Blog

Kingwood TEA Party 2014 Primary Voter Recommendations

Click here for printable .pdf of 2-up KWTP recommendations.

The People’s Revolt against the Ruling Elite

The People’s Revolt against the Ruling Elite

People who are really involved with the Tea Party understand that there is no single monolithic group. The Tea Party is the authentic grass roots movement the Democrats always claim to be. Thousands of groups of concerned citizens reading, meeting, learning the ins and outs of our political system to figure out exactly how to re-rail the family, culture, governments, and Freedom that once supported the American Dream.

That is what makes it so hard to unite, so difficult to treat with. Any group that is chosen as a representative of the large movement is just that–a single entity within it. Even The Tea Party Patriots, though it has thousands of members, does not completely speak for all of its members on every issue.

We do seem to coalesce around constitutionally limited government, fiscal responsibility, and free markets. However, even the depth of knowledge and resulting positions among groups on these issues differ to the point of passionate dialog and even name-calling at times. All of this good. It is just like the creative times that led to the establishment of our once great Nation.

Because we revere the Creator who gave us unalienable rights and a free Will, we think for ourselves and often argue and disagree passionately. Our faith in Providence gives us hope that we will be able to muddle towards the critical mass needed to turn this behemoth around.

Personally, though I think we must stop letting our hearts and passion rule our discussions, and look at our Founding Fathers more closely. This spirited disagreement is exactly why the Constitution begins with the words, “We the People.” When Federal legislators rule that ALL Americans must do this or that, it is tyranny pure and simple. Under our Constitution the States and the People have the right to govern themselves in all but the few carefully numbered duties and responsibilities of the Federal government.

So, the power grab at the RNC convention in Tampa was rightfully seen by many Tea Party groups as the Ruling Elite of the Republican Party girding itself against the Libertarian actions of Ron Paul followers. Tea Party leaders like myself who know history saw it as an all out attack against grassroots activists in general, including the many American constitutionalists who have been fighting the good fight for decades in the rank and file of the Republican Party on the local levels. They came for the Ron Paul supporters last convention, they will come for the Tea Party next, and eventually for all who believe that the People, not the Federal Government are the rulers of our Nation.

Too many members of the current Republican leadership, like the lock-step-unless-they-are-running-for-office-Democrats, do not really believe that they are the servants and We the People the locus of Power constitutionally. So a victory with the current Republican leadership would not be a conservative victory at all.

So, where do we start? I agree with Mark Levin, though I am uncertain that the Liberty Amendments are the best solution for our problems that have our Nation balanced precariously on the edge of the proverbial cliff. Discussion, reasoned, calm discussion among friends, family, co-workers, bosses, political enemies and friends alike. Everywhere, all the time. It is time to look at the elephant in the room, and instead of decorating and camouflaging it, figure out how to remove it from the premises altogether.

Political isms kill the People. Look at history-this fact is unassailable. Often left out of the equation is crony capitalism-the picking of winners and losers by our governments which leads to oligarchical coups, even when bloodless.

Today we see it in the waivers granted to friends and donors of the President from ObamaCare. However, we also see it in the Emerging Technology funds at the State-level that bribe large companies to come to one State rather than another. Tea Parties are nearly unanimous in supporting the framework put in place by the Founding Fathers which succeeded so well. This model emphasizes creating a climate of limited government and entrepreneurial freedom: only necessary services and guidelines with the lowest possible levels of taxation and regulation to attract and keep entrepreneurs and their businesses complete with jobs that will compete and thrive on a level playing field.

I am a constitutionalist who believes with every fiber of my being that the Founding Fathers knew and understood History and our human nature, which has not evolved one iota over the millennia. I am an awakened free-born American citizen learning to work with my peers and a Tea Party leader looking towards a restoration of the Freedom, Rule of Law, and common sense values that once made the United States of America the Land of the Free, and the American standard of living the envy of the world.

by Robin Lennon, President & Founder of the Kingwood TEA Party in Kingwood, TX.

KWTP Voter’s Guide 2013 City of Houston Runoff Election

 

ObamaCare: A True Story

This is a real-time, real-life story from a family member that I know to be true. Think about this the next time you read the main stream press trying to paint Ted Cruz, et.al. as radical right wing nut jobs.

