In the wake of new Republican House leadership, a weak State of the Union, and a looming March 4th deadline for a continuing budget resolution to keep government running and the Capitol’s lights on, conservatives find themselves pressed against an innate system of government largess and go-along mentality.

While campaigning allows candidates to say much of anything without being held yet-accountable, governing is an entirely different animal; taking on the massive leviathan that is Washington DC will take a resolute spine and the tenacity of a junkyard dog protecting his wares. As congressional Republicans move into committee chairmanships an leadership positions,the message from the entrenched establishment is ‘sometimes it’s best to just quietly go along and not raise a fuss.’ Conservatives across the nation fear that this approach will lead to the inevitable ‘Conservative Light:’ someone who professes from high rooftops to be a staunch fiscal advocate of less government and will take the system head-on, however once in office and pressed, folds like a cheap suit and gives-in to base temptations.

Desperate and critical circumstances are often breeding grounds for true leadership to emerge: a divided nation brought Lincoln to hold us through a Civil War; in the face of spreading fascism, Churchill’s resolute stature held Europe together; and in the face of growing inflation, high unemployment, and a losing Cold War, Reagan transformed this country and took us to never-before-seen growth and security. We’re a few steps away from matching Greece in our financial house of cards, unemployment and housing continue to be issues, and now Egypt is a mess, causing more concern for an unstable Middle-East. The new congress must keep to their conservative principles, it is imperative that they force a Democrat Senate and Leftist Administration to reign-in spending across the board, get our economic house in order, and serve as a strong voice on National Security.

Circumstances are not easy, we face a desperate situation on many fronts, our newly elected conservative leaders must hold fast and emerge as the leaders our country needs them to be.

Mixed in the debate among the many issues swirling around Washington is the question on federal bailouts for cash-strapped states. Following the practice of using taxpayer money to prop up failed banks, the auto industry and the notorious AIG, the ‘too big to fail’ approach is being thrown around to lend assistance to a handful of states that are careening towards a cliff they must find some way to navigate.

Living generously during prosperous times, committing to lavish pensions with menacing unions, and failing to plan when good times end, states now find themselves squeezed. The deficit numbers are quite stark: $25 billion for California, $15 billion for Illinois, and $10 billion for New Jersey. Financial analyst Meredith Whitney, celebrated for forecasting the collapse of the banks, now predicts that we’ll begin to feel the states’ pain in the spring when federal stimulus money dries up. As recently as 2009, California was forced to issue IOU’s in lieu of payment due to lack of funds, the State Treasurer Bill Lockyer is making headlines once again saying the Golden State may have to once again use promissory notes as early as April if new Governor Jerry Brown does not address the problem quickly. In Illinois, the state legislature just passed a 66 percent increase on income tax as a means to address their state financial shortfall.

The conspicuous question on the table is what to do? Is the federal government now to run to the aide of states who can’t keep their books balanced? Is California to live high-on-the-hog with all benefits of Golden State amenities while a Texas or Indiana covers their bill? The answer is a resounding ‘no.’ In difficult times you have to make difficult decisions, a family must find ways to reduce spending and live within their means when hard time fall upon them, a business must learn to adapt and cut expenditures when the economy slows, and so it must be the same for states.

Within each of these states’ governments, they must confront their own problem and find a solution unique to their own circumstances including cutting state programs. The above-mentioned New Jersey is garnering front-page news with Governor Chris Christie making sweeping decisions in confronting runaway union pensions, ending wasteful construction projects that incur massive costs, and actually laying out a business friendly environment to encourage companies to move to New Jersey rather than increase taxes on their earnings. Here in Texas, our legislature is meeting to find a solution to our own budget shortfall, estimated to be close to 15 billion.

The fatigue voters felt after the numerous bailouts and government acquisition of private entities has run itself deep in the minds of voters across the country; recent November elections and a new congress reflect this sentiment. If Washington were to attempt another bailout for states on the brink, the general response from voters would be swift and harsh claiming they’ve had enough already, let the states figure it out for themselves.

One of the great, and often understated, things about this nation is the freedoms we have across the board. Aside from the constitutional rights we all know and love, one liberty we have is the ability to move freely whenever and however we choose. If someone finds themselves living in a state that issues worthless IOU’s for payment and has to suffer through a massive tax increase so government can balance their books, he is free to get up and move and find a much better place to live, most likely to a state that controls spending and keeps taxes low.

