I have been quite open about my support for Rick Perry for President of the United States and for my support of the Tea Party Movement as a whole. Therefore you can imagine that last night’s Iowa caucus (debacle) results were disheartening. I will not go in to all of the reasons why Rick Santorum is a big government Republican, nor why Newt and Romney are more of the same. Their records and actions speak for themselves and can be easily researched by anyone with a cursory knowledge of the Internet.

This diary is more about the realization I came to this morning and the conclusions I have drawn from it as a Tea Party supporter. The reality is that I (and probably many others) began my political awakening with much naivete and a gross underestimation of the Washington establishment class. It is hard to admit, but it is the truth.

The thing about naivete is that it is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, it is the beginning spark of innocence and idealism. It ignites the hope that things can and will get better if we put our best foot forward. Naivete is the youthful exuberance we all feel as young people beginning our lives.

However, naivete not tempered with wisdom and persistence will lead to bitterness and disillusionment when the road becomes difficult in life. What begins as youthful hope, turns to a premature aging of the mind and a cynical resignation of a less-than-desirable fate. This outcome was and is my fear for myself and my fellow Tea Party supporters.

I am afraid we thought that one or two elections would solve the problems we face in this country or at least place us on the right track. We believed it because we thought that those we sent to Washington in 2010 would begin to fix what was broken. After all, that is what we would do in their place.

But common sense and principle does not abound in Washington, as we soon found out. Unfortunately, the corruption and love for big government and power runs deep in Washington and the thirty to forty percent of those of the 2010 elections who held true to their convictions were not enough to overthrow the GOP establishment.

All of this has drawn me towards the conclusion that unless we take over the House and Senate and fill them with small-government conservatives we will always face an uphill battle. The halls of Congress is where the real power resides and where the corrupt, big government policies originate and come into being. I fear we are losing sight of this truth with all of the hype and angst over the GOP Presidential nominee.

I am in no way implying that the top of the ticket does not matter. Four years of Obama should convince anyone that who is in the White House is important. However, we must recall that Obama could never have unleashed the terror that he has on this country without the aiding and abetting of a Democrat controlled House and Senate. Conversely, even if the most conservative candidate (which I believe to be Rick Perry) wins the nomination and beats Obama, he would still have difficulty making real change in Washington with the current squishy leadership of the GOP in Congress. The point is that these down-ticket races are crucial and are our tickets to changing Washington back to the way our Founders intended.

I know that if Romney or Gingrich wins the nomination, it will be hard for us to stomach. Believe me, I know. But I caution everyone not to hit the panic button and resign ourselves to the fate the establishment GOP has planned for us. Yes, they may succeed at “choosing our candidate” for us, as they have consistently tried to do via media from day one. But they cannot choose our Congressmen and women. We the People still have a voice and we can and MUST use it. I encourage everyone to go to the Senate Conservatives Fund and read up on who they have endorsed. This group is led by Sen. Jim DeMint and helped successfully elect solid small government conservatives like Rubio, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee.

Whatever you do, do not stay home on Election Day, no matter who the nominee is. That form of “protest” is a selfish move and not becoming of one who claims to love this country. If (God forbid), Romney or Gingrich wins the nomination, hold your nose and vote for them. But give, volunteer, and campaign for the most conservative, small government Senate/House candidate who will give them hell on a daily basis if they fail to reform Washington and shrink the size of government.

That is a form of retribution on the establishment I can get behind, can you? Remember: Don’t get mad, get even. A great thought to rally behind.

Tea Party 2012

Full disclosure: I am a Christ-follower who attends an evangelical, community-centered church in the South. I also happen to be a staunch young Conservative ( Note that I did not say Republican. Although I have more hope that they can be converted to Conservative principles than I do the Democrats.)

I know that there are several different religious persuasions represented here at RS. There are even some of no religious persuasion whatsoever. This kind of diversity is something that I have come to appreciate about RS. Religious topics are seldom made the subject of diaries, as it should be. But this is one thing that I felt warranted some investigating.

Going on right now is a mega-conference for evangelical Christian churches called Catalyst. Many people have never heard of it, but is is a big deal among churches. It was started to bring young church leaders together to train and equip them for the future. The individuals who began Catalyst are prominent leaders in the Christian Church, one of whom I greatly admire named Andy Stanley. He is a great pastor of an equally amazing church called NorthPoint.