TM

---

There’s been a lot of talk and opinion about ObamaCare.

Here’s my real true story –

I currently have a private plan that costs $180 / month with Humana. I can visit the doctor 3 times per year with a $35 co pay. Any 3 doctor combos – I can see my primary 3 times, or my ob, my dermatologist, and my primary each once. It covers 1 mammogram and 1 full set of labs and blood work a year. Anything above that is subject to my $5k deductible. It does not cover maternity which is ok as I had a tubal ligation. It has a pre existing condition clause and will not cover anything related to fibroids which is ok too because that’s only a problem when I’m pregnant. This plan works for me. I choose it based on my needs and habits. I eat relatively healthy and exercise to help manage my health care expense so I’m not going on meds or seeing multiple doctors.

I logged onto the Marketplace website. It was problematic to get on (20+ minute wait and bumped me off).

I will not be allowed to keep my current private plan because 1. it can not have a pre existing condition 2. it must cover maternity AND baby care 3. my high deductible isn’t permissible. So the cheapest plan for me under obamacare is $400 / month. Thank You President Obama – I’m thrilled to have maternity coverage back and equally thrilled my personal responsibility to manage my own health and healthcare needs no longer matters!! Let’s eat up, sit on the coach, get knocked up, and take a pill for everything that ales us. In the past year my monthly cost for this president’s agenda is $445. (healthcare and payroll tax). It doesn’t get more middle class than me. The middle class will cease to exist as we will all either be poor or rich in near future.

 

 

Sen. Cruz’s Foreign Policy Speech at Heritage

One way to win the immigration debate

by Kyle Scott

Here is an article on winning the immigration argument by Kyle Scott, published in the Desert News.

What gets lost in the immigration debate is the importance of tradition and custom. Conservatives can clearly articulate pragmatic reasons why we need stronger controls on immigration, but we often neglect the more nuanced, and perhaps more important, reasons for protecting our borders.

A core value for conservatives is a belief in an enduring moral order that is revealed to us through custom, convention and continuity. Without an adherence to tradition and custom, societies must rely exclusively on laws, which means, they must look to the government rather than institutions such as family and church for guidance. Immigration threatens to undermine tradition and custom in the U.S. Unless immigrants are asked to assimilate, we will lose what binds us as a people and relegates the government to the background. Without a common understanding and history, the government is pushed to the foreground, unhinged from anything of meaning or lasting value.

If we continue to be a nation that welcomes immigrants but does not ask them to take our norms, customs and history as their own, then we are left with no choice but to have a government define for us who we are as a people. Furthermore, in a government that is increasingly being pushed toward radical democracy, there is a risk that the laws promulgated will be without ethical merit.

Liberty under God and law, as Tocqueville formulated it, is distinct from the liberty argued for by those who favor radical democracy. As we move closer toward a radically democratic regime, we also move toward a system in which the will of the individual is glorified and fewer restraints are placed around human desires. Liberty is sacrificed when pure democracy is pursued because pure democracy does not recognize an enduring moral order or convention; it only recognizes the will of the majority. Without natural limits, democratic government is nothing more than a relativistic anarchy cloaked in the misappropriated rhetoric of liberty and equality.

Progressives encourage a “radical emancipation from natural limits and moral restraints and from a transcendent order above the will of men.” However, if man dislodges himself from what he needs, from what is natural, he will fail to achieve fulfillment, happiness and dignity.

I agree with Tocqueville’s assessment that collectivism originates in radical individualism. Because men need limits, and radical individualism rejects all natural limits and thereby destroys human connections, the end result of radical individualism — and thus radical democracy — is a dependence upon an impersonal “schoolmaster.” Radical individualism will destroy traditional values and in turn force people to turn toward the government for fulfillment, safety and guidance. The process from radical individualism to collectivism will enervate the human soul and destroy the capacity for individual initiative and moral and civic judgment. Obedience to an enduring moral order, adherence to custom, convention, and continuity, and belief in things established through immemorial usage is required for liberty and self government.

