Whereas, the Founders felt that the federal government would be served by folks that were Americans first; who were citizen legislators and patriots, doing their duty and returning to their homes to live under the laws passed; and,

Whereas, the federal government has been overtaken by those that believe that politics, as a career, is a good way of life; and,

Whereas, the longer and more entrenched our career politicians have become, the more they have been influenced by the pressures of the next election and the need to raise monies in the worst ways possible; and,

Whereas, the incumbent politician has a distinct advantage over the citizen legislator due to the long time connections available; therefore,

Be it resolved that the Republican Party shall embrace term limits for all federal representatives and senators. and,

Be it further resolved that six terms for Representatives, and two terms for a Senator, a total of twelve years is long enough for anyone to serve in the federal government.

Submitted by:
Bill Carson  
Zone 3 Captain  
Precinct 108 Chairman, Ellis County

WHEREAS, according to the European model, privately held property is not viewed as an absolute right given by a benevolent Creator, but is viewed as a mere privilege granted by government with the clear understanding that every benefit so conferred carries with it a corresponding public social obligation which burden can never be severed or removed in order for liberty to be enjoyed by the owner or user, and

WHEREAS the Medieval concept of feudal “noblesse oblige”, which has survived today under the modern form of European socialistic egalitarianism, essentially unchanged, still requires that all property ownership and use by civilly burdened by public obligations for the greater good of society, and

WHEREAS, by a deliberate and conscious act, in diametric opposition to that of the European doctrine and practice, the Americans conceived a new understanding of civil justice and political government, based on the notion of certain natural, God-given, and unalienable rights and liberties, granted to every individual in order that every man might be free to be self-governing under Nature and Nature’s God, accountable to Him alone for his own life and liberty and property, as long as he did not violate the equal natural, God-given, and unalienable rights and liberties of all other citizens and his fellow inhabitants, for which purpose civil governments are instituted among men in order to secure those fundamental objects, and

WHEREAS, the people of the State of Texas subscribe entirely to the latter vision of freedom and property and self-government under Nature and Nature’s God, and thoroughly reject the tyranny of globalism in the form of Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, and

WHEREAS the RPT stands for the full restoration of constitutional justice, individual liberty, and limited government, including the securing of our natural individual rights, liberties, and properties,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Republican Party of Texas through the whole body of the State Republican Executive Committee, that the people of Texas shall remain free (1) religiously, (2) socially, (3) economically, and (4) politically, according to our natural rights and liberties granted to us by God, and guaranteed to us constitutionally by our supreme political sovereign in acknowledgement thereto, in order that our fundamental rights and liberties shall be held inviolate forever, standing in opposition to all forms of religious, social, economic, and political globalism as set forth in the United Nations Agenda 21 Program together with all the implementing projects of Sustainable Development currently operating in this State or intending to be installed, funded, and operated in the future including the step by step abolition of private property; the setting aside of State lands for the international Wildlands Project; the irrational expansion of burdensome EPA regulations to inhibit our rational economic development; the systematic collectivization of human populations into high density housing settlements located in designated urban areas, under the restrictive policies of smart growth cities in order to depopulate the suburban neighborhoods and the rural areas to be declared unsustainable communities; the increasing activity of extra-constitutional bodies and non-elective governing councils, which operate regionally to plan and implement the 1992 UN Agenda 21 Program throughout our State, without being accountable to the people’s will and pleasure; the educational mandates which seek to “re-educate” our children to become global citizens instead of self-governing free citizens of this State under our form of constitutional government; the comprehensive control of all our population and its reduction to sustainable levels and the socialization of all activities by their relocation to highly restricted urban settlement centers; the redefining of our current justice system from “equal justice” under law to “social justice” under very different laws of “distributive justice”, where the common good is redefined to exclude all natural rights and liberties, in clear contravention of our current Constitution; the introduction of “public-private partnerships” to erase the essential distinction between free enterprise and public government for the unjust economic enrichment of the few; the reassignment of new values where plants and animals and even inanimate objects are given equal status or even greater rights than those now enjoyed by natural individuals and citizens; all designed to destroy our fundamental rights and liberties as a people, hitherto enjoyed under our system of just government, in order to transform us from men made in the image of God to men re-made in the image of compelled beings, oppressed, having no acknowledged rights or liberties held inviolate; all designed by the enemies of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in order to reduce us to misery and bondage, without hope or God or natural moral absolutes.