Needless to say, I have always viewed Catalyst favorably even though I have never had the privilege to attend the event. Catalyst always invites a wide variety of speakers ranging from prominent pastors to successful business leaders and leadership gurus. Not all of them have shared the Christian faith, which I have never found offensive. The fact that they did not share the same faith as the attendees had no bearing on their ability to speak with authority on the subject that they were asked to speak on.

Imagine my surprise when I was recently told by a friend some of the names of the individuals being invited to attend this year’s events. I will only name two, as a diary can only be so long.

One of the main speakers this year is Dr. Cornel West. Here is his bio as listed on the Catalyst website. From their description, you can gather that he is a Democrat activist, an intelligent man (he is a Professor at Princeton University), and that he is passionate about keeping the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King alive. All in all, he sounds like a pretty good guy from their description (minus being a Democrat activist), right? Wrong.

Unfortunately, Catalyst forgot to mention a few other notable things about Dr. West and decided to simply list the bio from his website. For instance, they forgot to note that in the mid-1980′s Dr. West wrote a piece for the Democratic Socialists of America as their Honorary Chair. He continues to be a member of this organization to this day.

He has described himself as a “non-Marxist socialist” which still makes one a socialist, just not of the Marxist variety. Most recently, Dr. West has joined the OccupyWall Street protest in which over 700 people have been arrested for blocking the Brooklyn Bridge.

Dr. West recently on MSNBC called Republicans “mean, cold-hearted, and tied to oliogarchs.” . Now why would you invite such a person to speak to a group of Christian leaders? Perhaps it was for diversity of thought. However, there are better ways to achieve diversity of thought than to invite a radical socialist to be one of your main speakers at an event billed to “train up the next church leaders.”

Another speaker featured in one of the “labs” is one Lisa Sharon Harper. Her bio is also listed on the Catalyst website. Once again, her bio indicates that she clearly is left-of-center but is “reaching out” to Conservatives. She even wrote a book on it!

But one glance at her blog on God’s Politics reveals a none to loving attitude towards Herman Cain and the Tea Party. In fact, it smacks of downright hatred. Once again the question remains, why invite political activists to a church convention? And if you are, why not include some from the Conservative side? Either make the event apolitical (the ideal) or give equal representation.

To be fair to Catalyst, the vast majority of speakers are only there to encourage the Church and build up Church leaders. They are well-respected pastors whom I have listened to on a number of occasions. I have personally read and been inspired by either their books or blogs. But there are others not mentioned in this diary who are speaking at Catalyst who are quite left-of-center and open about it. Which brings me to another question. Why is it cool to be a pastor and air your political views if you are on the left, but a national faux-pas if you are a conservative and do so? It is the epitome of hypocrisy.

For the sake of my great respect for Andy Stanley, I am doing my utmost to give Catalyst the benefit of the doubt. To be fair, they are not the only church conference out there booking these types of speakers. Maybe it is some strategy I am not privy to. Is it for diversity and to not be divisive? If so, I can realy stretch myself to understand. But did it ever occur to these people that not every Conservative is a Christian? Inviting these kinds of speakers may make this group of people never want to set foot in church again.

Please, if anyone from Catalyst can explain this to me I am all ears. I even looked for a main contact number on their site to maybe ask some questions and get some explanation. I just do not want to believe that a great event like this is turning into what I fear it is.

Like many conservatives, i have been researching and investigating the GOP Presidential candidates in order to make an informed decision when I pull the lever in the primaries. As of yet, I have not found any one candidate that I could get solidly behind. I have found several that I like (Bauchmann, Cain) and that I am considering voting for, but I am overall undecided.

Enter Rick Perry. Initially, when I heard that he was thinking of running, I was enthusiastic. I thought to myself, this might be the guy to unite the party and beat Obama. Needless to say, I was hoping that he would decide to run and waited anxiously to see if the rumors were true regarding his candidacy.

But as his announcement appears to be imminent, some issues have begun to crop up regarding Perry as a candidate. First it was the Gardasil issue, then it was his support of the TTC, and then I heard some questioning whether he reduced the budget in Texas or grew it. Added to that, he became the center of some rather bizarre conspiracy theories. I tried to research some of these issues, but much of the information was tainted by the above mentioned conspiracy theory websites. These theories are by and large bunk, but it would be dishonest for me to say that I was not a little disconcerted that his actions could even be grown into some sort of conspiracy theory.

