Standing Apart

I told Nicole this morning that I'm pretty pumped to conduct my first The Goal is to Win workshop.

I've presented a ton of times before. This one is different. It's a next level presentation.

It occurred to me this morning that I have a different mindset about the grassroots. I look at the grassroots from a historical perspective. It wasn't Thomas Jefferson or John Adams who won us our liberty. They played a role, to be sure, and their words and actions were critical. But on the battlefield, it was the farmer and the blacksmith and the cobbler who won us our liberty.

In short, it was the grassroots. They won the victories. They beat the establishment. Without them, we would not have won our freedom.

Today, we aim to reclaim our liberty. A consultant called a potential candidate yesterday and gave this very common advice: make a list of everyone you know and be ready to ask them for money. That's the beginning of every failed grassroots campaign. While everyone on that list of people certainly needs to contribute, their involvement needs to be greater than handing over money.

Many consultants see the grassroots and volunteers almost as worthless. "Get them to give money and bring friends with them to vote. And see if they will blockwalk." That's the extent of it, because in their experience the grassroots contribute no more than that.

And to be fair, nearly every grassroots candidate steps into their race relatively alone and works hard to defeat the local Goliath. It's a solo effort.

I believe that the grassroots are capable of much more and will give much more, if inspired and trained to do so. After all, they did so long ago.

That is the essence of the seminar - to spark the fervor the people have for liberty and less government. To train them in what they can effectively and easily do to intersect with the candidate and win the election.

The book was the first step toward this ambition. I'm chomping at the bit to get started and work with everyone.

Let's go!

Beware Celebrity

Some people crave the limelight. They just do. I'm sure there are a lot of reasons why someone might... but the urge to be next to someone because they're famous is a dangerous thing.

Rush Limbaugh used to say that politics is celebrity / showbiz for the ugly. He's right, but that's profoundly regrettable. We need whatever political activities there happen to be about protecting our life, liberty, and property, not the limelight.

Those who get energized by proximity to political celebrity tend to forget any political principles that they might have had. It's not that we need to accept the policies of a politician, but rather that we need the right politician to advance our policies. There is a great difference. When we give a pass to a politicians who hurt our families as they forward the wrong policies - just because they're in the right party - we fail our families.

We live in a time of transition, where the people have become more and more powerful, realizing that there are more of us than of the few in power. With our vote, we can replace those weak in principle with those strong in principle. We are, and we will continue to do so.

Some political celebrities haven't gotten that message yet. And that's okay. We will organize to defeat and replace them. If that's important to you, then you might recognize those who aren't your allies in this fight because they crave to be near the politically famous. We don't need celebrities; we need the right policies.

You Want the Best

No one goes to court and wishes that they get a no-name public defender to represent their case.

Nobody expects that they will get a fantastic pro-bono attorney either to represent them.

In court, they practice law, and when your very life is threatened by lawsuit or potential jailtime, you want the best. You want someone who will listen to your side, find the evidence to support you, and then argue your case before judge and jury.

If you want that in the place where they practice law, why wouldn't you want the same treatment in the place where they make law?

If you want the right representation in court, you have to hire an attorney. To hire an attorney, you first research the attorneys available to you, and then you give the lawyer you find a retainer. This tells them that you are serious and can afford them.

You're expected to pay for the help you need. In the place where they practice law. Why not also in the place where they make law?

For some really bizarre reason, we expect candidates who run to represent us to self-fund. They're expected to raise the money - to work for us.

We don't do that with attorneys. We don't approach Goddard and Silverstein and tell them, "My court date is in January. Let me know when you've raised the money to represent me."

Everyone would laugh at that idea of forcing a lawyer to self-fund to represent us in court. But for some reason, we don't laugh at the idea of forcing a grassroots candidate to self-fund to represent us in the legislature.

Corporations retain lawyers all of the time. Those with tremendous assets pay up front to be represented by the best. Somehow, we look at the massive donations given to incumbents and think it's terrible. But it's not. It's smart business. They're paying someone to represent their interests, just as they would pay a lawyer to represent them in court.

Here's a pro-tip: there is no such thing as a "grassroots candidate" if the grassroots doesn't fund the campaign of the best person to represent them.

The 350 Plan I outline in The Goal is to Win shows you how to very affordably and easily do this.

Those who founded this country were willing to give their lives, fortunes, and honor. Any sacrifice we make today to obtain liberty is not nearly as costly, but it will require each of us to give of our time, money, and reputation.

If you want the best, you have to pay the best. Patriots fund the campaigns that will win them liberty. Otherwise, they are not the patriots they imagine themselves to be.

The Democrats' Depraved Indifference

You've probably heard of the Laken Riley murder by a man here in the US illegally. The murder occurred in Georgia, and a Georgia Representative put forward a bill in the US House to "require the Secretary of Homeland Security to take into custody aliens who have been charged in the United States with theft, and for other purposes."

That's how far afield this Democrat administration has taken us: we have to file laws to require the the person in charge of securing our country to detain illegals who commit criminal acts. Because he doesn't.

The Venezuelan was redundantly proven to be a risk.

• September 2023: arrested in New York City and charged with "acting in a manner to injure a child less than 17 and a motor vehicle license violation."
• October 2023: arrested by Athens GA police on theft charges.
• December 2023: warrant issued after failing to appear in court in a shoplifting case in Georgia.

