RPT Convention 2024

The party State Convention is packed full of amazing people. Great conversation. Great patriotism. Great energy. Let's Make America Great Again!!!

Family is a Great Option

I do not follow football (American nor otherwise). The first time I heard the name Harrison Butker was due to his speech before a Catholic student body. He stated in summary that women could be excited about careers, and they were likely to be excited about family life. The internet went crazy calling him all manner of nonsense that I shall refrain from repeating on this forum.

The essence of the controversy is that he offered an option to women of family life. Why is this option thought to be oppressive or troublesome? Kim Chernin wrote that she wished women to have an option other than homemaking, not that she wished women were prevented from homemaking. This is how silly the Left has become: in their stated purpose they profess a commitment to choice, acceptance, and diversity. In reality, the Left wishes for strict adherence to their perceived cultural norms. They don’t want choice: they want women who ONLY work outside the home. They don’t want acceptance: they want to rid the world of religious freedom. They don’t want diversity: they want people to think and behave as they do.

The position of the Left is, of course, indefensible which is why their outrage over these statements is in a full-swing backfire. First and foremost, as stated above, women have a choice to be homemakers, and they Left cannot take that choice away.

Further, we are speaking about a Catholic man, who lives his faith each and every day. That Catholic man went on to find a Catholic woman who lives her faith each and every day. They then, together, went on to have Catholic children who live their faith each and every day. This man then went to a private Catholic University to speak about what it says in the Catholic manual (the Bible). If you do not want to hear Catholic things, maybe you should stop listening to Catholic discussions.

This is a clear attack on the 1st Amendment. The Left is constantly attacking the 1st Amendment. They would love nothing more than to rid the nation of the 1st, 2nd, 9th, and 10th Amendments (the other liberties would surely be taken by force thereafter). This is the play. Free speech is only afforded to those whom the Left finds “deserving”. The only religions allowed are race, climate, gender, and communism.

I am most excited about my family life. My career is a means to an end, my career is not the end. Why is it so horrible to wish this same level of happiness and fulfillment for women? Family is a Great Option.

Is Welfare American?

In short yes. And no.

There was welfare at the founding of this great Nation. The founding fathers struggled with this idea since welfare is at odds with both a free market and a limited Government. However, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are fundamental rights upon which the nation was founded.

President Jefferson wrote that strict adherence to the law during times when that very adherence would imperil the nation would be tantamount to “sacrificing the ends to the means.” In other words, the Government relies upon laws to secure itself so that it may secure its people. If those laws would imperil the people then the laws must be foregone, not the people.

This creates a tension between the right to possess property and the right to acquire property. Your right to necessity and self-preservation supersedes my right to property. However, this supersession ends with necessity and self-preservation and does not extend to luxury.

There were indeed welfare houses in those early years. They provided the bare necessities and, in some circumstances, required those who received aid to work the land and facilities. There were even systems in place where the Government would pay private entities to care for the needy. Again, this was mere care, not to the point of luxury. The welfare system of the 18th century was installed to facilitate independence and work ethic.

Our welfare system today has far outpaced the welfare envisioned (and morally required) by our forefathers. Today, the impoverished are entitled to luxury. Those on welfare have entertainment, designer clothing, cars, and enough food to feed 5 times as many people as are present (I have been on welfare, I know what the struggle thereof entails). This is a system of dependence, not a system of independence.

Welfare is so good these days that there are people who refuse to work more than a few hours a week because if they did so, they would lose some of their welfare dollars. This hurts the person, hurts the welfare rolls, hurts the economy, and hurts the taxpayers. It is a loss for all.

There are, of course, situations where the recipient is unable to provide for himself. In such cases, I believe some luxury is par for the course since this citizen has no way to acquire such a thing without aid. However, this is not a common circumstance, and we should be legislating for the general welfare of the citizenry (as stated in the Constitution) rather than legislating for the specific welfare of specific, amorphous classes of citizen.

Further, the Federal Government has no business dealing with welfare. That is a matter left to the States and to the People as implied by the 9th and 10th Amendments of the US Constitution. There is no legitimate argument for a set of unelected bureaucrats in Washington DC setting rules for how Texas manages her impoverished. The climates are different, the resources are different, the economies are different, and the cultures are different.

Welfare is, indeed, American; however, the system we have today is bloated and detached from reality. The system today places too much power into the hands of people who live outside the community and breeds a brand of dependence that consumes entire bloodlines rather than uplifting the lowest of us all in their time of need that they may strengthen themselves and rise to the new challenges tomorrow brings. We are instituting political slavery through welfare. Welfare is deeply American, but the style we wear in our time is an abomination.

Joe Gotta Go

I met these folks. They were parked in front of a shopping center in Waxahachie. I was not paying any real attention driving down the road; my son, on the other hand, was more observant at the time. He yelled out that there was a “festival” and a lot of cool stuff. All three children wanted to attend; I obliged.

I spoke with their representative, Bruce C. Carter, and others involved. They let me know what they were about and what they did. Given the organization’s name, it is not difficult to imagine their purpose and mission. They hold beliefs that are similar to my own and I did throw my support behind them. I love that they lead with, “We Didn’t Vote For Him And We Are Still Black.”

I will be voting for Donald Trump in this coming election. It appears they will be as well. My kids liked the bus, lived the people, and liked the merchandise. Go team go! Trump 2024!!!