Submitted by Jim Borchert, SREC 10

 WHEREAS the federal government does not have a Constitutional requirement to operate with a balanced budget, including incorporation of unfunded liabilities such as Social Security and Medicare in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles;

WHEREAS the federal government does not have a Constitutional requirement to limit spending;

WHEREAS the federal government operates on a perpetual budget deficit basis with no fiscal discipline or responsibility, increasing the national debt each year;

RESOLVED that a Balanced Budget and Spending Limit Amendment to the U.S. Constitution shall be passed requiring the federal government to operate with a balanced budget that includes unfunded liabilities such as Social Security and Medicare and limits the federal government from budgeting and spending in any one fiscal year more than 23% of the current U.S. gross national product (GNP).

Submitted to and adopted by The Austin Tea Party in Travis County, Texas, Senatorial District 14, on April 15th, 2012. 

Signed:  ___________________________

The Austin Tea Party Convention Secretary

Co-Signers:

For Immediate Release: March 20, 2012
Contact: Peggy Venable, (512) 476-5905 or pvenable@afptx.org Americans for Prosperity – Texas Joins Coalition Partners in Calling for a Conservative State Budget Statement by AFP-Texas Director Peggy Venable

AUSTIN – Government has grown too big at all levels. While the federal debt is nearing $16 trillion, local government debt in Texas alone is $322 billion. We are saddling future generations with a legacy of spending and debt.

While our spending has increased 310 percent between 1990 and 2012, population and inflation increased only 132 percent.

And education spending has been increasing at a rate of five times the increase in student enrollment.

As Texans are finding their family budgets strapped, it is not the time to ask them to dig deeper into their pockets to fund more government. We agree with Texans for a Conservative Budget that Texas government must learn to live within the available revenue and not raise taxes or fees.

Government spending and debt limit economic freedom. Putting limits on the size and scope of government allows future generations the opportunity to achieve the American dream.

Texas will continue to lead the nation in job creation if we continue the course set by the 2011 Legislature.

Texans for a Conservative Budget calls on legislators to craft a 2014-2015 Texas state budget that preserves the foundations of fiscal responsibility and limited government that underlie the tremendous Texas economic and fiscal success of the past decade.

Texans for a Conservative Budget is a coalition of policy and grassroots organizations.

The coalition released its recommendations at a Tuesday afternoon press conference at the Texas State Capitol. Organizations in the Texans for a Conservative Budget coalition include the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Americans for Prosperity-Texas, American Majority-Texas, Americans for Tax Reform, the Heartland Institute, and Texans for Fiscal Responsibility.

The recent announcement that the state of Texas is giving $304,000,000 in tax revenues, taken from Texas businesses and citizens, to Apple Computer  to create 3,600 new jobs in Texas over the next 10 years is being hailed as a great accomplishment by Gov. Perry, Lt. Gov. Dewhurst, the Texas Comptroller and many, many other so called conservative elected officials.
As a long time small business owner and tax payer, I wonder what would happen if instead of giving that money to one of the largest and riches companies in the world, they gave it BACK to those who were forced to paid it? And let the businesses and individuals invest it as they see fit. I bet Texans would create more than 360 jobs a year with it. I bet you would see thousands of new jobs created each year as a result. I bet you would see a much more prosperous Texas.
What we have is a fundamental misunderstanding of free markets by those who promote themselves as conservatives and guardians of the constitution. Crony capitalism and big government solutions at its worst. Shame on the Texas leadership and shame on conservative Texans if they let them get away with this! - Dean Wright
"It’s called corporate crony capitalism. This is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk. No, this is the capitalism of connections and government bailouts and handouts, of waste and influence peddling and corporate welfare. This is the crony capitalism that destroyed Europe’s economies. It’s the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest." - Sarah Palin