So, passing this law is a no-brainer, right? Well, it passed, yes it did. The vote wasn't unanimous, however. It was 264 who agreed with the bill to 159 who opposed it. Every Republican in Texas voted for it. Every Democrat but two voted against it. These are the Democrats who voted against it:

Greg Casar
Joaquin Castro
Jasmine Crockett
Lloyd Doggett
Veronica Escobar
Lizzie Fletcher
Vicente Gonzalez
Al Green
Julie Johnson
Sylvester Turner
Marc Veasey

I argue that each of these representatives is guilty of depraved indifference, which is defined as behavior "so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes a crime."

Regrettably, prosecuting them for their depraved indifference won't happen - but every one of them should be replaced pronto. They are so committed to allow illegals into the US that they just don't care who gets hurt in this invasion.

It's not the first time that Democrats favored illegals over the safety of women. In 2024, many voted against The Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act. "In addition to deporting migrants convicted of sex crimes, the legislation would also deem illegal immigrants who admit to domestic violence or sex-related charges – or are convicted of them – to be inadmissible in the U.S."

These Texas Democrats voted against the safety of women:

Greg Casar
Joaquin Castro
Jasmine Crockett
Lloyd Doggett
Veronica Escobar
Lizzie Fletcher
Sylvia Garcia
Al Green
Marc Veasey

Depraved indifference. Guilty. Every one of them.

It's up to us to replace them with moral, caring human beings.

The Distraction of Politics

I have a simple definition for freedom: it's when the government is so small that I can go 30 days without worrying what the government is doing.

As it is, I can't go 30 minutes.

Terrorist threats, the inauguration, Biden awarding the most malicious players with medals of freedom, drones, the internal fight among Republicans for the soul of the GOP here in Texas...

Too many people want a piece of what isn't theirs, believing and acting as though our government is for sale or for capture.

This morning, I did what I would rather do: I started a little song that I might call "Crossing."

It's a lovely waltz-type of song. It's peaceful. It's the place I would rather be. But our world is chaotic because we've let it become a mess and so we have to attend to it and clean it up.

January 20th, God willing that it come and go peacefully, will bring a new era into our government, which is great, but it's not the end. This past week, I created the 100+ slide deck for my grassroots training seminar based on The Goal is to Win. I'll soon have 10 events scheduled for it, and more coming from the conversations I'm having with people.

That's good. We need to win. We need to bring security and peace back into our world.

Despite all of the chaos, once in a while it's healthy to just be yourself. Take a moment to do what relaxes you. Something you enjoy.

But we have a country and a future to save. For now, we put up with the distraction of politics until we get those in office who will shrink government and make it so that we can live our lives while they represent us as we would want to be represented.

As Ecclesiastes says, there is a time for everything. "Nothing is better than to rejoice, and to do good in life, and also that every man should eat and drink and enjoy the good of all his labor - it is the gift of God."

So, today we work to make that possible again.

Coming in February: Your Opinion Papers

A good friend called me yesterday and, after talking a bit, he asked if I would let others post on Opinion Paper. I told him, yes, the plan is to allow multiple authors to post on a different website, Opinion Papers. I own the domain, but haven't created the website yet.

You see the logo for it on this post.

As Elon starts doing a form of censorship with "more positive," AI-fueled algorithms, X is a wonderful place to get the latest news, but you have to scroll endlessly through a bunch of crap. His notion of "unregretted user seconds" - the time you regret spending on X for content you don't care for - will never be right.

Let's back up a bit.

When I go to the internet, I determine what sites I visit, what content I read. That is how I maximize my "unregretted user seconds." I choose where I go and how long I spend there.

I don't have that capability on X. An algorithm determines what content I see. No computer can determine me, my tastes, my thinking, my impulses. That maximizes the user seconds I do regret. Every time I go on X, I see something where I ask, why am I seeing this? Ditto Facebook.

An algorithm is failure. It cannot help but fail. So why not just let the person choose for themselves what content they want to see?

That's what search engines once did. Google's Page Rank looked for the frequency of words and their placement on the page and the number of sites that pointed to the page to determine how high up the page would be in any search results. Now, censorship and data farming and political bias is built in and sorts accordingly.

As a tech guy, I kind of understand why this change came about. To understand how to really streamline search results, you had to know to use the dash character in front of a word you wanted to filter out of the results.

For example: if you wanted to know about what states grow corn, but you wanted to filter Iowa out of the results, you type "corn state -iowa" into Google. Try it with and without to see the difference.

This requires tech savvy and too many people struggle with technology so the idea was to instead guess at what a person might want to see. Less tech support, less frustration, and if it got you right a decent percentage of the time, you probably wouldn't complain about the cute cat video you hadn't seen before.

As I mentioned in a previous post here on OP, social media penalizes you for providing links to other sites. They lose money when you walk away from the site. No ad revenue that way, so posts with links get little attention. This is why I put links to OP content in the comments rather than the post itself on FB.

Free expression is important. Your ability to choose is important. Your ability to source your information with links to other sites is important.

You deserve complete control. Complete control minimizes your "unregretted user seconds."

So, if you want to be an author on Opinion Papers when it rolls in February, let me know.

We Need the Hastert Rule in Texas

You might not remember who Denny Hastert is, but we need his wisdom in Texas.