On a hot day in June 1815, standing atop a distant hill facing a red sea of British troops, Napoleon Bonaparte surveyed the military mass before him and realized Arthur Wellesley — the Duke of Wellington — was notably protecting his right flank with heavy amounts of cannon and artillery. Interpreting this to mean the Duke must be shielding a weak and vulnerable point, the Corsican determined he would launch an attack at exactly that spot, practicing his standard modus operandi of divide and conquer: hit your opponent where he is weak, force him to expend valuable reserves to protect the destabilized position therefore dividing his forces, and then aggressively press the middle to decimate a weakened center. Pointing to a farmhouse directly at the heart of this right periphery, Napoleon ordered his generals, “We’ll begin the attack there, at Hougoumont.”

As history would later dictate, this particular dwelling, Château d’Hougoumont, was held by a resolute British force that pushed back repeated advances from a superior-numbered French infantry. In a unique twist of events the strategy backfired on Napoleon: by sending waves of his men to take the Château, he stretched his troops thin and diluted the sum of his total force. This — combined with a late arrival of Blücher and his Prussian brigade — helped secure final defeat and eventual exile of the French Emperor. Despite its pivotal role in determining the battle’s outcome, Hougoumont stands as a subset of the larger conflict known as Waterloo.

As the 112th Congress convenes in Washington, the United States Senate stands as a modern-day Hougoumont, caught between a freshly minted conservative House of Representatives and a White House steadfastly holding to a Leftist ideology.

Legislation is meant to pass easier with much less parliamentary hassle in the People’s House, a simple majority is all that is needed for passage; conversely the Senate has a tradition of slow-going, debating the finer points of government policy and minutiae — one senator can hold up an entire bill single-handedly, and the filibuster serves as a counter-weight to the majority party, allowing the minority to force the party in power to garner 60 votes to end debate and bring a vote to the floor. At the top of the pyramid stands the White House, attempting to influence proposed law, hoping to have approved legislation it can sign into law and exterminate in congress ones the president wishes to avoid altogether.

Notwithstanding her devotion to all-things-bureaucratic, boundless energy to socialize anything that moves, and ubiquitous plastic smile, Nancy Pelosi has exited the stage far Left. In her absence, along with a presence of a solid Republican House majority, it is largely expected that a slew of conservative bills will emerge and pass the lower congressional chamber en masse. It is already viewed as a bold move that by weeks end Speaker Boehner will present a one-page bill to entirely repeal Obamacare — crown jewel of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid triumvirate, not to mention the recipient of the highest number of ‘Likes’ on Obamacare’s Facebook page from members of the New York City Sanitation Union and Humanities Department at New Hampshire State University. But I digress.

Once this revocation of socialized medicine — along with other bills to curtail spending, prevent tax increases, and keep Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his band of merry men out of a United States courtroom — emanates from the House it will most assuredly meet stiff resistance in the Senate, abetted by some string-pulling from White House liaisons to keep such bills away from the president’s desk.

It will be in the Senate where the heavy debating and strategic fighting will take place; where a frustrated public will have to listen to the ‘Gentlewoman from California’ explain why an exploding deficit and threats of hyperinflation are not really a big deal and there is no reason to curtail government spending. Newly elected Senators supported by the growing Tea Party movement will face off with antiquities who have held their seats for time immemorial: will a conservative Rand Paul emerge victorious in a debate with the Leftist relic John Kerry? More voting Americans identify themselves as conservative now than in recent memory, will Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell use this to his advantage, or cut a deal with Senate Democrats? At what lengths, or depths, will Senators go to invoke a filibuster? If the Senate passes a bill and sends it to the White House, under what conditions will Obama sign it into law or further the debate by using his veto pen? Many issues lay just under the surface and are sure to explode in the upcoming session: extending the national debt ceiling, closing Guantanamo, bailing out bankrupt states and cities, addressing illegal immigration, reducing spending levels to previous rates in 2008 or 2006 to mention a few. All of the above and more will have their fate determined in the Senate. And finally, keep in mind how all this will influence the 2012 election.

A lot is out there and much will be on the table, the Senate will serve as the dividing line between Congressional Republicans and President Obama, and that is where the real battle will take place.

One element of this past election rests in the fact that our elected officials have spent vast amounts of public monies we don’t have and are stretching the financial house of this nation to its limit. Like a family with maxed out credit cards, the piper is due and we have little money to pay up. Many incumbents fell from office due to the growing frustration this held over the electorate.