Speaking of conspiracy theories, I would like to take a brief moment to explain how destructive to truth these things are. There are enough machinations and plots out there that are real and need to be exposed without these people running around with bizarre theories not based on fact. Their actions and words muddy the waters and actually make it more difficult for truth to win the day. People are off chasing rabbits that do not exist, while true evil goes on right under their noses. Conspiracists peddle fear and lies mixed with a sliver of truth, and only bring confusion and despair to their victims.

I will step off my soapbox now and return to the Perry question.

In light of these issues and the difficulty of finding an accurate and unbiased view of his governorship in Texas, I pondered some of the questions that I would like to have answered by Perry and/or asked of him. I might add that the way these questions are answered would determine whether I support him in the primaries.

1). Is Perry just another pro-life statist? I heard Erick coin this term on the radio yesterday and I though it an excellent description of many establishment Republicans. I do not want a pro-life statist for President! I want someone who is not only pro-life, but who is deeply committed to reducing the size of government in Washington. With all respect to former President GW Bush, I do not want another Republican President who actually grows government. I want the whole package: social conservative, fiscal conservative, and a staunch supporter of limited government. Isn’t that what conservatism is anyways?

2). What did he do in Texas to reduce the size and scope of government? A good indicator of how a candidate will govern his how he/she governed in their previous position.

3). What did Perry do in Texas to balance the state budget and reduce spending and/or cut entitlements?

4). Does he believe in American exceptionalism and is he nationalist in his thinking or a globalist?

5). What are his plans to expand private sector development and to decrease onerous regulations on businesses?

6). What are his views on immigration?

These are important questions to ask of Perry and that he will need to answer. Some of his actions, ie the Gardasil issue, place him at odds with a limited government perspective. He will have to address that issue and some others during his campaign. If he lands on the side of conservatism in his answers to these questions, he may very well be the next President of the United States.

One final thing I would like to add, is that these questions should not and do not just apply to Perry. We should be asking these of every candidate for the GOP nomination. We cannot just blindly follow a cult of personality, that is how Obama got elected. We must fully vet all candidates and place the most Conservative nominee who can win on the ticket. If we do that, Obama will be a one-term President. So help us God.

Yesterday there was an article online in the Fox News Opinion section comparing the philosophy of Jesus Christ versus Ayn Rand. The author, Onkar Ghate, asserts in his final line that at this time in history America needs Ayn Rand and not the teachings of Jesus.

Before people begin to start throwing rotten tomatoes at Mr. Ghate, let me defend him a little bit. There are points in his article that are absolutely sound, namely the celebration of the emergence of the belief of the moral superiority of capitalism over the welfare state. Where Mr. Ghate goes awry is in his characterization of Christians and Christian teaching. To be fair, I do not believe it is a purposeful mischaracterization and I do not find his article malicious or attacking. But I did read it as written by someone who is largely unacquainted with Christianity.

Mr. Ghate begins his discussion on faith by referencing a group known as the American Values Network (AVN) who is sending out attack ads against Ayn Rand’s work in Paul Ryan‘s district. The group is questioning how a person could be religious and read Ms. Rand, due to Ms. Rand’s anti-religious stances (as if someone who was a Christian would suddenly stop believing in Christ after reading Rand). He correctly views this as a negative thing, but then begins to somewhat make the same point that AVN is making (unknowingly). It is as if there is no thought that a Christian could disagree with Ms. Rand on her anti-religious/pro-Reason beliefs and agree with her on her pro-capitalism stance.

(A quick, but important side note is that AVN is nothing more than a group of Progressives who are more about destroying the GOP and Paul Ryan than promoting “values” and the teachings of Jesus Christ. A quick review of their website will tell you that. Their scriptural gymnastics to support Leftist causes would be laughable, if it were not so sad and dangerous. Suffice to say, the ads that they are running are nothing short of religious manipulation using Rand’s works as the means to accomplish their Progressive goals. I would also venture to guess that these are the same people who use the words of Jesus when convenient and disregard them when they are not).

In the middle of his article, Mr. Ghate becomes guilty of taking certain portions of Scripture (the Sermon on the Mount) and ignoring the rest. While Jesus did advocate meekness and self-sacrifice in the Sermon on the Mount, He also advocated mercy, justice, faith, and a whole host of teachings outside the Sermon on the Mount that would take too long to expound upon in this diary.  One important note to point out though is that Jesus always boldly proclaimed truth and was certainly no promoter of group think. In fact, Jesus was constantly speaking against the religious leaders of the day and challenging their thought processes. In every sense of the word, He was the original revolutionary. These are aspects of Jesus and His teachings that were left out in Mr. Ghate’s comparison of Ms. Rand’s teachings and those of Christianity.