Hastert was once the Speaker of the House, sandwiched between Newt Gingrich and John Boehner. He had a rule, and it came to be called The Hastert Rule.

"The Speaker will only bring a bill to the floor 'if the majority of the majority' supports it."

This meant that while Republicans had control of the House, only legislation supported by the majority of Republicans would ever move forward. As the website says, "The Speaker of the House directs the flow of debate for the body, but unlike his counterpart in the British House of Commons, he is not an impartial umpire. Though he leads the whole House, he is still a partisan actor elected by the majority party."

Such a rule guarantees that when a Republican is in charge, the Republican agenda moves forward. The Democrat agenda? It sits and goes nowhere.

Can you imagine if Speaker Johnson did his job with a rule like this? There wouldn't be a speaker fight. Republicans would be quite happy with House leadership.

Here in Texas, isn't this what we're asking of our House Republicans? But instead, we're watching Burrows thumb his nose at the agenda of Texas Republicans and insist that he will help everyone represent their district.

We don't need Gene Wu's intentions to move forward. No Texas Republican wants Gene Wu's intentions to gain traction in the House. But over 30 of our "Republican" House members think that's just fine.

Hastert was plagued with his own problems and flaws, but he was right and we need his "Majority of the Majority" Rule in Texas - and we need it pronto. Bipartisanship is no virtue unless what you seek is power in the club and not freedom and security for Texans.

On Being a Republican

What is it to be a Republican?

When I grew up, people would say that Democrats love bigger government, and Republicans loved smaller government. I was born in 1964. If you read from the party platform in 1964, it had language like this:

"Every person has the right to govern himself, to fix his own goals, and to make his own way with a minimum of governmental interference. It is for government to foster and maintain an environment of freedom encouraging every individual to develop to the fullest his God-given powers of mind, heart and body; and, beyond this, government should undertake only needful things, rightly of public concern, which the citizen cannot himself accomplish."

It went further to say, "We Republicans shall insist that the Federal Government have effective but limited powers, that it be frugal and efficient, and that it fully meet its Constitutional responsibilities to all the American people."

Fast forward to the first strong Republican president of my lifetime, Ronald Reagan. At the end of his presidency, he gave his farewell address, where he said this:

"Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: 'We the People.' 'We the People' tell the government what to do; it doesn't tell us. 'We the People' are the driver; the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which 'We the People' tell the government what it is allowed to do. 'We the People' are free."

That was twenty-five years later. The philosophy of the Republican Party was indeed limited government.

That seemed to be slipping away until Vivek Ramaswamy came in and started announcing that he wanted to slash the size of American government. He talked of shutting down toxic government agencies, ending civil service protections for bureaucrats, eliminating federal employee unions and so on.

This little known man changed the landscape of the primary and today, President Trump has put him and Elon Musk in an advisory capacity as the heads of the so-called "Department of Government Efficiency." Right in its description, it states simply: "The people voted for major reform." Trump himself said in his announcement about its creation: "They will work together to make the US Government accountable to 'WE THE PEOPLE.'"

That's 60 years during my lifetime of Republican leaders asserting a limited government driven by "We the People."

Here in Texas, it appears that some Republicans don't like this definition of being Republican. They stiff-arm any movement by We the People to push back against a top-down government. This seems to be driven by a faction of the TRCCA, the Texas Republican County Chair Association. Its current president, David Luther, cites previous president and current state rep, Carl Tepper, in saying: "Today, Rep. Carl Tepper, former TRCCA President, was interviewed about the TX House Speaker race. He suggests the current RPT is irrelevant and doesn't represent TX Republicans. He responded to Abraham George's primary threat by saying, 'bring it on.' The RPT only scares cowards."

Luther routinely mocks the choice of the House Republican Caucus, David Cook, who has committed to these reforms, if elected speaker:

1. Only solicit support for Speakership from Republican members
2. End the practice of awarding Democrats with committee chairmanships
3. Ensure all GOP legislative priorities receive a floor vote before any Democrat bills
4. Replace the current liberal Parliamentarians with staff committed to only offering advice on adherence to House rules, not to advancing their personal ideology
5. Limit the Speaker to two terms to reduce their power over individual members
6. Ensure there are no longer any Democrat-majority committees
7. Stop parliamentary abuse by requiring only substantial adherence to House rules to keep hyper-technical points of order from killing good legislation
8. Allow audio/video recording of all House proceedings, including point of order debates
9. Start substantive work as soon as Session begins to end delays that kill priority legislation
10. Reform the Calendars Committee to increase transparency and accountability
11. Select a Republican as Speaker Pro Tempore
12. Decentralize power by prohibiting the distribution of political funds from the Speaker

Meanwhile, Luther's and Tepper's choice would be the man who lost the caucus vote, Dustin Burrows, who actively and publicly wants to work with Democrats to become speaker and share power.

What's more, these people shun not just the Republican Party of Texas, but the will of the nearly 2 million Republicans statewide who voted in the 2022 primary to not support Republicans sharing power with Democrats.

My county GOP chair is the VP of the TRCCA. Ironically, from our own county GOP website:

"We are committed to advancing limited government, lower taxes, less spending and individual liberty. The Smith County Republican Party’s specific goals are to grow the Republican Party by reaching new voters, advance the Platform, which is grounded in conservative principle, and to keep Texas prosperous and free."