The debt commission was a good start, a beginning to a much-needed conversation. However in reality, it was only as its name states, a commission, unable to enact law, pass legislation, or guide policy. Many viewed this spectacle with cynicism and felt the Washington establishment was setting up a straw man to blame all tough decisions on and seek political cover, “blame the commission, not me.” When the commission couldn’t even get a supermajority needed to recommend to congress, it was a sign that this was going to be rough going.

This January a new congress will be sworn in and the current administration will have a new team to deal with across town, one issue they’ll have to man-up to is this growing debt: a grown-up conversation will have to take place calling for some form of reduced spending and fiscal sanity. You don’t have to have a graduate degree in finance from an Ivy League institution to know that the path we tread will lead to utter ruin: collapsed dollar, hyperinflation, crashed markets, and the inevitable bogey-man China, looming over this country like the Greek Sword of Damocles, hanging over the throne by a thread, the slightest shift in winds would cause it to fall ending whatever lies below.

The fact is that we need to spend less, tax less, and get an intrusive government to back off our lives, stop feeding the beast. Hopefully the new crop of conservative leaders will step up to the plate and act as grown-ups, make difficult but necessary decisions, and get this country back on the right course for stability and long-term economic growth.

Amidst the analyses, opinions, and Monday-morning-quarterbacking post 2010 campaign, the one fact that stands out is that the grassroots conservative movement – i.e. Tea Party organizations – had a profound effect on this election. Helping to frame the debate on issues regarding the national debt and government expansion; increasing voter turnout in targeted races; and holding incumbents across party lines accountable to the point where many lost their primaries to new challengers are just a few examples. One of the most bizarre, and yet prophetic occurrences, was when establishment figure Nancy Pelosi openly said that she “shares some of the views of the Tea Partiers” in an attempt to identify with the upstart movement.

Now that the votes have been cast and newly elected members are making their way to our nation’s capital – and by the way, one of their first items addressed was banning earmarks, thank you Tea Party – many conservative groups across the country are trying to determine their next step. Two immediate items that would keep the momentum and further conservative objectives are to focus on accountability and get involved in local 2011 elections.

One message received loud-and-clear is that no one is above answering to voters back home; the distaste with business as usual caused incumbent politicians, including a few senators, to lose primary races and be removed from politics completely. Now that we have a new crop of elected officials, it is essential that they understand they will be monitored, closely observed, and held accountable to the people who put them in office. Tea Parties need to maintain their vigilance in keeping an eye on legislation, coordinating with members to reach out to politicians either in support or opposition to their votes, and tracking the issues relevant to constituents back home.

In addition to preserving oversight, upcoming local elections are a good vehicle for conservative groups to get involved with and make a difference. School boards, city councils, and county offices are slated for off-year elections; this is where a great deal of government and emanates from and often people in these positions move on to higher offices. Tea Parties need to have a say in these races and get behind conservative candidates that best represent their point of view: less government, lower taxes, and local control. An organized and disciplined organization that has an effect in 2011 races will be primed and ready to go as we roll into 2012 when much more is at stake.

Many underestimated the Tea Party movement, laughed it off as an Astroturf group that need not be taken seriously; what happened this past first Tuesday in November proves these people greatly in error and shows how this was truly a force to reckon with. Now that this election has passed, the momentum must be kept up and the fire-in-the-belly needs to be maintained. Holding elected officials accountable and being active in local elections is an effective way to accomplish this and keep the conservative movement strong and moving forward.

In the closing chapters of election 2010, one conspicuous factor that stands out is the bizarre and obvious contempt the liberal Left has with the American voter.

Upon his coronation, it was pronounced loud and clear by the new administration, mainstream media, and leftwing blogs that all subjects who reside within the kingdom be required to show homage and reverence to the chosen-Obama and his benevolent governing. Like Plato’s Philosopher Kings — the wise guardians of truth placed in authority to guide the masses to an undiscovered utopia — Obama, Pelosi, and Reid were destined to lead us to untold prosperity and ideal community. Dissent was frowned upon and stifled: any attempt at expressing concern or worry on runaway expenditures, lack of transparency, or the wisdom of nationalizing one-sixth of our economy was handled as delicately as a union thug pouncing on a peaceful bystander wearing a Glenn Beck t-shirt at an AFL-CIO picnic. We — the unwashed masses — were told to shut up and be grateful we had such fine leadership making decisions on our behalf.