 Posted on February 22, 2012 by Michael Quinn Sullivan

They just won’t go away, these tea-party-types so intent on reclaiming their government. The tea party movement’s political obituary was being written before the birth announcement was printed. Yet they keep getting stronger, freshly influencing politics and policy.

  The tea party has focused their policy message on the radical ideas of our founding fathers: that government should do only a few things and do them well; that progress is defined by more liberty, not higher taxes or bigger budgets; and that the power of government rests with the people, not the politicians or bureaucrats.

It was assumed (hoped?) by the ruling-class establishmentarians that the tea party would go away once the signs waved at rallies got too heavy. The rallies may have died down, but citizen-led activism has only ramped up.

A key indicator of the tea party’s staying power is how many Republican incumbents try to cloak themselves in the messages of the movement.

For example, State Rep. Vicki Truitt of Tarrant County has a legislative record largely antithetical to the tea party movement. During the 2009 legislative session – just as the national tea party movement was coming into being – Rep. Truitt was actively pushing a massive new tax hike in the legislature. She wanted more money flowing to boondoggle fake-transportation projects.

A poll by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram found 96 percent of Tarrant County voters – Truitt’s home district – opposed the tax hike measure. Nevertheless, she promised to return in 2011 to fight for the tax hike.

Back home, tea party folks in her district saw Rep. Truitt had been unopposed in her 2008 primary, so they went to work against her. She ended up with three opponents in the 2010 primary. Ms. Truitt out-spent her rivals nearly 10-to-1 (her $300,000 to their combined total of less than $35,000), yet she garnered just 52 percent of the vote.

So after all that, and after bad-mouthing the tea party activists who defeated her tax hike, she sent campaign mailers describing herself as… a tea party candidate.

More significantly, when Truitt (barely) returned to the legislature in 2011 she somehow forgot to fight for that promised tax hike legislation. She won the election, but the tea party won the policy fight.

Many of her tax-and-spend friends lost big in the 2010. Remember her fellow big-government legislators like Tommy Merritt and Delwin Jones? They fell in primaries. That same tea party energy also flipped 23 Obamacrat seats to the GOP in November of 2010, creating Texas’ first Republican super-majority.

Significantly, those were 23 Democrats counted on by moderate Joe Straus – an establishment guy who spent the 2010 election season thumbing his nose at the tea party by publically refusing to endorse conservative challengers over liberal Democrats – even headlining a liberal Democrat’s fundraiser!

Mr. Straus emerged from the November election facing a fight for the speakership. Never before in state history did an embattled speaker have to do what Joe Straus did: wage an unconvincing public campaign. He took out ads on the Drudge Report, had a Facebook page and a social media campaign – all telling the untruth that he shared the tea party’s values.

Speaker Straus won re-election thanks mainly to the purse-power of the lobby, pressure on new legislators from establishment donors, and the compressed nature of the challenge. Yet something fundamentally big changed.

First, the “pledge card” system that ruled the Texas House’s leadership structure has gone subterranean to non-existent. Many candidates had “pledged” support to the moderate Straus in 2010 before hearing from their constituents, setting up problems at home. As the 2011 session winded down, incumbents backed off from signing pledge cards – worried about appearances (and pressure) back home.

Second, the speakership in specific – and leadership in general – will be a primary-race issue, for the first-time in four decades or longer. Certainly not “the” issue, but “a” issue. Why? Legislative leadership affects policy outcomes.

Remember, the Straus “leadership” failed to produce meaningful budget reforms: spending limits, zero-based budgeting or anything that would stave off future fiscal problems.