That platform was created by the very Texas GOP that the past and present TRCCA presidents mock and reject. In the top Legislative Priorities for the next session is "The Republican-controlled Texas Legislature shall end the practice of awarding committee chairmanships to Democrats and require all committees to be majority Republican."

If I'm going to look for a definition of being Republican, I'll look to history, Reagan, Trump, and to Texas Republican voters. I won't look to the TRCCA or its leaders.

Solo Efforts Fail

I spoke to a grassroots leader yesterday. He told me that he's on the lookout for someone to run against a bad incumbent who's in the House of Bad Cards.

"We need to find the right person!"

Yes indeed. That's always the case. Find the right person, you can replace anyone in office. The problem is that most of the "right people" who might run for office don't do so because they're concerned that it will a solo effort. If history is any guide, a grassroots candidate starts with $0 in the bank, a handful of untrained supporters, and a lack of marketing materials.

Somehow, that "right person" is supposed to go against a well-moneyed, well-known incumbent. And usually, only giving themselves a few months to do so.

It's no surprise that they often don't succeed. Solo efforts fail. What's more, knowing this is usually the result, the "right person" wonders why they should sacrifice time and treasure when it will be a quixotic effort. Here's the truth: if you want the right person to succeed, then the grassroots need training and discipline just as the candidate does.

The grassroots are well-intentioned, but they don't know how to organize for victory. What you see above is a partial screenshot of the training I've developed to help our people galvanize around the right person.

I told my friend on the phone that if I am invited to come train the people, the "right person" is far more likely to step forward and run because it won't be a solo effort. Washington didn't defeat the British by himself. He did it with an army. That novice army was losing until they received professional training.

The good news is that it doesn't take much training and once trained, doesn't require a great deal of time or treasure to help the right person win.

But make no mistake: solo efforts fail. And most of the people who would make a great candidate are smart enough to not embark on a solo effort.

Plus, if the grassroots are to have a farm team, you start with training everyone. From among those trained, future candidates will emerge.

The Longer You're in the Store...

Organizations struggle all of the time with how to best attract and keep their audience. Why do people need you and why should they stick around once they do find you? What do you offer them to keep them interested?

There's an axiom in retail, which is that the longer you're in the store, the more likely you are to buy. Buc-ee's, here in Texas, has that axiom down cold. Everyone knows that it's the one gas station where just going to the bathroom costs you a minimum of $20 for the purchases you'll inevitably make.

Think of politics... the draw is the drama, is it not? Nobody goes to X to watch movies. They go there for news and occasionally short and interesting videos. We crave influence and to catch the latest.

A really great book I read that changed my thinking long ago in the mid-90's was a book that was mis-marketed, in my opinion. It wasn't about games and puzzles, although it has some of that. It was about how to conjure up a multiplicity of ways to imagine something. It helped you become more creative. From the book:

Here, on Opinion Paper, I try to make the experience as interesting as possible. The life tiles that appear throughout the website give a kind of retrospective of where I've been and what I've done. They tell a picture story, in snippets. I offer the game in the menu. The news aggregator. Art. Music.

Think of political websites. Other than wordy, sometimes provocative content, what fun reasons do they give you to stick around?

Why not a crossword puzzle? A series of memes? A trivia game? Interesting videos that explain our government? A place where you could tell your story and read the stories of others impacted by policies?

What if you went to a candidate's campaign website and found lots of reasons to stick around? "The longer you're in the store, the more likely you are to buy." Can that work with campaigns?

I know many people who look forward to Rand Paul's Festivus every year. It's his creative way to "to alert the American people to how their federal government uses their hard-earned money" - and by "uses" he means "misspends." It's informative. It's different. It's interesting.

A bit of creativity can draw attention. Step out of the box. Buc-ee's could have been just another convenience store. But by focusing on what customers really wanted - clean bathrooms - they got people into their stores and then made it an experience by loading the store with as much as they could. Shazam! Mega-success.

Politics and campaigns needs to do the same. It's how you would stand out from the crowd.

The Choice: Insolvency or Solvency

When it comes to government and what it can do or should do for people, the first consideration is solvency.

Solvency is the ability of an organization to "meet its long-term debts and financial obligations. Solvency can be an important measure of financial health, since it's one way of demonstrating ability to manage operations into the foreseeable future."

Very simply put: can you afford to do what you endeavor to do? For politicians who spend other people's money, there is no personal stake in such a question. For them, you either just go into more debt or raise taxes to balance increased spending. But let's not forget that ours is a government that fails audit after audit. Every government fails audits.

You never hear politicians discuss solvency, but that word needs to be top of mind. Insolvency is disaster for the future. If you love your children, you don't hand them an insolvent government.

In 1990, a little-known academic published a book entitled The Collapse of Complex Societies. A short and brilliant look at a couple of dozen societies through history and their collapses, and Joseph Tainter arrived at a simple and somewhat obvious conclusion: increasingly complex civilizations have to spend more and more to get less and less, eventually outrunning their resources and ability to manage such resources until insolvency occurs and therefore collapse ensues.

When my children were young, if one was unable to keep their room clean, I would sigh and start putting the toys that lay about into a room I labeled "the toy closet." I didn't want to remove their toys from the child, but as I would tell them: "You have to manage what you have, and if you can't, then logically you have too much. Prove to me that you can maintain order and I'll let you start retrieving your stuff from the toy closet."