The simple fact of life is that at the end of the day results matter and the results from the Obama administration and congressional Democrats are nothing short of abysmal. Rising unemployment, trillions in runaway national debt, union kickbacks veiled in the form of “stimulus” legislation, failure to extend middle-class tax cuts are just a few examples of the many grotesque trophies the Left places on their eco-friendly fireplace that burns only soy logs. In fact, a good argument can made that the most successful bullet point Democrats can really point to in the past 18 months is the extension of the previous administration’s Iraq policies; the intellectually profound Joe Biden actually declared Iraq to be one of Obama’s “greatest achievements.”

In the face of such lustrous accomplishments, the public grew weary and payment to the piper has come due: New Jersey and Virginia saw new conservative leadership in the Governor’s office; Massachusetts witnessed the removal of a once-thought sacred senate seat held for the Left for time eternal; and presently Democrats are running away from the Obama administration as if they were placed in the witness protection program.

Rather than face up to the reality that these programs have not worked, that they have actually caused further damage to our ailing economy, and attempt to right the ship, Obama and his acolytes have taken to blaming the public in general for their low-approval ratings. In summation, Team Obama declares: It’s not our fault that our poll numbers are suffering and Democrats are losing at the ballot box, the American voter simply doesn’t understand what is good for them.

“Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now,” Obama recently told a group of Democratic donors in Massachusetts, “and facts and science and argument (do) not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we’re hard-wired not to always think clearly when we’re scared.” Huh? Facts and Science? Like millions of unemployed, massive deficits, a struggling housing market, and China holding our fate in their perilous hands? Pay no attention to these uncomfortable truths, not my fault, just a country that can’t see the good I’ve done them and is scared for no reason.

Nobody knows what will happen six day from now, Election Day is the final and ultimate poll taken by voting citizens and is meant to reflect the general mood of the country; anything can happen, there will inevitably be more than one surprise victory or defeat. As things stand now, all facts on the table, Dems and the Left will realistically lose and more than likely lose big: a new congress, new governors, a conservative response to the failed policies present in our government.

Don’t expect Obama or his ilk to man-up, take responsibility for their course of action, and make necessary corrections to stable our nation. No, the Philosopher Kings sit high above in their towers of ivory, gazing down at the unhappy citizens, and openly declare that they are blameless and any opposition or electoral failure rests solely at the feet of the uneducated, unenlightened, and misguided American voter.

Remember to vote this Tuesday.

The final stretch of a campaign encompasses countless elements that will often make or break efforts to push a candidate across the finish line: making closing arguments to potential voters, working last-minute media relations to garner positive publicity, and diligently using financial resources to squeeze the most efficiency out of every last penny are a few examples. However, a vital component – arguably the most significant to achieving victory – is the all-important Get Out The Vote, or GOTV: establishing a targeted ground game to pull last-minute support into your column on Election Day.

Campaigns traditionally go through an early period where they examine the electoral DNA that make up their district; going precinct-by-precinct and determining which ones historically vote along their party lines and which ones often go for the opposition. Targeting the swing areas, or 50/50 precincts, that could realistically go either way depending on turnout, customarily takes up a significant portion of work and time. It is here where campaigns employ micro-targeting and persuasion: learning as much as possible about voters – what issues are important and relevant to their lives – and then based on this information providing a sound and convincing argument why they should support their candidacy, persuading them to cast a ballot on their behalf. Ideally, a campaign wants to reach out to these voters at least three times whether by phone-banking or volunteers knocking on doors, the goal is to make these 50/50 precincts 49/51 or more in your favor.

As the calendar moves from summer, past Labor Day and into the fall, the final election-sprint takes place and effective campaigns carry out a targeted GOTV strategy. This is a period of days, maybe a week at the most, before Election Day, when you direct efforts to pull voters in precincts that traditionally support your type of candidacy or political party; here is when you direct attention to precincts that are closer to 70/30 in your favor and not so much towards swing areas, this is the time to push, pull, and drag voters to the polls and make sure your supporters are represented on Election Day.

A fundamental flaw for many campaigns that come up short and are unable to win has been the failure to reach out to these traditionally strong areas of support in the final stages of an election. An effective GOTV effort can sway results by four to six percentage points and is often the key to victory. Many voters, especially in off-year elections, need that final push and personal contact to remind them to turn out in November.

Election Day is looming closer and closer. Campaigns that have specific and detailed plans to devote the final days to a GOTV ground game in areas of traditional support have a much better chance for realizing victory, while those that fail to implement this strategy risk falling short and facing ultimate defeat.

