-fragile/

Nancy Smith, “People in the White House Shouldn’t Throw Stones,” Sunshine State News, Oct. 17, 2016. Referenced at: http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/people-white-houses-shouldnt-throw-stones