After these comparisons, Mr. Ghate makes the rather odd assertion that the Founding Fathers would have had to reject the Sermon on the Mount in order to create America. This rather singular viewpoint would certainly have been news to Samuel Adams, whom Thomas Jefferson referred to as “the Man of the Revolution.” Adams was a devout Christian who used his faith to justify and promote the Revolution and he was not the only one. Other notable Founders who were Christians were Patrick Henry, John Jay, Elias Boudinot, and John Witherspoon.

Apparently these Founding Fathers did not think they had to toss the Sermon on the Mount out the window to support the Revolution. On the contrary, they probably would have argued Matthew 5:6 in the Sermon on the Mount which states ” Blessed are those who are hungry and thirsty for justice, for they shall receive it in full.” Even Jefferson and Franklin, who were not of the Christian faith, believed the teachings of Jesus were good moral teachings and would not have seen them as a hindrance to advocating for the creation of America.

The bottom line is that even though there are significant differences between the philosophy of Ayn Rand and Jesus Christ, it is possible for a Christian to support the pro-capitalist stance of Ms. Rand while tossing out her anti-faith rhetoric. Unfortunately, this was not given as an option in Mr. Ghate’s piece.

Mr. Ghate had an opportunity to refute the ridiculous maneuvers of AVN, but instead I fear he provided them with fresh ammunition. This will make it that much harder for Conservative Christians to refute AVN’s nonsense. It is my sincere belief that all Conservatives desire to defeat socialism in this country whether they be people of faith or not. It would be valuable for us to remember at this time in our nation’s history that our great nation was born out of an odd mix of Enlightenment ideals and Christian faith.

Maybe that is really what America needs right now.

Let me begin by saying that here are many things that I can agree with (l)ibertarians on. I wholeheartedly support  shrinking and/or eliminating large government bureaucracies like the Department of Education and the EPA. I also support returning power to the states and limiting the ever-encroaching power of the Federal government. I would argue that many conservatives share much in common with the “small l” libertarians.

Where the water becomes muddy is when some Libertarians (large L) begin to spout off ideas that have little to do with conservatism or for that matter civilized government. The legalization of marijuana and/or other illegal drugs is one such idea. This idea can be quite a centerpiece of Libertarian thought for some people and results in them being largely ballyhooed as a “fringe” group. Those who support legalization frequently repeat the same misleading arguments over and over again to support their viewpoints on legalizing drugs. Below are several common myths used to support the legalization of marijuana and/or other illicit drugs and the some data and statistics that contradict them.

Myth #1: Countries like the Netherlands that have a more open approach to marijuana have less drug use than the United States. We should adopt their approach.

Fact: While it is true that the U.S. has an increased number of drug users than the Netherlands, it is a bit like comparing apples to oranges. Especially if you consider that one U.S. state called New York is both larger and more populous than the entire country of the Netherlands . Given the higher population of the U.S. compared to the Netherlands, it should not come to anyone’s surprise that the drug statistics will be higher.

I might also add that since the adoption of the a more liberal approach by the Netherlands, their heroine addiction rate has tripled. It is also questionable as to whether the Netherlands’ choice to classify marijuana as a “soft drug” is entirely based on solid reasoning. In 2008, 4.7 million out of 7 million people in the U.S. who were 12 years and older and classified as abusing and/or addicted to an illicit drug where marijuana users. In 2009, the leading drug of dependence and/or abuse in the U.S. among those 12 years and older was marijuana, ranked above cocaine and heroin (Figure 7.2). It appears that marijuana is not quite the “harmless” drug that some would like to think it is.

Myth # 2: Drug use does not hurt anyone else, only the person who uses it.

Fact: This is “sounds” like a good argument, but in reality is utterly false. According to The NSDUH (National Survey On Drug Use And Health) Report in 2005, adults who were arrested within the past year for serious crimes were more likely to have used an illicit drug in the past year than those who were not arrested for serious crimes (60.1 percent to 13.6). Of those who had been arrested for a serious crime, 46% had used marijuana within the past year, compared to the 10% who were not arrested for serious crimes (For more statistics on how marijuana specifically affects youth criminal behaviors go here).