Government is obviously unable to manage what it's been granted to manage. Time to start paring back what is in its control. A smaller government is, obviously, easier to manage. And is, obviously, more affordable, requiring less taxation from the people.

Solvency matters. If any part of government cannot manage its operations, as demonstrated by failing audits and running deficits, then it's time to reduce its operations. For example, should the US Postal Service be privatized? You betcha. Government-run postal service is insolvent.

I hope those in government start using the term "solvency" with regularity. If not, we the people need to do so. Because insolvency is no option.

The Consistency of Common Culture

Prior to this past election, America was an increasingly divided landscape of polar interests. One side craved order and the other disorder. One side craved closed, secure borders and the other open borders. One side craved endless government spending and the other craved shrinking government.

And by "side," I don't completely mean political party. Some Republicans were in lockstep with Democrats on these issues. But Americans had a dual personality, it seemed, that swung on who won the election and then you would find out which personality would emerge for the coming term.

For this reason, the so-called United States makes for a lousy partner in foreign affairs. Trump makes policy, then Biden is allowed into office afterward and our relationships and policies change completely. There is no stability in that. That dichotomy would understandably make other nations hesitant to deal with us. No one likes a spouse who changes their mind every other day on important issues. Business loves stability and consistency.

Barack Obama, who thankfully got shown the door in this past election cycle, used to lecture us on "who we are." People have decided that they don't like his definition of "who we are." Good. That guy's an idiot.

So, who are we? And do we have the capacity to settle on that definition for a while?

When America started, one of our most foundational documents stated:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Imagine a society where everyone had universal respect for life, for liberty, and for property. In such a culture, there is no crime. It seems to me, that if we are to have a common American culture, that seems like a good basis. No matter what faith you hold, and even if you lack faith, that works. The atheist gender studies major Harris voter doesn't want her iPad stolen from her. Nor does she want to be assaulted. Respect for life, liberty, and property is agreeable to everyone.

Our representatives in government have a perch from which they can urge a common culture. Respect is a good place to start. The now-almost-never-heard phrase "productive member of society" is perhaps another.

Allowing lawlessness and championing criminals over victims is literally not who we are. But by allowing some into office, it is what we have allowed our policy to become. That's not respect for life, liberty, and property. That doesn't make our lives safer or less expensive. Respect must assert consequences for lack of respect.

The new year is almost here. Soon, President Donald J. Trump will again take office. American society will change. Other politicians will also take office at every level of government.

Let's push them to advocate for a very American culture of respect for life, liberty, and property. Imagine if such a culture existed in our public schools. So many problems disappear if we urge that culture into our institutions.

When there is consistency and stability, people feel confident to make plans for the future. In 2025, we can all assert a culture that helps strengthen our future. What a great New Year's Resolution that would be.

Campaign Workshop

Yesterday, I gave a 90-minute talk that pivoted off my book, "The Goal is to Win," to nine people during an extended lunch. A potential candidate attended, but it was mostly strong conservatives and grassroots leaders.

I currently have five events scheduled where I give these presentations. They focus on preparing us, the people, and any potential candidates for running against a bad incumbent. The goal, after all, is to win. We need to have the right representative who will actually listen to us and represent us in every office.

More events will queue up soon.

One of the key points I make in the book and in the seminar is that challengers should never announce until they are ready. And by ready, I mean their marketing materials are prepped, they've got their messaging down pretty well, and they're ready to take questions from people about their run.

During the presentation yesterday, a man in the restaurant who was not with us saw that we were conservatives. An elderly military veteran, he sent some Trump pins to us via the waitress, and we invited him over to thank him.

One member of our group, during the introductions around the room, pointed to the would-be candidate and said, "This man is going to run for office and represent you!"

So, the gentleman turned to the candidate and asked, "What are you running for?"

That's how it happens... the moment someone hears that you might be running, you will be deluged with questions and they will want to vet you. What's your background? What are your values? How do you feel about TEXIT? What should we do about property taxes? What do you think about our legislative priorities? Do you have a website? Social media? A business card? How much money have you raised?

Knowing that this was beginning to happen, I intervened and asserted that we were looking at what office and this was a preliminary discussion. A few gentle nudges later away from this line of questioning, it was forgotten and the potential challenger breathed a sigh of relief.

This is why we need preparation and no one should announce until the candidate feels ready for the world to discover the prepared campaign. We immediately work to vet a candidate, and regrettably we as a people would rather dance with the devil we know than the devil we don't. Challengers can't make too many mistakes. People look for reasons to distrust them. A lack of preparation will cause people to believe that the challenger and the campaign are not credible.

The book goes into some depth about the steps to take by the people and the candidate to get ready. The seminar / workshop goes into greater depth.

Another thing I mention is how von Steuben trained our troops during the revolution. Mostly, he instilled discipline into their ragtag ranks. Likewise in a campaign, before meeting the enemy, so to speak, you have to have discipline. Your branding, your messaging, your initial funding... all need to be pretty locked in before you announce.

Because the goal is to win.

Peter Drucker is a pretty well-known management consultant. He said, "Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things."

My variation of that is we are at our best and can change the world when we do the right things right. And better yet if we do it with the right people who also do the right things right.

That requires preparation and discipline.

