Trump’s Victory and the Principles of War, Part III

P-51 Mustangs Over Washington D.C., 8 May, 2015; Arsenal of Democracy Flyover

P-51 Mustangs Over Washington D.C., 8 May, 2015; Arsenal of Democracy Flyover

  • This is Part III of my analysis of the 2016 Presidential Election through the lens of the Principles of War (Definitions of each Principle)

Trumps Victory And The Principles of War: Part I

Trump’s Victory And The Principles of War: Part II

  • Simplicity: The more moving parts a campaign or operation has, the more likely something will break down and compromise the outcome. Donald Trump’s campaign was as simple as it could get, from his message to his operations, and broke the mold on how to wage successful presidential campaigns. Compared to Hilary, and his main GOP primary contenders, Trump spent less money, hired far fewer people in his campaign, and manned far fewer statewide victory offices. Trump did not pull out of campaigning to spend weeks plotting his responses to debate questions, holding mock debates where every possible response could be scripted and poll tested like Hillary did. He relied on simplicity, where he went out and talked directly to the American people, in person and through social media. Trump had only a few key surrogates, like Kelly Ann Conway and Newt Gingrich, who engaged the Minion Media directly, and that kept his message tight and consistent.

Trump relied on key paid campaign staff, volunteers and local GOP Party support for his simple election day operations, and they combined their efforts to defeat what was supposed to be the most vaunted political machine in history. Trump’s faith in his supporters getting out votes for him, was the epitome of Simplicity, and decentralized execution.

Hillary’s campaign was the polar opposite of Trump’s. Her campaign was a big money, high personnel, high spending, “Minion Media” colluding and intimidating effort that failed to see or believe the inroads Trump’s campaign was making in the “Blue Firewall” and traditional democrat voters. Hillary’s message was convoluted, complex, and failed to connect with voters outside of the progressive coasts.

Joint Principals (added post 911):

  • Restraint: Democrats are known for going for the throat, and Hillary was anything but restrained. She claimed the High Road but evidence such as the Wikileaks dump of her campaign manager John Podesta’s emails clearly showed they played dirty, including colluding with the media to get debate questions, and plotting with the DNC on how to rig the primaries against Bernie Sanders. In the general, her claims of racism and bigotry were nothing but a transparent effort to use identity politics to destroy the GOP candidate. Thankfully, Trump did not unduly restrain himself, and Hillary’s campaign had difficulty dealing with him as a result.

The Allies did not win WWII by using restraint. Fire bombings of German cites like Dresden or the bombing of Hiroshima were not example of restraint. Given that, Donald Trumps campaign was not an example of restraint. Previous Republican like McCain and Romney lost because they were grossly restrained. Republican voters were looking for a candidate to take the fight to democrats, and they elected Trump.

  • Perseverance: Trump clearly followed this Principle. He never retreated, never backed down, never slowed down, and never quit despite calls from media pundits through out the campaign that he was just in it for the publicity, to start a media company, as a fake to help Hillary, and other fake news motivations. In addition, Donald Trump was assailed by more negative press, accusations of racism, sexism, Islamophobia and bigotry than any successful candidate ever. Most others would have wilted under the assault, but Trump persevered and won.

Hillary on the other hand showed a lack of perseverance. She was ill, sat out the campaign for days at a time, and held a very light campaign schedule compared to Trumps. She did outlast her illicit home-brew email server scandal, but it eroded her already poor credibility. Hillary’s lifetime of baggage, combined with her server, the Clinton Foundation FBI investigation and the Wikileaks exposure finally did her in.

  • Legitimacy: As far as we know, both campaigns operated within the legal rules. Hillary morally acted outside those bounds by accepting debate questions and engaging in media collusion and DNC favoritism during the primaries. Cries of Trump not accepting potential election results gave way to Hillary and democrats not accepting the actual election results crying (illegitimate Russian intervention). Ironically, America depends upon the peaceful transfer of power from legitimate president to another. Democrats are out to delegitimize Donald Trumps presidency, and risk anarchy in the process.
Please follow and like us:

Trump’s Victory And The Principles Of War, Part II

Trump’s Victory And The Principles of War: Part III

  • Maneuver: The most prominent tactic in the Trump Campaign was his use of massive rallies. Trump crisscrossed the country hitting battle ground state after battle ground state, attending multiple rallies a day, often 7 days a week. He out maneuvered Hillary Clinton’s lack luster campaign, as she often took numerous days off, and let others campaign for her. Not only did Trump out maneuver Hillary in campaign appearances, he did so on social media, to dramatic effect as well. Trump often appeared on Fox News at night, constantly hammering his message.  David Brock himself criticized her campaign by stating

“the fact that the campaign had no discernable online strategy.”

