The Bryan/College Station Tea Party

Statement: The Bryan/College Station Tea Party does NOT support the plan referred to as: Conservative Immigration Reform.

The Bryan/College Station Tea Party views the Republican Party Leadership’s focus on illegal immigration reform as complete reactionary politics.

What Is Reactionary Politics?

By reactionary politics, we refer to comedian Andy Andrews. In relating to an audience about who he was, Andy confessed that in high school he wasn’t the guy that ran naked across the football field during the big game. He was the guy that talked the other guy into doing it.

That is one of the best definition of reactionary politics ever. It is also the best description of how the principles of democracy (as opposed to republicanism) are being used by the Obama administration to get their opposition to self-destruct. Plato (428 — 348 BC) noted it was democracy which promoted not liberty, but fascist totalitarianism. As Plato observed, democracy pitted group factions against each other allowing group leaders to earn their bonafides of leadership achievement by eliminating their opposition/competition and by rewarding their friends/allies with other people’s money – usually the wealth seized from their opposition or competition.

Abuse of power and crony-capitalism should therefore be regarded as the expected results of a culture engulfed with democracy, not as an aberration.

It is little “r” republicanism that promotes equal and just application of the rule of law. Little “r” republicanism does not  support “might makes right.”

Apply The Principles We Know about Democracy to See Why Support for Conservative Immigration Reform is Not In the Republican Party’s Best Interest.

In applying these facts and end results of democracy, Republicans in Congress must now look at who exactly is encouraging them to take this “positive” and “enlightened” step to self-annihilation?

• President Barak Obama – “Obama described the blueprint [The Gang of Eight Plan] as a sign of renewed desire by Democrats and Republicans to tackle the issue, saying the plan was “very much in line with the principles I’ve proposed and campaigned on for the last few years.””

• The Main Stream Media/Journalists – “The AP’s ban on “Illegal Immigrant” will change how we talk about immigration.”

• Democratic Strategists -

  • Dems do have a plan for actual party-building in Texas, as Alexander Burns reports at Politico: “National Democrats are taking steps to create a large-scale independent group aimed at turning traditionally conservative Texas into a prime electoral battleground, crafting a new initiative to identify and mobilize progressive voters in the rapidly-changing state…The organization, dubbed “Battleground Texas,” plans to engage the state’s rapidly growing Latino population, as well as African-American voters and other Democratic-leaning constituencies that have been underrepresented at the ballot box in recent cycles. Two sources said the contemplated budget would run into the tens of millions of dollars over several years – a project Democrats hope has enough heft to help turn what has long been an electoral pipe dream into reality.”

  • New York Times Opinionator Thomas B. Edsall asks “Can Republicans Change Their Spots?“

  • Brian Bennett of The Los Angeles Times addresses whether the “GOP can woo Latino voters with shift on immigration.” “The conservative misunderstanding, of course, is in assuming that personal conservatism equates with political conservatism. Sometimes it does, but a lot of the time it does not.”

  • Or as the article’s author [J. P Green] posits to the above consideration: “As if.”

• Mother Jones — “Conservatives hailing Rubio may not realize how close to President Barack Obama he has moved on immigration, but opponents of reform, such as the Center for Immigration Studies’ Mark Krikorian, certainly noticed. “There’s nothing substantive in Rubio’s proposal that wouldn’t immediately be agreed to by President Obama,” Krikorian says. “This is the Rubio-Obama immigration plan.” In fairness, Krikorian notes, it’s also broadly similar to the George W. Bush immigration reform plan conservatives derailed in 2007.”

Governing Against the Will of Your Own Voters?… Why Should the Other Voter Trust You?

Sen. Rubio (R- FL) and Rep. Ryan (R-WI-1) have not succeeded in convincing any talk radio host or audience of the brilliance —or even the necessity— of the Conservative Immigration Plan. Instead, the two are rapidly burning up any grass crowns of righteousness either have earned in their political careers. [National Review: Rubio’s Folly - Mark Krikorian & The Editors, May 20, 2013]

Conclusion:

• Reactionary politics are the exact opposite of bold and dynamic decisions.

• Reactionary tactics herald the absence of character, integrity, and ideas.

• Reactionary decisions always come at the expense of those dependent upon the correct decision according to the rule of law decision being made.

For a Republican in Congress to support the Conservative Immigration Reform will allow democracy itself to eradicate the Republican Party. To support this reactionary plan, the party will cease to extol any resemblance to the time honored classical republican principles of equality of all men before God to each stand as unique individuals according to their own character and ability in adherence with the rule of law.

“A republic, if you can keep it.”

“The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately.

A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, ‘Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.’”    (Benjamin Franklin)