Hit me up if you want a campaign workshop in your area. The fee is $0. I just ask that you pay for the travel expenses for Nicole and me. Let's win :)

Principles Trump People

Confession: I was once a tree-hugging liberal.

It's true. In my early adulthood, I had a small stretch of being vegan and everything. Later, listening to Limbaugh every day while I was working outside fixed that. I realized I was wrong. Rush's clear logic, exposure of the corrupt stenographer media, and my experience as a hard-working small business guy turned me around. But yep, that's true about me.

I've also had some hiccups in my life. Everyone does. I came to understand that everyone makes the best decision they know how to make at the time they make that decision - even if later it turns out to be the wrong decision. Sometimes, those decisions are hurtful. As humans, we do the best we can.

God knows that we are sinners. Jesus was pretty gentle with sinners. Firm, but gentle. He saved his anger for those who should know better and for those who disobeyed. I confess, knowing this, that I don't focus on expectations of people. What people do is not something I can control. This approach reduces my disappointments.

For this reason, I try to focus on principles. The axioms of life never disappoint. They lead to good decisions and good outcomes.

I also try to reserve my applause for good actions people do and not for people themselves. I'm a fan of the right thing done right. When Ted Cruz does something right, I acknowledge it. But that doesn't mean that everything Ted does deserves applause.

"I'm glad Ted Cruz did that!" is much different than "If Ted Cruz did it, it must be amazing!" One is selective, and the other is a blanket certain to be stained, if we're honest, by a few disappointments along the way.

In this dustup between President Trump and Rep. Chip Roy, if I'm open about it, they are times that I have been disappointed by both men. I'm neither a Trump fanboy or a Roy fanboy. I am a fan of the Trump agenda. I am a fan of Roy's consistent desire to cut spending.

I don't understand what's happening behind the scenes with this public fight. Not my circus, not my monkeys. I have not control over it, so it's on my to-don't list.

But I'm not going to criticize either man, or side with either man while I think that both are trying to do the right thing.

Thomas Massie, Chip Roy, Cory Mills, Eli Crane... these guys have been DOGE since before DOGE existed. My disappointment is with the Lindsey Grahams of the world, who mostly do wrong and only occasionally get something right.

Likewise, Trump knows how to fight the libs and the media. We all learn something watching President Trump in action.

Our world would be better if the two men would hug it out. But that's not my call. I'm just thrilled that we're having a debate about how hard we hack to pieces terrible legislation and cut government. Whatever it takes to make that the argument, I guess. It's always the right argument to be having.

Butchering the Budget Process: A Summary

I wanted to know more about the history of the budget and appropriations process in DC. What follows is literally a copy and paste from two sources:

The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction

Omnibus Appropriations: Overview of Recent Practice

Here you go:

Congress annually considers several appropriations measures, which provide discretionary funding for numerous activities - for example, national defense, education, and homeland security - as well as general government operations. Congress has developed certain rules and practices for the consideration of appropriations measures, referred to as the congressional appropriations process.

There are three types of appropriations measures. Regular appropriations bills provide most of the funding that is provided in all appropriations measures for a fiscal year and must be enacted by October 1, the beginning of the fiscal year. If regular bills are not enacted by the beginning of the new fiscal year, Congress adopts continuing resolutions to continue funding, generally until regular bills are enacted. Supplemental appropriations bills provide additional appropriations to become available during a fiscal year.

The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations have jurisdiction over the annual appropriations measures. Each committee is organized into subcommittees, with each subcommittee having responsibility for developing one regular annual appropriations bill to provide funding for departments and activities within its jurisdiction.

Each House appropriations subcommittee is paired with a Senate appropriations subcommittee and the two subcommittees jurisdictions are generally identical. The current appropriations subcommittee structure includes the following 12 subcommittees:

1. Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
2. Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
3. Defense
4. Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies
5. Financial Services and General Government
6. Homeland Security
7. Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
8. Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies
9. Legislative Branch
10. Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies
11. State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
12. Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies

Traditionally, temporary funding has been provided in the form of a joint resolution to allow agencies or programs to continue to obligate funds at a particular rate (such as the rate of operations for the previous fiscal year) for a specific period of time, which may range from a single day to an entire fiscal year. These measures are known as continuing resolutions (or CRs).

In only four instances since FY1977 (FY1977, FY1989, FY1995, and FY1997) were all regular appropriations enacted by the start of the fiscal year. In all other instances, at least one CR was necessary to fund governmental activities until action on the remaining regular appropriations bills was completed.

For nearly two centuries, regular appropriations bills were considered and enacted as individual measures. In 1950, Congress undertook what was considered at the time a one-time experiment intended to improve legislative efficiency by enacting all of the regular appropriations bills for FY1951 in a single measure.

Omnibus appropriations have been a common feature of the appropriations process since 1982. At least one measure containing two or more regular appropriations acts has been signed into law for 29 of the 42 fiscal years from FY1983 through FY2024. In total, 36 omnibus appropriations measures have been enacted since 1982, serving as the legislative vehicle for 276, or 52.6%, of the 525 possible regular appropriations bills over this period.

Now me again... the word "regular" appeared several times in what you see above. The phrase "regular order" refers to a traditional, committee-centered process of lawmaking.