Donald Trump’s best use of maneuver was his wildly successful strategy to open up new, once solidly blue, battleground states. Trump was roundly criticized by beltway pundits for wasting his time, money, and energy in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Its clear now that the waste was in the out maneuvered Hillary Campaign.

  • Unity of Command: Donald Trump was clearly in charge of his campaign. If anything, there was constant critique that he didn’t listen to his advisors enough. There were even inaccurate reports that they took his Twitter account away, which would have hampered some other of the other Principles, which relied upon social media. That Unity of Command extended through his campaign advisors, staff and family. Trump exercised that Unity when he replaced Corey Lewandowski, his campaign manager, on 20 Jul despite Corey’s wildly successful performance during the Republican nomination process.

President Obama and numerous other surrogates heavily bolstered Hillary’s campaign by covering for her small and lackluster campaign events. She was missing from the campaign trail for days at a time, and despite her initial boast that as a woman she was best qualified to be president, she called for help from men as it appeared that she was unable to hold her own. Additionally, Hillary practically outsourced her campaign to the “Minion Media”, relying on them for fawning coverage and leaked debate questions.

Centralized control and decentralized execution are central components of Unity of Command. Trump’s campaign, unlike Romney’s for instance, succeeded because it was decentralized in execution, adaptive and flexible as a result since it relied on local volunteers.

  • Security: Trump frequently spoke during the campaign about the stupidity of broadcasting America’s plans to our enemies, like ISIS, before acting. He understands the importance of Security in running a successful business, and instinctively understands it’s critical to national security. Trump’s campaign never broke this Principle.

The greatest impact of the Principle of Security was Hillary’s gross violation of it. First, Hillary’s violated Security when she exposed National Secrets through her home- brew email server, which haunted her campaign throughout the election. Second, Julian Assange and Wikileaks provided another massive violation of campaign security. Assange released over 50,000 emails from Hillary’s Campaign Manager, John Podesta, and exposed the inner most workings of Hillary’s Campaign and how they colluded with the Minion Media. We will never know exactly how damaging these two breaches of Security were, but they most certainly didn’t help her.

  • Surprise: No Principal of War epitomizes the 2016 election more than the Principle of Surprise. To believe the Minion Media, even Trump himself was surprised that he won, which is ridiculous. Certainly the RCP averages did not predict his win, but there was plenty of evidence that Hillary was in a fight from polling to energy among Trump’s supporters. Political races are known for October Surprises, and Hillary’s was the Billy Bush tape. The Trump Campaign’s surprise was succeeding in his campaign strategy, to turn solid blue states red. He did so in WI, MI, and PN, and Maine’s 2nd Congressional District despite the wizards of smart and Hillary’s Campaign saying that it was folly. According to Hunter Lewis, one of the campaign’s most brilliant examples of surprise, and this could fall under the Principle of Maneuver and Offensive as well, was Trump’s press conference just prior to the second presidential debate.

“With virtually no time either to think or act, the Trump campaign managed to organize a press conference before the debate featuring accusers of Bill Clinton. It got the mainstream media to cover it by heralding it as Trump’s reply to the tape, with no mention of the women invited to join him. Once the cameras were already on, and the women filed in, it was too late for the networks to turn them off.”

Trump’s Campaign effectively used “Surprise”, but the effect was amplified because of Hillary’s Campaign the Democrat Party’s hubris.

Please follow and like us:

Trump’s Victory and the Principles of War, Part I

Heavy Artillery Located at the Battle of Yorktown

Heavy Artillery Located at the Battle of Yorktown

Analysts are touting Donald Trump’s 8 November 2016 victory as the greatest political upset in American history. No doubt countless volumes will be written over the coming years on what happened in this race and how an outsider overcame the most vaunted democrat political machine any candidate ever had backing them, while also defeating an entrenched republican establishment, overwhelming “Minion Media” and Hollywood support, and double the campaign funding.