Frankly, the 2011 legislative session – with that super-majority of tea-party delivered-candidates – produced little more than what would have come out of an 80-seat GOP majority.

The tea party in Texas has grown and matured since 2009. Candidates inspired – even recruited – by tea party members in urban, suburban and rural districts are running sophisticated campaigns. For example, Rep. Truitt is being challenged this year by conservative favorite Giovanni Capriglione, who has been successfully engaging Tarrant County voters in local campaigns – including engineering the defeat of a tax hike. (While TFR didn’t endorse in 2010, we recently endorsed Mr. Capriglione.)

More than even losing, many long-safe incumbents are worried about expensive, Truitt-style victories that leave them vulnerable and exposed. That’s part of the reason so many are retiring.

Incumbents are watching a good-ol’ boy system crumble under the energy of tea-powered activists. Tea party-inspired activists have been quietly stepping into the heavy-lifting jobs of partisan politics – becoming precinct chairs and similarly critical tasks.

Insider and media-types struggling for relevance will keep telling themselves the movement was a tempest in a teapot, or controlled by some puppet-master. The facts on the ground of the new political reality – the behavior and words of incumbents and challengers alike – run counter to that misguided belief.

The tea party as a movement has been successful because they aren’t seeking power or prominence for themselves. They’ve circumvented the mainstream media and exist without the approval of the ruling elite. The core message of the tea party – self-governance and limiting government – resonates so strongly because it goes so strongly to who we are as Texans.

That’s why in 2012 the tea party in Texas is brewing stronger and stronger.

 By Arnold Ahlert (Archive) · Saturday, February 25, 2012

In Maryland, Montgomery Community College has become the latest institution to offer a class on the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement. "Occupy MoCo!" will be offered to students in grades nine through twelve during the summer of 2012 as part the community college's summer youth program. Four days ago, Elizabeth Homan, Montgomery's Director of Communications, told Fox News the course "does not take a stance on the Occupy movement." Perhaps not now that the college has been caught red-handed. Since the story first broke, the course description has been changed twice to cover up its clear initial purpose: recruitment and indoctrination in OWS mob mania.

The original description of course, "You392 Occupy MoCo!" read as follows (italics mine): "We are at an exciting time in the history of the world. People all over the planet are taking democracy into their own hands and working together to create solutions for a better world. Take advantage of this interactive opportunity to learn critical thinking skills that will help you in college and gain insight into becoming a global leader of the 21st century. Learn about the Occupy Wall Street movement and explore real-life human rights implications. Review social justice concepts and explore human rights issues related to current events. Young people hold the power to change their community, their schools, their future -- are you ready to join the movement for justice?"

A new description was put on the college's website on Tuesday: "All around the world, people are taking democracy into their own hands. This class provides a unique, creative opportunity to discuss social issues and protests throughout history, including current events such as Occupy Wall Street. Students will learn about the various processes that can be used to voice opinions in their own community. Join in this interactive class to gain valuable insights into leadership and to develop critical thinking skills for college and life."

What's missing from this description? Any mention of human rights and social justice. Why the change? Course descriptions for the summer program are written with "exciting titles and energizing descriptions" to attract students to the program, Ms. Homan contended. "In an attempt to be fun and interesting, the true content of the class may have been lost."

Perhaps. But one suspects that both the complaints of area residents and online allegations that the course was trying to indoctrinate students have taken their toll. Ms. Homan conceded the possibility. "We've heard from our community that there was some clarity that we needed to provide in our course description, and we're going to correct that," Homan said earlier this week before the change was made. Yet even current students at Montgomery College recognized the inherent problem with the original description. "It's like, 'Are you ready to join the movement for justice?' That's recruiting someone," said student Cameron Lancon.