I'm going to give you one more source: The "Regular Order": A Perspective. And from it:

Regular order is generally viewed as a systematic, step-by-step lawmaking process that emphasizes the role of committees: bill introduction and referral to committee; the conduct of committee hearings, markups, and reports on legislation; House and Senate floor consideration of committee-reported measures; and the creation of conference committees to resolve bicameral differences. Many Members and commentators view this sequential pattern as the ideal or "best practices" way to craft the nation’s laws. Regular order is a lawmaking process that promotes transparency, deliberation, and the wide participation of Members in policy formulation.

Me again... and this brings me to Mike Johnson. From his own Speaker's page:

Fiscal Responsibility

Because government has refused to live within its means, America is facing an unprecedented debt and spending crisis. Federal debt now exceeds $33.5 trillion, and our current fiscal path is unsustainable and dangerous, jeopardizing our nation’s economic growth, stability and the security of future generations. Congress has a moral and constitutional duty to resolve the crisis, bring spending under control, balance the federal budget, reform and modernize entitlement programs, eliminate fraud, waste and abuse, pursue continued pro-growth tax reforms and permanent tax reductions, and restore regular order and accountability in the budget and appropriations processes.

Me, to wrap up... the reason this CR fiasco is such a failure is because it is a broken promise. Johnson has no commitment to regular order. A few people got together and negotiated a boondoggle omnibus bill labeled as a "continuing resolution" and tried to shove it past everyone in less than 24 hours before the scheduled vote.

That's corrupt and wrong. Johnson has to go. He is not a man of his word, and there is no regular order to our government.

Do We Ruin or Save Our Children?

I was surprised to read yesterday that 41% of those under the age of 30 found it acceptable that an insurance CEO was shot in the back and murdered.

Only 8% of those in their 50's thought it was okay - which is still alarming, but two out of five young adults had no issue with this.

That dovetails with a 2023 survey about the acceptance of shoplifting. 40% of those who ranged from 18 to 29 thought shoplifting was either always acceptable or acceptable under certain circumstances. No one from 45 on up thought shoplifting was "always acceptable," and the older the person was, the fewer thought it was ever acceptable.

What kind of world is it where retail theft and killing people are okay?

My friends, Christin and Hillary, are fighting to keep sex toys from being displayed on shelves in big box stores where children can access them. Evidently, that's so controversial that the story of the bill they've worked on to keep sex toys out of Target and Walmart made it into the UK's Daily Mail across the pond.

What kind of world is it where it's deemed okay to sexualize children at a young age? No parent wants their child to be in the checkout line and see someone's dildo purchase bounce down the conveyor belt toward the cashier.

"Mom, what's that?"

We get the culture we allow. It might be that less foresight is applied to the future these days because fewer couples are having fewer children. But even in a culture that shuns children, do we want such a lack of morality that theft in stores and murder in the street are acceptable under certain circumstances? It gives a whole new meaning to "cost of living."

Respect for life, liberty, and property. Until we all push that - especially our politicians - into the culture, we will get an increasingly lawless and dangerous world. Children will pay the heaviest price for that, and their children a price heavier yet.

It's time we save children.

Your Adversary is Busy Making Plans

I got a text this morning from a friend, who notes that two people notably unfriendly to the cause of smaller government are busy grooming would-be candidates to replace those incumbents who might retire.

My question in reply: "And who will oppose their chosen successor?"

You get the government you allow. If you don't like the idea of bad people taking the place of the bad people in office now, then you have a simple choice: you start organizing now to find and fund the challenger who will protect your life, liberty, property, and family.

You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

Patriots don't settle for less liberty. Outworking your opponent starts with working hard to find a challenger.

It's often said that the grassroots don't have a farm team. There is no succession plan. We don't train people to step up and take office.

I'm working to address that gap. The Goal is to Win addresses some of that. I'm currently working on the seminar that accompanies the book. Three training events are already booked: two in January and one in March. It's critical that we act and organize early. Running for office and organizing for victory takes times, and sometimes a couple of runs at it before our candidate gets elected (new Texas Reps Luther, Olcott, Hopper, etc).

But if we don't act now and start organizing now, then we are sure to get the government prepared for us by those who do act and organize.

Pro-tip: their efforts are already underway. Are yours?

Shoved into Compromise

Weirdly, many people esteem compromise, but I believe that's because of a misunderstanding. Compromise is not a virtue; compromise is a tool in negotiation. What's most important in a negotiation is the outcome - did you get a satisfactory result?

Let's look at negotiation. What is it? It's an effort to reach agreement.

If I approach you and offer to buy your house for $1, you have a few options:

1. You can take the deal I propose.
2. You can counter my offer with your own proposal.
3. You can walk away from my offer because you're not interested in selling your house and, if you were, certainly not for $1.

This is why compromise is not a virtue. This is why "meeting someone halfway" is not a virtue. Neither is even necessary. Sometimes, it's right to just walk away.

Strong-armed salespeople (aka bullies) will do all they can to push you into a negotiation.

"I don't want to sell my house," you say.
"Well, certainly there is some number you would take for it. What's that number?"

Once you enter negotiation, all observers now begin to expect that a transaction is inevitable. And then they will push you to compromise.

"Come on... we haven't worked this hard just to walk away now. I'm sure we can come to some agreement. Let's look at our current positions and see what's possible - after all, we've agreed that you want to sell the house if the price is right."