Myth #4: Alcohol Is Worse Than Marijuana

Fact: Typically the argument from the pro-legalization crowd is that people are less impaired under the influence of marijuana when driving than when drunk. This is is only a half-truth. Marijuana use still causes significant impairment. The difference is in the way it impairs driving function. According to the above cited study, alcohol is more detrimental to complex tasks that require conscious control, while marijuana is more detrimental to highly automatic driving functions.

Another problem with this specific pro-legalization argument is that the “research” used to support their claim that marijuana does not impair driving fails to take into consideration the method used to measure the presence of marijuana. Their “research” often measures marijuana use by crashed drivers by looking for an inactive metabolite of THC in blood or urine that is present days after smoking marijuana and indicates that marijuana was used in the past. The surveys that directly measure TCH in the blood (that establish more recent use of the drug) indicates that individuals who use marijuana are 3-7 times more likely to have been responsible for their crash than drivers who do not use the drug.

Myth # 5: The War on Drugs is a complete failure and our approach needs a complete overhaul.

Fact: While there is always room for improvement in the War on Drugs, the above myth is not backed by any data. In fact, when you look at the data the War on Drugs appears to be successful for the most part. Over the last twenty years overall drug use has decreased in the United States by one-third. That is 9.5 million less people using drugs. Cocaine use has decrease by 70% over the last 15 years. While we still have significant drug problem in this country, we have made progress in the right direction.

Another criticism of the War on Drugs is that the focus is too much on the criminalization of drugs and not enough on the treatment aspect. The truth is that one-half of one percent of people who use marijuana are incarcerated. The Michigan Department of Corrections just finished a study that found only 15 out of the 7,000 inmates had been incarcerated for first time drug possession charges. The reality is that very few people are incarcerated for drug possession only.

There does need to be a more coordinated effort between the criminal justice system and treatment facilities, but it is not as if there are no attempts at treatment over incarceration. In fact, there are now drug treatment courts that handle drug addicted offenders and provide supervision and treatment. These special courts appear to be working. Those individuals who go through the programs only have a 2-20% chance of being a repeat offender compared to the 50% number of those who do not go through the program.

The cost of the War on Drugs is also used as an argument for legalization. While it does cost federal dollars to combat drugs in this country, the statistics that the pro-legalization crowd uses can be misleading. In 2004, the federal budget to combat drugs was 11.7 billion. Fifty-eight percent of the budget went to treatment, thirty-nine percent to prevention, and three percent to enforcement. If you compare that to the 160 billion dollars that drug abuse cost taxpayers in 2000 (it was likely higher in 2004), 11.7 billion is but a small amount to combat the problem.

Drug abuse is a serious problems in this country. We always need to be open to new ideas in the areas of education, prevention, and treatment. However, legalization of these destructive substances is not the road we need to go down in this country. Rather our goal should be to build upon the successes of the drug treatment courts and help people get the treatment they need, while continuing to protect the public from the associated crime drug use brings.

At one time in our nation’s history, churches had great influence over the way people viewed their politics and subsequently their own personal role in government. However, over the course of time churches (especially those of a more conservative persuasion) have grown silent regarding the civic lives of their congregants.

I am certain that there are exceptions to this statement. However, it cannot be ignored that many conservative-leaning churches may be losing their influence over how people view their role in government and how their faith impacts their civic duty as a citizen of the United States.

There are probably numerous reasons for this phenomenon, too many to delve into in this diary. However, three possible reasons come to my mind when I ponder the why behind the silence. The first involves the tax-exempt status of the church. Some churches avoid any hint of the discussion of politics or governing issues because they seek to keep their tax-exempt status and/or they want to be people of integrity and follow the law. Their motives are often pure, but I think at times this belief system can be taken to an extreme.

The second reason for the silence of the church is from the desire to not divide people along party lines.  They don’t want to alienate people from the truth of God’s love for them. This is a sentiment I wholeheartedly agree with. No one should ever be made to feel that they are unwanted at a church, no matter what their political background or belief system. But I believe that there is a way to discuss conservative values from the pulpit, without dividing people along party lines.

Last but not least, some religious people have bought into the “separation of Church and State” myth. The reality is that this phrase is not found in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence. It actually originated from a letter to the Danbury Baptists from Thomas Jefferson. The Danbury Baptists were concerned that another denomination was going to be the declared the “state denomination.” Jefferson wrote to them, stating,

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’ , thus building a wall of separation between Church and State’.”