Our political climate rarely leaves time or space for sincere reflection. Grandstanding has been substituted for statesmanship, and talking points have taken the place of principle. If we are to create a politics which can rise above the gutter, we must take the first step of identifying core principles and why we adhere to them. Conservatism recognizes man has limits and must reconcile himself to those natural limits. From this fundamental truth springs conservatism and the policies which are consistent with conservative ideals. If we do not take this as the fundamental reason for securing our borders, we will lose the moral high ground and eventually lose the political battle.

---

Kyle Scott is a professor of political science at University of Houston and a trustee of the Lone Star College System. Dr. Scott, the Conservative Professor has a blog at kyleascott.

Timeline of Obama’s Syria Policy: In Their Own Words

Part 3: What We Need for Victory in 2014, Part II

PART 3: What We Need for Victory in 2014, Part II

By Dr. Kyle Scott, The Conervative Professor

From his blog

The first three principles of conservatism given by Russell Kirk are belief in an enduring moral order, adherence to custom, convention, and continuity, and belief in what may be called the principle of prescription—that is, of things established by immemorial usage. Readers will recognize how the argument developed here applies to same sex marriage and other threats to tradition. These first three principles may sound stifling, but I will demonstrate how adherence to these principles is the only way self-government can be maintained and liberty protected.

Liberty under God and Law, as Tocqueville formulated it, is distinct from the liberty argued for by those who favor radical democracy. As we move closer toward a radically democratic regime, we also move toward a system in which the will of the individual is glorified and fewer restraints are placed around human desires. Responsible liberty, dignified liberty, is sacrificed when pure democracy is pursued because pure democracy does not recognize an enduring moral order; it only recognizes the will of the majority. But self-government is sustainable only when man operates within traditional limits.

Daniel J. Mahoney writes, “unencumbered choice can never be the sole-criterion for judging the thought and action of human beings. Liberty understood as pure freedom unconnected to larger ends and purposes fatally undermines the dialectics of truth and liberty, and liberty and virtue, that define true human existence.” This touches upon a truth about the human condition, which is that man is an ever-wandering, searching being who can never be satisfied by looking within himself. Man is incomplete and cannot complete himself or his longings by staying within himself. Man must reconcile himself to his limited capacity and recognize that there is an enduring moral order he must submit to as well as the fact that those who have come before him can offer guidance.

It is undignified to undermine traditional structures for doing so separates man from what he needs to attain his dignity. Per Aristotle, man can only reach his telos within a community whose traditional order he acts according to. To be happy and complete—not to mention moral—man must act within traditional boundaries so long as those boundaries reflect an enduring moral order. All people—to a greater or lesser degree—are like children testing their boundaries. Responsible parents realize they must set boundaries for their children otherwise they risk having a child who has no direction, sense of self or natural restraint. The same is true of a citizen who seeks to unhinge himself from the traditional order. A person with no limits will be nihilistic, disenchanted, and doomed to failure.

Progressives encourage a “radical emancipation from natural limits and moral restraints and from a transcendent order above the will of men.” However, if man dislodges himself from what he needs, from what is natural, he will fail to achieve fulfillment, happiness, and dignity.

I agree with Tocqueville’s assessment that collectivism originates in radical individualism. Because men need limits, and radical individualism rejects all natural limits and thereby destroys human connections, the end result of radical individualism—and thus radical democracy—is a dependence upon an impersonal ‘schoolmaster.’ Radical individualism will destroy traditional values and in turn force people to turn toward the government for fulfillment, safety and guidance. The process from radical individualism to collectivism will enervate the human soul and destroy the capacity for individual initiative and moral and civic judgment. Obedience to an enduring moral order, adherence to custom, convention, and continuity, and belief in things established immemorial usage is required for liberty and self-government. Man is in need of limits. Without natural limits, democratic government is nothing more than a relativistic anarchy cloaked in the misappropriated rhetoric of liberty and equality.

INTRO: Why We Need Conservatives

by Kyle Scott, The Conservative Professor

INTRO: What is Conservatism?