That all started with you not wanting to sell your house at all, then being coaxed into negotiation, and then being talked down with every round of the negotiation until a compromise is reached on a house you never wanted to sell in the first place.

When it's over, how can you feel good about selling the home you didn't want to sell?

This is why pushing political compromise as somehow virtuous is dumb. Really dumb. I can compromise over what we're having for dinner; I can't compromise over whether a young girl should have her breasts removed because she or someone close to her convinced her that she is a boy. That's non-negotiable and the answer is a hard no.

What's more, all the players at the political table spend money that isn't theirs. They negotiate with your money at no cost to them and then tell you that a deal had to be reached and the result was a "good compromise." And because government always invites itself into the forced compromise, the added bureaucracy inflates the cost of everything involved and you lose even more money after the deal is signed into law.

The terms "compromise" and "bipartisanship" are dead to me. They should be dead to you. Personally, I want political victory, and the only victory I seek is less government, less regulation, less spending, and less taxation.

But it's funny - when I propose that offer, very few in government want to negotiate that deal with me. Why won't they meet me halfway? I'll compromise with a 25% reduction in all government. Sadly, still very few takers. So, I guess I'll just have to work hard to replace them and elect those who will negotiate with me on shrinking government.

First Instincts

In a rather telling way, the Burrows-Democrat team pivoted yesterday from lying about how conservative Burrows is (they used Gov. Abbott's name and image to do so and the Governor countered that) to now leaving Burrows' phony bona fides behind and saying they will enact conservative legislation. Their new focus is no longer announcing Burrows to be the "Speaker-Elect," but rather these priorities:

• Border security
• Universal school choice
• Property tax cuts

Always pay attention to the first marketing efforts. I mention in my book that successful campaigns focus on the voters' agenda and not the candidate. That proper order wasn't the first instinct of the Burrows drive to become Speaker. The first instinct was about Burrows the candidate.

Why was that the focus? Because they truly don't care about the agenda of the voters. But when pushing the candidate fails, they'll pivot to trying to connect with you. "I'm conservative, like you," their advertising will tell you. But their actions in office won't.

Good representatives know that it's not about them, but about what the voters want to achieve.

Burrows isn't instinctively invested in what you want because you're not the voter who will get him elected - the Democrats will. That's why he kept meeting with the Democrats in Austin. They're his voters, and he wants to enact their agenda to secure their vote. That strategy isn't working now, so he's now promoting a Republican agenda.

But that wasn't his first instinct. Nor will it remain his instinct.

There is a massive effort to get GOP County Chairs to back the choice of the Republican caucus. That's right and smart. But as I write this, less than half of the county chairs have done so - in spite of the Lieutenant Governor, the Attorney General, the Ag Commissioner, and a handful of Republican Congressmen signing off on the reform candidate.

You can't tell me that you want Republican victory over Democrats to win elections but you think it's good after elections to compromise with Democrats.

The entire purpose of an election is to advance the policies you want and to prevent the other side from advancing their policies. You elect those who will advance the policies you want. Letting the other side water down or cancel your propositions renders the entire election effort moot.

You need to do all it takes to advance the strongest possible policies. Compromise should be a last resort, and not a first instinct. No successful negotiation begins with compromise. That's a guaranteed way to never achieve what you want. It will always be less, and Democrats never start with compromise.

We can't elect a speaker who initiates the next legislative session with compromise and, on that front, Dustin Burrows is compromised.

Every Bill is Sacred?

We get the culture we allow, and if the Democrat Party has its way, we get boob-flashing trans-mobs at the White House. That actually happened.

We get drag shows for kids where signs that read "It Won't Lick Itself" appear in the background.

We get mileage tax legislation. We get legislation for ranked choice voting in Texas. We spend taxpayer money on greenhouse gas reports, when carbon dioxide is only .04% of our atmosphere.

Rep. Jeff Leach ridiculously postures that Republican-caucus-ignoring Dustin Burrows is right to help every legislator with their agenda in Austin.

“I commit to working with members, whether they vote for me or not, to solve the issues important to their districts. This is the sacred duty of the Speaker, and I will fulfill it.”

This is a leader I can proudly support. And I plan to do so. #txlege https://t.co/Od9x978VY5

— Jeff Leach (@leachfortexas) December 9, 2024

The House can give the Speaker the powers it chooses. The Texas Constitution is pretty light on that. But in this last election, did Texans vote to ensure that our lead Republican in the House of Representatives work with all members to address the "issues most important to their districts?"

Because the Democrats eat crazy pills for breakfast. So much so that former Democrat Representative Shawn Thierry, who joined with Republicans to protect children from sexualization in this past session, was primaried out, and upon her ouster, has since switched to being a Republican.

The Democrat agenda is not what voters want. That's why the Texas counties on the border moved solidly redward. They're done with the open border policies pushed by the Democrats.

But Dustin Burrows and Jeff Leach think it is a sacred duty to help push bills filed by Democrats that are "important to their districts."

We get the culture we allow. The culture that Burrows and crew would allow doesn't reflect Texas, MAGA, or Republicans at all. And that's what voters just signaled that they want in this past election.

Tolerance of the left's agenda is wrong for Texas. Burrows is wrong for Texas. Leach is wrong for Texas. Any legislator who supports this "every bill is sacred" approach needs to be removed from office. Pronto.