His statement was never meant to protect the government from religion, but religion from the government. It most certainly was not meant to remove all discussion of political issues from churches.

So what is the church’s role in politics and how do we defined it as Conservatives? We certainly don’t want churches funding political campaigns or telling people how to vote. This would constitute an abuse of power and would open the door for all means of corruption. But yet, we know that there is a prominent civic role that churches should play in a free and civilized society.

How do we find that middle ground? I do not have all of the answers, but one simple suggestion would be for churches to simply engage in more conversations regarding personal responsibility in all areas of life ( anti-entitlement thinking), the role of morality in society, and the value of a limited government. All of these values work in tandem with religious values. Churches are beginning to stress to their congregations about the importance of personal fiscal responsibility (thank you Dave Ramsey). But I would like to see more expansion into why it is important for their government to do the same. I know that churches can’t discuss these topics all of the time, that is not their primary function nor purpose. But I think they can at least incorporate these values into sermons a couple of times a year or maybe more often through individual classes and/or activities.

Those who are not of a religious persuasion may question why this is important to the Conservative cause or for that matter to the country. If you want the answer, look no further than the activities of the Left in local churches. It sounds ironic, doesn’t it? The very people who have advocated to remove religion out of the public square are beginning to infiltrate churches to further their own agenda. They are using the concept of “social justice” to appeal to religous peoples’ sense of compassion and strong desire to help those less fortunate. Many Christians voted for Obama based on these arguments. I know some of them personally.

Of course, the Left rarely uses the word “socialism” when speaking to religious people. If they did, people would be running down the aisles and out of the door. For most, a subtle “push” in that direction is what is applied. But there are some churches out there who utilize more overt attempts to “evangelize” congregants to the Leftist agenda

The bottom line is that if we are going to win the war of ideas, we must be willing to engage with people in every venue of public life; our local communities, states, and yes, even churches. If we cede any ground in any arena, we will be fighting an uphill battle for our country.

I know that many are angry and disappointed over Speaker Boehner and the Republican leadership’s recent budget agreement. These feelings are understandable for a number of reasons. For decades, Washington has massively grown the government, spent our taxpayer dollars with unprecedented recklessness, and effectively thrown the Constitution under the bus. We are fed up and we won’t take it anymore. There is an innate urge to want change and to want it immediately.

The problem is that all of our victories we have had in the House (defunding ObamaCare and Planned Parenthood, 61 billion dollars in cuts) have to go through the Leftist controlled Senate and White House. These are the people who have made their big government policies into a form of religion and will demonize anyone who stands in the way of their precious doctrine of taxing and spending. As Erick noted in his post the other day, the President even went as far as to effectively hold our military and their families as hostages to prevent his budget from being cut. These are the types of people the House had to negotiate with.

I know that we wanted more cuts and that we did not get all we wanted, Boehner himself acknowledges that. But I think that we won more than we lost. We forced Obama and Reid to cut money from a budget that they had no intention of cutting. We forced a vote in the Senate to defund Planned Parenthood and to repeal ObamaCare. We were able to return school choice to DC and eliminate taxpayer funded abortions there. There will be audits and investigations into the real costs of ObamaCare and the thousands of waivers handed out, as well as mandatory audits of the effects of the Dodd-Frank debacle. All of these things are good and should be modestly celebrated to some extent.

The reality is that this nation has been a victim of Progressive policies for nearly a century. Our decline has been slow and the Left has been patient in achieving their oppressive goals. But by the grace of God, we the American people are waking up and we are ready for a fight to save this nation. But we must be patient and unwavering, fighting for every battle both big and small. We will win some outright victories like the November 2010 House and State office races, and some will be partial victories like the recent budget deal. The net result is that we are moving forward with our agenda to rescue this country from its Progressive tyrants.

I will also add that it is imperative that we learn to strike a balance between holding our elected officials accountable for their actions and eating our own. This can be a tough line to walk, especially given that elected officials are known for being more sneaky and underhanded than an army of ambulance-chasing lawyers. But we must learn to temper our desire for instant cures with the political reality that we do not control the White House or the Senate yet.

This does not meant that we should not engage in the fight and simply roll over. On the contrary, the more we engage, the more the Left is exposed for the petty tyrants they are. But when we fail to get all of what we want due to the current administration, don’t turn around and shoot the guy who has been fighting alongside you! Blame the opposition and Obama’s allegiance to failed Progressive policies.