The course is being created by Neha Singhal with "input from the dean" according to Ms. Homan. Curiously, the college's roster of personnel did not include Ms. Singhal in its database. Ms. Homan explained that summer courses "taught through the workforce development and continuing education, specifically the youth programs are [taught] by part-time, short-term employees." Ms. Homan also insisted that Ms. Singhal "is not affiliated in any way with the OWS movement."

When asked if the college had ever taught a course on the Tea Party, Ms. Homan pointed out that the course "isn't going to be about the Occupy movement. It will be an aspect of it, but it's not the sole focus of the class" which is aimed at examining "current events, different ways people choose to have their voices heard, and terminology surrounding protests." As for the Tea Party aspect, Ms. Homan said that "we've definitely heard from everybody about incorporating an aspect of the Tea Party, and that's definitely valid, and that's something that [Ms. Singhal] will incorporate."

Ms. Homan described the reaction to this story as "mixed," noting that the concern was with the original course description. "That's why we've assured everyone that we've amended it to insure that it reflects...what the course was always intended to be," even as the "effort to be exciting" has gotten the college "more attention than we've ever needed." When asked why the title of the course wasn't changed, Ms. Homan made the point that the added publicity makes it easier to find. "The course is ultimately about voice," she insisted, adding that "there is no intent of advocating for the Occupy movement."

Yet there may be more going on here than the school is willing to admit. By late yesterday afternoon the description of the course had been changed yet again. According to Ms. Holman the final description of the course "which will go to print for the summer youth brochure" is this: "Around the world, growing numbers of people are making their voices heard. This class provides a unique, creative opportunity to discuss social issues and protests in the past and present. What are the frustrations behind them? How are they portrayed? How do you evaluate what you hear? We need to be savvy consumers of information, to learn how to question and evaluate, and, how and when to voice our positions. Join this interactive class to gain valuable insights into leadership and to develop critical thinking skills. This is an excellent investment in yourself, your skills, and your future success."

What's missing? Any mention of the Occupy movement at all. Such an "evolving" course description suggests that Montgomery College, despite the insistence by Ms. Holman that the original course description was nothing more than an over-zealous effort to attract students, has been caught red-handed creating a course they would have preferred remain largely under the public radar. Adding to the dubiousness is the fact that the college is not making instructor Neha Singhal's contact information available. An email sent by Ms. Homan describing Ms. Singhal was vague. She is someone who "has previously taught workshops to high school students in Prince George's County and Montgomery County [Maryland]. She taught in Montgomery College's summer youth program last year. Ms. Singhal works at a four-year university, and she is a master's degree student."

To be fair, Montgomery is hardly unique. Several colleges are teaching courses on the OWS movement, including NYU, Columbia, Brown and UCLA. What sets Montgomery apart is the idea of offering an OWS course to high school students, albeit those taking Advanced Placement classes, as young as 14 years of age. And considering the efforts of college officials to defuse this story by changing the description of the course, as well as keeping its teacher under wraps, one can only wonder whether some of the squalid reality surrounding the OWS movement, including the illegal occupation of public property, the riots, the rapes, and the anti-Semitism -- coupled with its anti-capitalist underpinnings, including publicly professed support from the American Nazi and Communist Parties -- will be an integral part of the curriculum.

Until the details of the syllabus are made available, one is more inclined to believe "Occupy MoCo!" was going to be more about indoctrination than education. Considering the amount of public backpedalling already occurring, one can only imagine how this is playing out in the privacy of the dean's office. The adage, "sunlight is the best disinfectant" seems very apropo.

Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.

The Founding Fathers were all about personal freedom. But did they intend those choices to extend to what we eat, drink, and smoke? That's the question James Delingpole and Paul Rahe took up over the weekend and debate in this podcast. It's a fascinating and friendly conversation amongst two men who have vastly different viewpoints and experiences with the ... read more

It won't matter how many conservative house legislators we elect if we don't challenge those in power who are the House Speaker and his hand picked and paid for committee chairmen. Nominate and support those candidates that will challenge the established elite.