An excellent article describing how one ideology wants to target and change something properly sound, morally just, and historically unique; and another is working feverishly to protect it.

Why the Left Seeks to Transform America

Growing up in east Texas, far removed from a large metropolis, it was standard operating procedure to perform outdoor yard work under the hot Texas sun on any given weekend. Always present was my grandfather who was all-too-familiar with the operating functions of a lawn mower, how to remove brush from a clearing, and the proper parts needed for an efficient diesel engine. Years prior, he had made a living as a roughneck, an oilman who’d done hard work on rigs throughout the state; this provided vast amounts of real world experience alongside well-weathered hands that had seen their fair share of labor. Among his advice on how to get the best looking lawn, he would often tell stories of his days in the oilfield, and in particular, how it was vital to hold those accountable who had given promises and commitments: keep a close eye on those entrusted to hold up their end of the bargain.

Lessons from years past come back front-and-center when one examines the current climate of wayward assurances and oblivious guarantees personified by elected officials. Now, more than ever, the public is growing weary of politicians who promise to take on the political establishment – to bring about meaningful and substantive change – then all-too-often become part of the system and morph into the very thing they once opposed. How often have we heard prospective candidates claim that they will rid government of waste and corruption and then watch as spending and regulation increase during their term in office? The longer someone holds office, it is often the case that they become susceptible to its trappings and corruptive influences.

Most recently, here in Texas, a state representative was caught double-dipping: using his campaign expense account for lavish hotels, airline tickets, and costly meals, then billed the state for the exact same expenses. First his campaign paid for the goodies, then the state reimbursed him 100 percent. State Representative Joe Driver has been in office for 18 years and I have no doubt that his original intentions 18 years ago were genuine and sincere, wanted to represent his constituents as best he could, but in the past five years alone he has taken at least $17,431.55 from taxpayers; not exactly carrying out the will of the people.

This is not so much a commentary on the occurrences of a single Texas politician, but more so the importance of having an active electorate that remains engaged and committed to holding elected officials accountable. For a healthy democracy to survive and progress, it is imperative that there remain an active populace involved in current political affairs. The day after the election, when campaigning stops, those who voted need to remain alert and attentive when candidates become incumbents. A sharp message has to be understood that once in office, their actions will be watched and closely monitored; if they step out of line – whether raising our taxes our double-dipping from taxpayer funds – we’ll find someone to run against you next election. Our officials work for us and need to be kept aware of this fact.

Around the country, establishment figures are dropping like flies: Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania and Bob Bennett of Utah, two longtime senate incumbents both lost in primaries, didn’t even make it to a general election. Just yesterday, long shot Joe Miller was beating Republican incumbent Lisa Murkowski in the Alaskan Senate Republican primary. Miller was once an afterthought, not taken seriously, Murkowski had millions on hand and by all accounts a shoe-in to win, now her campaign is reduced to hoping for positive absentee ballots to eke out a win.

What’s going on? Around the country a once-dormant public is getting more and more actively engaged, serving as watchmen over our elected officials and holding them accountable: a harsh but realistic counterbalance to an out of touch cadre ramming an agenda against the interests of American voters. Many in the media and in Washington are downplaying these events, giving short shrift to Tea Party activists, standing in disbelief that the public would oppose their utopian statist agenda.

The election is only a few months way, but we need to keep this momentum alive and well through November and well-beyond. Regardless of what the elite is spewing from their ivory towers, an active and engaged citizenry is what took this country to great heights and accomplishments and it is exactly what is needed for a return-path to greatness.

Cadets at West Point Military Academy are taught to analyze an effective mission on three separate tiers: objective, strategy, and tactics. The broad, desired end-result goal is your objective. The specific method of action to accomplish this goal is your strategy. And tactics are the various points you employ to reach your destination.

Look at any well-run campaign as an example. The objective is to earn a majority of votes, 50 percent plus 1, to win election to public office; an effective strategy would be to define yourself as the candidate who will work to improve the economy, bring needed jobs to your community; and tactics would vary from utilizing different communication techniques to disseminate your message.

Once an objective is established, every tactic your campaign employs — from all its communications, public appearances, and policy statements — must advance a consistent strategy to accomplish this goal. Every person on a campaign staff that potentially has an affect on voters must thoroughly understand, know and internalize the strategy so he or she is able to make decisions and take actions that will move the operation closer towards the objectives.