We may have not achieved complete victory today, but we took a step towards it. The next big budget battle is around the corner and we need to unified and strong in purpose. It will take a series of wins to return this country to greatness.

A part of me cringes to write this diary. It is a hot-button issue in which many have strong opinions. But I think we need to have civil dialogue so that we can work together to restore this great nation.

Post-election analysis has long been a part of the American political process. After our Nov. 2nd victory at the polls, pundits and activists began to weigh in on the whys behind the wins and losses. Much of this analysis was quite helpful and will aid us in winning future elections. However, in some circles the emphasis was on finger-pointing and the blame-game. In many of these instances, it centered around those who self-identified themselves as fiscal conservatives versus those who were social conservatives. I am not going to rehash some the statments that were made. They have been discussed quite a bit on this site. What I do want to discuss is the why behind some of the distrust that exists out there between the two groups and how we can come together to achieve our goal of restoring this great nation.

Trust is an earned commodity. We as social conservatives must be honest with ourselves and admit where we have lost our way. In the past, many of us supported candidates who met our criteria on social issues, but who massively grew government and spent money like drunken sailors. There were groups within the social conservative circle who tried to warn us, but unfortunately they were in the minority and we did not listen.

Sadly, I used to be in the former category rather than the latter until the Tea Party came along. They opened my eyes to the truth that fiscal conservatism and limited government are every bit as important as the social issues. I am confident that I am not the only social conservative who has awakened to these truths. I  hope and believe the days are long gone of social conservatives supporting candidates who are not fiscally conservative, socially conservative, and champions of limited government.

Trust is not only an earned commodity, it also cuts both ways. Fiscal conservatives need to understand where social conservatives are coming from. Every day the Left and their media find some way to disparage Christians or those who hold to a traditional moral code. When social conservatives begin to hear what appears to be even remotely similar rhetoric from those who claim to be within their own camp, a general feeling of “Et tu Brute?” arises. It leaves social conservatives feeling disillusioned and angry. After all, no one enjoys being told to be silent on issues that they deem important.

So how do we move forward and build a strong conservative coalition? I have a few general suggestions that will begin to move us in the right direction. First, we need to acknowledge that we will not always agree on things. We need to respect each other regardless of our differences. Agreeing to disagree is a hallmark of maturity. We need to cease the name-calling and disparaging remarks and realize that our goals are not mutually exclusive. In-fighting will only continue to drive a wedge between us and does not promote the conservative agenda. If you study the lives of the brave men who banded together to form this great nation, you would find them to be very different in their beliefs and personal values. But they united around one thing, freedom from tyranny. We would do well to follow their example.

Second, we need to be on the lookout for snakes in the grass in both circles. There have been people who claim to be fiscal conservatives and yet are really squishes when it comes to limited government and fiscal responsibility. They are RINO’s in disguise and are faux conservatives. The same can be said for some who identify themselves as social conservatives. We have seen both played out in our government in recent times and we must purge them from our ranks.

Lastly, we must be strategic. Our government officials have lost the trust of the American people. We have a unique opportunity in history as Conservatives to restore some of it. The best way to begin to restore that trust is by being fiscally responsible in government. We must demand that our conservative representatives cut the reckless spending that exists in Washington. 

Simultaneously, we must begin to dramatically reduce the size of government and only support candidates who will commit to this principle wholeheartedly. Limited government ensures the maximum freedom for all Americans. At the same time, we can continue to fight the Left as they try and cram their social agenda down our throats. The American people will be on our side in these fights IF we regain their trust by being the champions of fiscal responsibility and limited government. We can fight the war on all fronts, if we stick together. I believe that if we do these things and trust God for guidance, we can restore this Republic to the great country that our forefathers envisioned.

Today a tragic story has surfaced out of Atlanta. A young woman was abducted in the MARTA parking lot of the Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport. She was taken to her abductor’s home where she was brutally sexually assaulted. She was then released and forced to carry her assailant’s suicide note to an unknown person. When the police located the assailant, he was at his residence with self-inflicted wounds. He is currently recovering from his wounds while criminal warrants are being obtained.

Who do you suppose the assailant works for? He is a federal employee of the Transportation Safety Adminstration. That’s right. The same people who are being accused of invading people’s privacy and inapropriately groping people have a sexual predator on their payroll. More details are expected to come as the police conduct their investigation.