Hillary Clinton: $1.19 Billion vs Donald Trump: $646.8 Million

In the end, the one thing that Donald Trump did have was the American people’s support.

Over the next three blogs I will assess the race from a singularly unique perspective. My 29 Sep, 2013 Blog “Applying The Principles of War to American Politics” discussed the US Military’s Principals of War, and how the Republican Party needed to learn from these principles, peacefully apply them to defeat progressives and the Democrat Party, and use them as a critical strategic component to return Constitutional freedoms to the American people. Donald Trump’s Campaign Manager, and recently selected chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon, recently said that “politics is war”.

Trump’s Victory And The Principles of War: Part II

Trump’s Victory And The Principles of War: Part III

Saul Alinsky’s Version Of The Principles of War

President Elect Donald Trumps campaign, knowingly or instinctively applied the Principles of War to enable his victory over Hillary Clinton. The lessons are clear for republicans going forward: consciously apply these principles and win.

  • Mass: Donald Trump perfected the Principle of Mass. He massed his supporters at rallies across the country. Pundits argued that the size and energy of his crowds didn’t matter. They were wrong! Trump massed his small campaign staff, a fraction of the size and cost of Jeb Bush’s, or Hillary Clinton’s, to great effect. He massed his campaign funding, getting far out spent by Bush and Hillary. Trump’s campaign also held most of their add spending until the last two weeks of the campaign, unleashing the adds and outspending Hillary down the stretch. This might have made the difference in the election. Finally, and most importantly, Trump massed his voters setting the record for the most votes any candidate ever got in the GOP Primary process, and soundly beating Hillary in the electoral college. Democrats are touting Hillary’s popular vote numbers as evidence of her greater support. In fact, it doesn’t matter. She massed voters in the wrong places, concentrated in California and New York, and not in critical states like Wisconsin, North Carolina, Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania. The popular vote is debatable as well. If Hillary massed illegal voters, as some are claiming, then she may well have been beaten here as well.
  • Objective: Both Trump and Clinton shared the objective of winning the Presidency. Trump however spelled out his overarching objective in four words: Make America Great Again. That was his campaign’s objective, clear and concise. Winning the presidency was only a means to Making America Great Again. In contrast, Hillary’s objective was purely winning the presidency. Her campaign slogans, like Stronger Together, or I’m With Her were mere window dressing enabling her election. The American people were more likely to support Trump’s objective, which elevated them, vs. Hillary’s which elevated Hillary. According to Vice President Joe Biden in a CNN interview:


    “Hillary Clinton felt compelled to run for president despite lacking a clear campaign vision”…”I don’t think she ever really figured it out”


  • Offensive: Donald Trump set himself apart from other GOP candidates by going on, and maintaining the offensive. Although he was criticized for defending himself too much, he never stopped going on the attack. In contrast with how John McCain and Mitt Romney treated Barack Obama, Trump went straight after Hillary, refusing to ease up, and maintaining the offensive. If anything, Trump was criticized for attacking too often, too harshly, and for attacking not just Hillary, but the corrupt media, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, President Obama, and others. In the end, America wanted a fighter, and they believe that they got one. In contrast David Brock, democrat strategist savant, lamented that Hillary wasn’t more like Donald Trump in going on the offensive against the media saying

“Clinton’s biggest problem was simply not being more like Trump, at least when it came to dealing with the press.”

  • Economy of Force: Donald Trump wrote the book on The Art of the Deal, and during this campaign he wrote the book on political Economy of Force. No Principle of War was better put into practice than this one. Trump’s campaign was run largely from his own money or small donors, and it was wisely spent. His staff was only a fraction of the size of Hillary’s. Trump maximized the use of volunteers throughout the country, tying into local and state Republican Party volunteers. Support from the RNC and its get out the vote effort defeated the vaunted Democrat GOTV machine, even though it was outspent. Trump was also heralded for his skill at dominating news cycles. Although much of the “Minion Media” coverage was grossly pro-Hillary, Trump was still effective at getting his message out for free.
    • Significantly, Donald Trump used social media to go over the heads of the “Minion Media”. His 36 million followers between Twitter, Facebook and Instagram heard directly from Trump and they spread the word, at next to no cost to his campaign. The Trump campaign spent only $160,00 for example producing and posting short policy videos and got 74 million views.
    • Trump’s Social Media Director, Dan Scavino, described the slim nature of the campaign to Breitbart News:

“…there was not some boardroom of political consultants pre-testing talking points for tweets and Facebook and Instagram posts before they went out. It was him, Trump and his iPhone, that led the way in making this happen.”