Strategic Planning - VW Case Study

A fundamental flaw that inevitably raises its ugly head during misguided and failed attempts at elected office is when campaigns confuse strategy and tactics.

A strategy by nature must be durable, predictable, and steady — a north star in campaign operations consisting of message discipline and framing the debate favorable to your candidacy. Tactics are fluid elements that fluctuate as a campaign evolves — shifting from targeted door-to-door get-out-the vote operations to making a surprise appearance in the local media.

Effective strategies are consistent. Good tactics create surprises. Get these confused and chaos ensues.

An excellent and recent example of this occurrence is the 2004 presidential election. The Bush campaign understood that to win re-election they had to convince voters it was important to stay the course in the War on Terror, strong leadership in perilous and dangerous times. The Kerry campaign by contrast struggled to find a clear and consistent strategy, often confusing the overall message. Desperately seeking acceptance among the far Left, Kerry portrayed himself as a globalist devoted to building international consensus first and foremost; simultaneously, and paradoxically, he had a contrasting message of wanting to appear as a hawk on national defense.

Bush developed a simple strategic narrative: I am strong and decisive; my opponent is weak and uncertain. Kerry infamously “Voted for it before voting against it.” The Republican incumbent made use of effective tactics to convey a clear message to voters via mass media, public appearances, and an outstanding door-to-door operation conducted in competitive states. Kerry had multiple messages that contradicted each other, tactics that were directed at differing groups, and eventually left voters confused and unsure of where he stood on important issues. At the end of the day, voters went with whom they trusted, the candidate with a clear strategic message.

Whether you seek elected office in a your hometown or happen to find yourself in a much higher form of the political game, defining your objective, strategy and tactics is imperative to establishing a successful campaign. Separating strategy and tactics could mean the difference between ultimate success and absolute voter confusion.

“There is a tide in the affairs of men.”

William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar Act 4

It seems that more and more people feel compelled to take part in the growing conservative movement currently sweeping across this country. As a left-wing agenda is aggressively being pushed in Washington and out-of-touch politicians shamelessly bow to special interests – resulting in an obscene national debt, rising unemployment, and a nationalized healthcare system – families back home feel deliberately kept out of the process, their concerns removed from debate.

Last night I attended a meeting of the North Houston Tea Party Patriots; a topic that repeatedly came up in conversation was the problem – albeit a healthy one – of consistently higher-than-expected amounts of people showing up at their assemblies and rallies.  What began as a loose group of concerned citizens gathering in their homes grew to a substantial organization that required renting a large warehouse for weekly meetings and a team of volunteers to staff office needs.

In April of 2009, a group of motivated citizens coalesced together to plan their first Tea Party in the North Houston area – a Tax-Day Tea Party on April 15, 2009. They reserved a local park in The Woodlands and anticipated a few hundred people would attend to voice their frustration over the recent budget-busting stimulus plan. As the event began that afternoon, so too did the crowd begin to arrive, with an unending stream of cars, backing up area roads for miles. Thousands flooded into the park wanting to be a part of this event, which for many, was their first ever-political action! Word of the event had spread like a Texas grass fire throughout the north Houston region, and over five thousand citizens and their children stepped forward to express their concerns (not too shabby for a Wednesday evening event during the middle of the school year!)

Supporters grew over the year, and by April 15 of 2010, their next Tax Day rally was more than twice as big, with 15,000 patriots flooding into the Sam Houston Race Park. With a larger venue that was more conveniently located, they were able to attract more Houstonians and Harris County residents, all eager to voice their growing concerns over our nation’s perilous direction. Their radical demand? A return to conservative, common-sense policies in Washington – respect for our Constitution and fiscal restraint. And while this tremendous event took place in my hometown of Houston, across the United States countless similar rallies took hold of this idea and articulated a nationwide phenomenon.

It’s a convenient argument to dismiss a lone-voice as insignificant, an anomaly in political discourse that must be ignored by elites resting comfortably high above in ivory towers; an agenda-driven media mocks those who question Ivy-League credentialed authority as the unwashed masses; working families are told to “eat cake” and feel fortunate that we have such gifted leaders to make all-important decisions on our behalf. When small groups – motivated to act on behalf of eroding liberties – evolve to countless numbers occupying stadiums across the country, it’s a stark observation that in this day and time “the tide in the affairs of men” is causing unexpected amounts of a once-dormant public to become increasingly active in the political process and vigorously working to bring a new conservative direction for our nation. Politicians and elite media assuredly will spin, but at the end of the day numbers don’t lie.