See the link below for the local story:

http://lagrangenews.com/view/full_story/10413596/article-BREAKING-NEWS–TSA-employee-accused-of-kidnap–assault?instance=secondary_news_left_column

       The state I live in eats, sleeps, and breathes college football. People wear their teams’ jerseys proudly and display their flags saluting their favorite team from their cars. Several of the teams in the state enjoy quite a bit of national notoriety for the the quality of their football programs. One in particular is notorious for something else as well though. They are infamous across the state for their bandwagon and impossible to please fans. These are the fans that are with the team when they are winning and the loudest and most irrational critics when they lose. Even more annoying, they criticize and finger-point when they don’t feel like their team won by enough points or did not execute a particular play well. They will completely ignore a massive win, and rehash all the negatives in an unproductive way.

      You may ask what all this has to do with politics. Enter the Tea Party 2010. Up until they arrived on the scene, the GOP was on life-support. They had largely abandoned their conservative roots (with the exception of a few) and those who were still staunch conservatives (Jim DeMint and others) were marginalized and pushed to the side. They were on a continuous losing streak. Remember the cover of Time magazine anyone? No one thought they had a chance to make any gains in 2010 at that time. Some were writing them off for the next decade or more.

      Then the Tea Party came along and breathed new life into the GOP. Suddenly people were listening to them again. They had the people’s hear and the people were liking what they were hearing. The establishment GOP  did not know what to think of this phenomenon. It was so new to them, so grassroots, so of the people. They had forgotten that they worked for the people and that the people did not work for them.

      The conservative wing of the GOP embraced the Tea Party and begin to support them. The others either tried to villify them or make plans to “co-opt” them. The day of the big game arrived yesterday and the GOP made huge gains and ended up winning. They won 65+ seats in the House and Senate combined. They ousted Democrat House members who had been career politicians. The North Carolina state legislature went GOP for the first time since the 1800′s. The GOP won governors’ races in states that were carried by Obama in 2008. They even picked up his old Senate seat in Illinois. No one would have predicted this in 2008.

     Given this historic win, imagine my surprise when I clicked on Red State for my morning briefing and saw that some people who were commenting on some of the blogs were harping on the seats that were not won and throwing the Tea Party under the bus. Now I understand that some of these people who were commenting were trolling. Given the pounding they received, what else can they do but try and cause discord among conservatives. But this post is not for the trolls, it is for those who are  either part of the old school establishment (go along to get along crowd) or who are the bandwagon fans of the Tea Party. I would imagine that most are a combination of the two. 

     I am encouraging this group of people to not in the same breath take credit for the seats that were won and blame the Tea Party for the ones that were not. You cannot love us when we win and hate us when we lose. You are criticizing the Tea Party in an unproductive manner for not executing every play perfectly when we won the game, so to speak.

      Note that I am referring to criticism in an unproductive manner. The definition of which would be hitting the panic button and pointing fingers every which way. Objective analysis is what will move us forward. Looking to what we can improve, instead of taking a negative tone. For instance, what could we do better in a race like Angle’s in Nevada the next time around? I suggest providing experienced and successful campaign managers to our candidates and never underestimating the power of a union-backed political machine. 

      We even learned a valuable lesson in DE. We learned that ousting a RINO is admirable and the right thing to do under the circumstances that existed there. BUT it is much better to have some one who can both beat the RINO and the Marxist in the first place. We learned that we must fully vet our candidates and ensure that they will represent us and our ideas well. That is the responsibility of you and I. You can have a great message, but a subpar messenger. We had the message part right in DE, but the people could have chosen a better messenger. We needed someone who could win the 2nd half of the game, not just the first. We learned our lesson, we will correct our mistakes, and we need to move on. Too much is at stake.

     Now is the time to unify both the conservative wing of the GOP and the Tea Party. No more bandwagon fan behavior, it is time to become a full fledge, all-out loyal fan. I myself was a member of the conservative wing of the GOP and I have decided to join these brave men and women in the Tea Party and stand with them in unity. We will have disagreements, and that is fine. But let’s make them productive and not an exercise in the blame-game. I hope that the old establishment GOP will join us too. I hope that they will remember why they came to Washington in the first place. Maybe the Tea Party candidates that won yesterday can help them remember.

     Remember that we won an important game on Tuesday, but we have many more games to win in this political season. It will take all of us to continue the winning streak.