Please follow and like us:

What Boehner’s Quitting Means

Heavy Artillery Located at the Battle of Yorktown

Heavy Artillery Located at the Battle of Yorktown

Speaker Boehner is quitting the House…thankfully, so what does it mean? He’s half of the B/M Congressional leadership that’s failed to live up to GOP campaign promises. Mitch McConnell needs to go next. Whether or not that’s possible, the pressure needs to be applied as it was to Boehner.

With his departure, it’s time for the GOP to change tactics from surrender leadership to Principles of War leadership. It’s time to go on the offensive, apply iron clad principles of success and defend America from those determined to tear it down. Application of the Principles of War in the House, in place of Boehner tears, will go a long way to restoring voter faith in the Congress, and boost GOP chances in the 2016 elections.

Please follow and like us:

Applying the US Armed Forces Principles of War to Preserving American Liberties

The principles of war constitute the framework from which all military operations should be modeled. These principles represent the combined lessons learned from wars, campaigns, battles, and military theorists across recorded history. Adherence to the principles of war won’t guarantee military victories, but failure to follow them will almost certainly result in defeat. Conservatives (i.e. Freedom loving Americans) and the Republican Party need to learn from these same military principles, peacefully apply them to defeat progressives and their Democrat Party, and use them as a critical strategic component to return Constitutional freedoms to the American people.

Lockheed C-5 Galaxy (Picture from Defense Industry Daily)

Lockheed C-5 Galaxy (Picture from Defense Industry Daily)

JP 1: “War is socially sanctioned violence to achieve a political purpose. War historically involves nine principles, collectively and classically known as the principles of war.” (I-3).

JP 3.0: “Joint operations doctrine is built on a sound base of warfighting philosophy, theory, and practical experience. Its foundation rests upon the bedrock principles of war and the associated fundamentals of joint warfare.” (I-1)

Principals of War:

  1. Objective
  2. Offensive
  3. Mass
  4. Economy of Force
  5. Maneuver
  6. Unity of Command
  7. Security
  8. Surprise
  9. Simplicity

Joint Principals (recently added):

  1. Restraint
  2. Perseverance
  3. Legitimacy

Objective JP 3.0 “The purpose of specifying the objective is to direct every military operation toward a clearly defined, decisive, and achievable goal.”

The principal of objective is perhaps the most frequently violated by the Republican Party. One of the biggest critiques of the Republican Party is that they don’t stand for anything anymore.

What is the Objective of the Republican Party? It should not be to imitate the Democrat Party. Its objective should not include supporting the same goals of the Democrat party when they go in opposition to the Constitution, liberty, freedom and the history of this nation.

The objective of the Republican Party should be to protect the American people, and their liberties. It should be to seal the borders, to stop Obama care at all costs. Its objective should be the uncompromising protection of the Constitution. It should be championing the fight for sound fiscal policy, balancing the budget and strengthening the economy.

The objective of the Republican Party should be farsighted to protect the uniqueness of the United States and to never allow its corruption and metamorphosis into the types of socialist or authoritarian governments that exist in so many other countrie on earth. Objective is critical and it must be clear because no one will rally behind a cause that they can’t see or do not understand.

M50A1 Ontos - US Marine Corps Museum, Virginia

M50A1 Ontos – US Marine Corps Museum, Virginia

Offensive: JP 3.0 “The purpose of an offensive action is to seize, retain, and exploit the initiative.”

Another heavy critique of the Republican Party and its candidates is that they are always reacting to democrat policies, their crisis of the day, i.e. “Mountains” and stay bogged down on the defensive.

The American people don’t even care about most of these.

Republicans need to seize the initiative and maintain the offensive.

When polled, comprehensive immigration is a priority for only a small percentage of Americans, so why is Congress pushing so hard to pass it? The answer is that Democrats are on the offensive, moving to secure their agenda and the Republicans in Congress are left to react.