From Dr. Scott’s blog

The government is rapidly making policy changes that deal with marriage, guns, the military, immigration and nearly every other facet of our public and private lives. These changes are taking place rapidly because Republicans seem to be giving into the demands of Democrats with recent speeches by Eric Cantor and other Republicans whose positions on immigration and same sex marriage have quickly “evolved” over the past few months. These developments illuminate the need for conservatism and its role in balancing the liberal desire for rapid change.

Change in and of itself is not always a bad thing. The problem is not with change necessarily but with the nature and rapidity of the change. If you have ever worked for a company that changed management you might know the feeling. When new management comes in and introduces immediate changes, there is backlash among the employees. The same thing happens with rapid government reform. Our understanding of what to expect and what is expected of us is disrupted with abrupt and radical change. This unsettles the existing order as well as the individuals within it to the point where society’s order is thrown into question. If these sorts of changes are instituted on a regular basis, the existence of the society is put at risk. Our understanding of marriage, education, constitutionally protected rights and healthcare are under assault from a government that thinks it knows what is best.

The liberal establishment’s desire is rooted in a view of the world that defies reality. Liberals are the contemporary adherents to the principle of modernity that places man above nature and nature’s God; they assume that they and they alone can construct a society which leaves nothing to chance and can be planned according to their view of what is good. This is what can be termed the hubris of modernity. Positive law and institutions, according to this view, can overcome traditional constraints and the traditional order by simply instituting reforms. This view thinks of tradition as a hindrance rather than a constructive way of ordering society which limits the need for government intervention.

To counteract this liberal philosophy, one needs to embrace and understand the counterbalancing force of humility. Humility provides a block against the hubris of modernity. Through humility we recognize the limitations of human reason and individuality and come to embrace the wisdom of the traditional order as revealed through faith, family, and community.

My view of humility mirrors Erasumus’ worldview. Erasmus was a Dutch priest and scholar who was influential during the Reformation. Though Erasmus admitted humanity’s tendency to carnal corruption and lampooned its manifold foolishness, he still believed in the essential goodness of a human nature made in the image of God and in the human ability, with the help of grace, to come into harmony with the divine purposes evident in creation. The Hobbesian contractor (which is to say liberal modernity), on the other hand, had to impose order on a chaotic natural world. The desire for control and uniformity will bring us under greater constraint from a central government. Only our humility can prevent a shift in that direction.

In The Conservative Mind Russell Kirk wrote, “We ought to understand conservative ideas so that we may rake from the ashes what scorched fragments of civilization escape the conflagration of unchecked will and appetite.” The U.S. is in dire need of conservatives who can articulate this idea both through rhetoric and policies. If such a voice cannot be found our politics risks losing its counterbalance to progressive reform.

From Dr. Scott’s blog – 4/2/13

SERIES: What Is Conservatism?

by Kyle Scott, The Conservative Professor

SERIES: What is Conservatism?

Articles from Dr. Scott’s blog

Forward by Robin Lennon

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED for all citizen lobbyists, politicians desiring to become conservative statesmen, and all citizens considering running for office.

If we cannot articulate what Conservatism is, how can we say who is a Conservative, and who is a RINO? Knowing what conservativism is, and how to determine the conservative position on the myriad political and moral issues we as a Nation are currently faced with is foundational to all Patriots wishing to support limited govevernment and increased freedom.

Dr. Scott is currently writing and will subsequently present a series of classes that deal with the subject of defining conservatism so that we can look at current issues and know what the conservative answer is, and lobby our politicians to support that position. The conservative position is that which has developed over the millenia, rooted in an understanding of the fallible nature of man rather than a belief in the perfectibility of man as addressed by an elite which believes itself capable of legislating and regulating the People into a utopian society of their making.

Read Dr. Scott’s series as they are available, and join us in the Fall when he leads a seminar for us on Just what conservatism is, and how to evaluate the conservative position, as well as applying that knowledge to current issues of the day.

INTRO: Why We Need Conservatives

Part 1: What We Need for Victory in 2014 and Beyond, Part I

Part 2: What We Need for Victory in 2014 and Beyond, Part II

Part 3: Russell Kirk in Syria: Further considering what it means to be a conservative