History of Freedom

Recently, Ann Coulter was interviewed by Vivek Ramaswamy. Many took offense with Coulter’s statement that an understanding of freedom requires cultural history, so she would not vote for Ramaswamy to be President. Ramaswamy, with the poise he has become known for holding, responded with probative questions. I have never been a fan of Ann Coulter, but she raised some valid and interesting points that every Conservative must understand in order to make effective choices at the polls.

Can a person who was not raised in the privilege of freedom understand that privilege? Can a person whose parents were not raised therein understand the same? How many generations does it take to understand freedom? History can prove to be informative here.

The salient question here is “What does it mean to understand freedom?” Surely, our Founding Fathers were raised under British Tyranny and their fathers before them. However, they understood freedom. How could this be? The question lies in the history of French, British, and Indigenous Providence for this region.

For the first roughly 150 years of European occupation, the French and British were at constant odds with one another. It was difficult for either to take or hold territory. For these early years, before American Independence, the British were more lenient, more appreciative, and more passive. The British had to be because the American colonial subjects were fighting the French to hold the line. The amount of fighting warranted self-government because this was before telephone, radio, and internet. It took more than a month to get word from one side of the ocean to the other.

After the so-called French and Indian War, the dynamic changed. The French rulers were driven out of the land (although their system of Government and language persists to this very date). With the French gone, the fighting was lessened, but the people - who were still then British subjects - had a history of self-government and freedom that could not be stamped out.

The King proceeded to disband legislatures, install soldiers in homes, and engage in all manner of political violence against the colonial Americans. When the Americans asked why they should not be ruled by legislators of their own choosing as all men are born equally free, the King responded by dismissing the request and argument outright. He responded informing Americans that they were born subjects, so it was their duty to obey him; and he was born King, so it was his duty to take care of them. He explained nothing could abdicate either from these duties. Clearly he had missed the point entirely.

This idea that all men are created equal was so strongly held that George Washington went to Europe in an attempt to plead themselves out of war. The points of Washington were so misunderstood by the Crown that Washington, before the end of the meetings, sent a letter home informing America that the war would be waged.

This idea that all men are created equal was so strong that they wanted to abolish the institution of slavery, but in a compromise, instead, merely denounced it and attempted to legislate against the practice. Thomas Jefferson included an anti-slavery passage in the Declaration of Independence; he was outvoted, and the passage was stricken. He, too, drafted numerous laws when he was Governor of Virginia before the time of his Presidency attempting to ban slavery, but those laws fell to the majority as well.

If we fast forward to the time of Lincoln’s leadership, we see similar effects but more pronounced. These effects were so outsized that a war broke out to determine the size of freedom afforded within these United States. Many of the North argued for the abandonment of the practice, many (including slave-owning blacks) of the South argued for its durability. Slaves, who had no cultural history of freedom, were difficult to free. Harriett Tubman is quoted (without proper verification) stating, "I freed a thousand slaves; I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves." We hope this quote is factual. It shows exactly what kind of mindset a person born into generational bondage held.

We see this generational bondage in China, India, Russia, Iran, and throughout the World. The fact of the matter appears to be, that an understanding of freedom is a cultural trait, not a learned ability. Of course there are outliers. There are people who are 7th+ generation in the US who would give their liberty to Government in exchange for security (we often call them Leftists). There are people who are multi-generational children of oppressive regimes who understand exactly why the Constitution and Bill of Rights are written as they are: for example Lily Tang Williams and Garry Kasparov. these are, indeed, outliers.

I believe Ramaswamy understands liberty and freedom at a deep level. He may not have a history of freedom in his family, but his deeds show a deep and abiding commitment thereto.

Grassroots Failures

We, as Conservatives, fail, time and time again, to protect and support our grassroots. This is best explained through an explanation of our current issues.

On the Left, they have appointed Attorney Benjamin Crump as their Guardian ad Litem and other lesser known Attorneys throughout the nation his de-factor deputies. They are funneling their money and resources through this army of knowledgeable individuals to further their needs, push their goals, and protect themselves from all manner of scandal. We have nothing similar.

The Left does not care what a person’s past, present, or future looks like. If someone is in the public spotlight and it fits their narrative, the Left swoops in to the rescue. We should do the same. It does not take much. Dexter Taylor needs $400,000 to get out of the utterly unconstitutional situation he is in. If half a million people donated $1 he would be good to go with a little kicker to juice up the accounts while we are at it. Surely we can find $400,000 to support our 2A agenda. Surely. It does not take much, yet we fail to perform. Disgraceful.

It takes Anti-American, Leftists less than a day to rescue people who burn down entire cities in the name of Black Lives Matter. We cannot rescue this man whose 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 9th Amendment Rights were stripped from him? The Judge, from the Bench, stated that the 2nd Amendment does not exist in her Courtroom, for Christ’s sake, and we cannot put up a couple of bucks a piece!? Why do we even convene meetings? Why do we even try?

This is but one example. Every day the Left is putting their considerable power behind random people in the community. It is time we do the same. Our grassroots are inactive, and that is everyone’s fault. We are failing to meet the moment where the moment must be met. We are faced with a struggle to emerge. We can do better. We must do better or lose the nation to tyranny.