Instead of playing that game, Republicans should be taking the offensive, creating “win-win” arguments, and forcing the issues that clearly lead to their objectives. Sen. Cruz established such a win-win argument in his plan to defund Obama care by attaching its funding to the debt crisis and government shutdown fight. His position is to fund all of government except Obama care which is highly unpopular. This strategy forces Democrats and President Obama to either defund Obama care or they shut down the government in order to fund it. This is a win-win for Republicans and the American people, and a lose-lose for Democrats.

Mass: JP 3.0 “The purpose of mass is to concentrate the effects of combat power at the most advantageous place and time to produce decisive results…Massing effects of combat power, rather than concentrating forces, can enable even numerically inferior forces to produce decisive results and minimize human losses and waste of resources.”

Tea Party Rally in Washington DC, 10 Sep 2013

Tea Party Rally in Washington DC, 10 Sep 2013

Mass is probably the easiest principle of war to describe in the context of political activities. It’s clear that in an election whichever candidate or party masses the most voters at the polls is going to win an election. It’s also clear that in representative bodies such as the US House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate whichever party can mass the most representatives or senators to vote in favor of their agenda will win.

What’s less obvious is the impact of mass on swaying the opinions and ultimately the votes of elected officials. It was the massing of grassroots Americans flooding phone banks, sending emails, writing letters, and interacting on social media that stopped the anti-gun effort earlier this year.

Mass as a concept does not necessarily mean that you outnumber your opponent. What mass means is that you are able to assemble your forces at the right time, and at the right place to overwhelm your opposition. It’s clear that the left employs this principle very effectively. Poll after poll shows that the liberal and progressive percentage of US population is a minority, at best 30%. Those same polls also show that Americans who consider themselves conservative range closer to 40%.

The effectiveness of the progressives and the left is that they mass a smaller number of people in large campaigns to present the impression that they are much larger in number than they are. Conservative organizations, such as the TEA Party, need to use the principle of mass in the same way.

Obama care was nearly stopped dead in its tracks due to an overwhelming tide, a mass, of American grassroots anger flooding Capitol Hill. The result was that not a single Republican voted in favor of the law. It’s highly unlikely this result ever would’ve occurred if not for the grassroots uproar. Sadly, an inability to mass a majority of votes in either the Senate or the House resulted in its passage.

Mass applies to financing, as well as people and votes. Financing allows the massing of media in the right markets at the right times and with the right messages. It also allows the massing of voters in get out the vote campaigns. The explanations in the applications of mass are innumerable, but you get the point.

Economy of Force: JP 3.0 “The purpose of economy of force is to expend minimum essential combat power on secondary efforts in order to allocate the maximum possible combat power on primary efforts…Economy of force is the judicious employment and distribution of forces.”

Economy of force is an interesting principle of war to apply to politics. A very strong case can be made that the efforts of liberals and progressives in the left has been to overload the rest of society on so many fronts, and in so many areas, that they dilute the ability of conservatives and Republicans to respond. The effect is to make economy of force extremely difficult.

The challenge to conservatives and Republicans is to prioritize, to choose the fights that matter the most, and to focus their efforts on winning those fights. By going on the offensive, choosing the battles to wage and the time and place that they get fought, the principle of economy of force can be employed and in so doing put the left on the defensive.

Maneuver: JP 3.0 The purpose of maneuver is to place the enemy in a position of disadvantage through the flexible application of combat power…Maneuver is the movement of forces in relation to the enemy to secure or retain positional advantage, usually in order to deliver or threaten delivery of the direct and indirect fires of the maneuvering force. Effective maneuver keeps the enemy off balance and thus also protects the friendly force.”

Maneuver enables both Mass and Economy of Force. Unions, Jessie Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition and Rev. Al Sharpton are masters of maneuver. Whenever they get involved in opposition to policy, or support for policy, the news cycle is consumed by their marches, picket lines, and blow horn speeches. They consist of relatively small numbers, but through effective maneuver, they can mass and appear much larger than they are. By taking over the news cycle, their positions are echoed across the country.

Unity of Command: JP 3.0 “The purpose of unity of command is to ensure unity of effort under one responsible commander for every objective. Unity of command means that all forces operate under a single commander with the requisite authority to direct all forces employed in pursuit of a common purpose. During multinational operations and interagency coordination, unity of command may not be possible, but the requirement for unity of effort becomes paramount. Unity of effort…the coordination and cooperation toward common objectives, even if the participants are not necessarily part of the same command or organization is the product of successful unified action.”

Unity of command is a difficult concept outside of the military. By its very nature, our society depends upon freedom of thought, unique thought, and the ability to openly express one’s opinion. In the military, unity of command is a much easier principle to apply and is a critical concept of military action. Failure to maintain unity of command compromises the ability to maintain a common objective and its cascading effects compromise many of the other principles of war. One of the tenants of unity of command is a concept called centralized command and decentralized execution. The theory here is that orders are relayed downward, but execution of those orders is left to the professionalism of lower-level echelons in military organizations. They are best able to analyze the fluidity of battle, the fog of war, and execute in a manner that achieves the overarching objective.

Unity of command requires leadership. Republicans have failed as a party recently because they don’t have people in leadership positions that can, or will LEAD. When they do have someone stand up and take the leadership mantle, like Senator Cruz, the establishment attacks them, and creates “disunity of command”. Republicans must stop eating their own and clearly define conservative, Republican Party objectives (defeating Obama care is supposed to be one). Stand up for those clear objectives, maintain core values and beliefs, and perpetually teach them to all Americans who’ll listen. This may not lead to pure military style unity of command, but it will create a surrogate, “unity of purpose”. Execution of that common purpose equates to decentralized execution and would go a long way to solidifying a Republican Party brand the American people would support!

Security: JP 3.0 “The purpose of security is to prevent the enemy from acquiring unexpected advantage…Security enhances freedom of action by reducing friendly vulnerability to hostile acts, influence, or surprise.”

Security involves keeping secrets, which politicians historically can’t do. Hillary Clinton’s home-brew email server is the most egregious example. From plans to elections to potential use of Surprise, its important to keep the opposition off balance and guessing. See discussion on Surprise.

Surprise: JP 3.0 “The purpose of surprise is to strike at a time or place or in a manner for which the enemy is unprepared…Surprise can help the commander shift the balance of combat power and thus achieve success well out of proportion to the effort expended.”

October surprises prior to elections, coming up with bogus crisis out of whole cloth i.e. making “Mountains Out of Molehills” progressives and the left are notorious for applying this principal.

Simplicity: JP 3.0 “The purpose of simplicity is to increase the probability that plans and operations will be executed as intended by preparing clear, uncomplicated plans and concise orders.”

Pardon the pun, but no Principle is simpler that this one to apply. Issues are hard to explain, and complex issues even more so. Don’t over-complicate them. Ex. Obama care is a disaster, crushing the American people, oppose it at every turn.

The worst violation of Simplicity in recent political history was the 2012 Romney Campaign’s get out the vote effort. Code named Project Orca, it was a complex, morass of organizing, training, information technology and massive failure.

Three additional Principles were added post 9-11 in JP 3.0 to define the Principles of Joint Operations. One, Perseverance, is responsible for progressives’ successes and must be a foundation of conservative response.

Restraint: JP 3.0“The purpose of restraint is to limit collateral damage and prevent the unnecessary use of force.”

This is the one principal that doesn’t fit well. If anything, Republicans are far too restrained. They allow themselves to be painted as extremists, and suffer from “moderates” like McCain and Graham who torch their own every chance they get. Republicans like Sen Cruz and Sen Lee understand the need to fight, and to show the American People that their representatives are listening to them.

Perseverance: JP 3.0 “The purpose of perseverance is to ensure the commitment necessary to attain the national strategic end state…The patient, resolute, and persistent pursuit of national goals and objectives often is essential to success.”

As discussed above, the progressive left has persevered across many decades to achieve their ideological dreams, and transform America. Conservatives and the Republican Party must take on the same long term, and I argue, perpetual, mindset.

Legitimacy: JP 3.0 “The purpose of legitimacy is to maintain legal and moral authority in the conduct of operations…Legitimacy, which can be a decisive factor in operations, is based on the actual and perceived legality, morality, and rightness of the actions from the various perspectives of interested audiences.”

Pretty simple here also. If you act in accordance with the US Constitution, you are by definition, legitimate. Anybody, or any policy that doesn’t, is also by definition, illegitimate. Support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic. Legitimacy is assured when goals and policies are set in accordance with that oath. The TEA Party stands for this very ideal.

Please follow and like us: