A Great Speech, Thank-you Congressman Boehner!

A Great Speech, Thank-you Congressman Boehner!

The Super Bowl and Abortion, and Why Scott Brown is Wrong

The past few weeks have lent themselves to the topic of abortion. The anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, the Tebow family Super Bowl commercial, Susan Estrich’s recent opinion piece, or the recent comments made by America’s new “man of the people” Scott Brown, have let us blow off a little philosophical steam, without really accomplishing anything. And after the Super Bowl, the topic will be placed back in that dark closet America stores its deficiencies; and that is a shame.


What we do at the moment of a life revealed will determine not only that baby’s fate, but the fate of all humanity. Our sense of not only our compassion towards our fellow man, our kindness to those in need, and our charity to mankind rest with the very first time many of us held the fate of a pure life in our hand, only to realize that it is not our choice to make. It is God’s will, or nature’s vocation, or the stork; whatever method you subscribe to, all of it enviably leads to one concrete fact. Standing before us, safe in the womb, is a living being. Commonsense demands you surrender to fact and reason; it is then your choice to ignore it or embrace it.


When we feel that we have the power over life and death, than we should not be surprised when people choose to use that power; whenever, wherever. The very essence of our communal respect for all existence starts at life’s beginning. Our humanity starts in the womb, the vessel that nature or God deemed to the safest place for our undefined destiny. Each of you reading this was offered the opportunity to make a difference, because you were given the gift of life; ultimately because someone recognized your humanity, and did not succumb to a “truth is relative” concept used to define life.


What some people have lost in this debate is the essential question of fact. Is the baby in the womb a human life? Not, “does the baby have a soul.” Not, “is the baby perfect.” Not, “can I afford this child.” Not, “is this the right time.” Not, “should I bring a baby into this painful world.” Not, “but it is a woman’s body.” Not, “but I wanted a boy.” Nor is the question of how the baby was conceived relevant to the most basic truth. The only thing that matters is whether the baby in the womb is life?


The question of life is beyond reproach; it is mans own selfness and insecurities that opens the door to “debate,” and closes the window to the known genuineness of our being. It is mankind’s own hubris that allows all us to be devalued.


There is no greater hope for humanity than the innocents and purity of a child. Each time we exercise power over another human being in a way that extinguishes innocent life, than we chip away at not only our individual humanity, but our shared empathy.


If you choose to ignore your own humanity, be honest about. Society has deemed, for now, that the practice of taking of an innocent human life (for whatever reason) to be the province of a free-society; not a just society, not a compassion society, not a moral society, but a free society. If you support abortion, then don’t bother with the facade that reduction should be a goal, all while supporting the endeavor that will end the life. If you support abortion as “public policy,” but not as a personal decision you would choose, please recognize that people are keenly aware of your own inconstancies.


And if you support life, put into action a course of kindness and charity that makes people want to choose life. Let all know that they are never alone, and that you value all other life above your own.


Brown, Estrich, and even Tebow are all wrong, but so are all of us. All of us have failed to live up to the promise declared over two-hundred years ago – “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.” Our past failure to live up to the absolute truth that is our Declaration of Independence has been corrected, but our future injustices await our resolve. But make no mistake about it, the issue of abortion is “not settled,” and as with the question of slavery, we only need to recognize that, as a country, we are sanctioning a transparent injustice.

It Has Always Been "The People's Seat"

What does the battle between Scott Brown and Martha Coakley really mean? Why has this race captured the attention of an entire nation? Why is the media fascinated with this race? The answer is simple….hope and change.

It is more than just Republican against Democrat, Liberal against Conservative; it is the understanding of the principle that we are a representative republic and not an elected aristocracy. It is the appreciation of knowing that it is the “people’s seat,” and not the throne of a self-professed nobility, who believe that it is their seat to hand down from one lord to the next. It is the hope that every generation remembers that it is the elected who answers to the people, and that change can never come at the expense of our founding principles…….. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness…”

Believe or not this campaign is not even about Scott Brown (who is an incredible person first and valid candidate second). This is about the simple belief that it is the consent of the governed that have been preordained to control their own destiny, and will not be “subjects,” ruled by a few bigheaded elitist. Elitist whose fingers burn whenever they touch the Constitution, whose ears bleed when the Declaration of Independence is read aloud, and who have grown blind and deaf to the will of the people. Elitist who expel any original thought once they are elected, and whose asses grow accustom to a chair that is on loan to them.

There are events that happen to every generation that reaffirms the founding principles that are at the very core of this “great experiment” known as America. Every once in awhile “We the People….” is more than just a catchphrase used by politicians to harvest votes. "We the People…” becomes the rallying cry not just against something, but in support of an idea or cause worth fighting for. Revolutions aren’t just won with bullets, especially in America. Every so often a course of action becomes so apparent that the American people “take to march” and fight for a cause greater than the individual.

The Brown vs. Coakley is the manifestation of everything our Founding Fathers expected from us. Massachusetts’ own Sam Adams knew that every generation would need to be “eternally vigilant” as to the cause of our own liberty when he said – “The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule.” Today, the new “Sons (and Daughters) of Liberty” are preparing to fire the second shot heard around the world. This is not about the “41st vote,” or “derailing” President Obama’s agenda, but a stand against tyranny and arrogant authority. This about reminding those in Washington that the only thing that is inevitable is that if they chose to govern in a manner that is contrary to our Republican principals, than their days are numbered.

Benjamin Franklin, was standing outside Independence Hall when the Constitutional Convention ended, when he was approached by a Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia, who 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."

Regardless of whether Scott Brown wins or not, the message will be clear. Every race, every campaign, and every candidate will have to prove that they understand that it is the people’s seat they seek, and that they are just temporary occupants. In the end, it is important for all Americans to remember that it is our “Republic,” ............if we “can keep it.”

Let Me Rise - Voices for School Choice

Should Tea Party Groups Endorse Candidates?

Recently I talked about the need for the liberty groups (9/12, Tea Party, etc.) to think about publicly supporting like minded candidates; which would merely be the natural extension of their influence. I strongly suggested that the liberty groups require that any candidate seeking their support openly affirm their commitment to the liberty group’s principles/philosophies. Needless to say, I received several interesting e-mails.

Some felt that it would be a “betrayal” of the cause if they simple started to act like the “political machines” they detest. By no means was I suggesting that. It makes no difference to me, nor should it to the liberty groups, whether the candidates are attached to a political party or stand alone (although I tend to avoid Democratic candidates, in large part because the party platform does not come close to any of my core conservative principles, and by extension a candidate for that party would be ineffective). We have to be very careful not to dismiss an individual merely because of an established, political partnership.

I also was not suggesting that the liberty groups support “just one candidate.” If several candidates come forth that meet the principles of the group, than it is fine to support more than one candidate. This happens already, often because we find that groups create a rating system to assign to candidates. It is important to note that the group is not merely supporting a candidate, but willing to publicly stand with an individual who has pledged to support the group’s mission.

There are several methods a group can use to indicate which candidates best match the groups principles. The methods that can be used to grade a candidate can range from a simple report card style assessment, a “yes/no” survey, or a pledge or oath of adherence.

If the group has a list of principles, the group would merely assign a point system to each principle. The group may assign a higher point value to some of the principles, or even designate “deal breaker” principles (mandatory principles that must be agreed to in order to get the liberty groups approval). A list of principles provides both the group and the candidates the opportunity for flexibility, but still allow for clarity. A good example of this can be found in a recent undertaking from within the Republican Party:

Proposed RNC Resolution on Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates

WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan believed that the Republican Party should support and espouse conservative principles and public policies; and

WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan also believed the Republican Party should welcome those with diverse views; and

WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan believed, as a result, that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent; and

WHEREAS, Republican faithfulness to its conservative principles and public policies and Republican solidarity in opposition to Obama’s socialist agenda is necessary to preserve the security of our country, our economic and political freedoms, and our way of life; and

WHEREAS, Republican faithfulness to its conservative principles and public policies is necessary to restore the trust of the American people in the Republican Party and to lead to Republican electoral victories; and

WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee shares President Ronald Reagan’s belief that the Republican Party should espouse conservative principles and public policies and welcome persons of diverse views; and

WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee desires to implement President Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates; and

WHEREAS, in addition to supporting candidates, the Republican National Committee provides financial support for Republican state and local parties for party building and federal election activities, which benefit all candidates and is not affected by this resolution; and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee identifies ten (10) key public policy positions for the 2010 election cycle, which the Republican National Committee expects its public officials and candidates to support:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership; and be further

RESOLVED, that a candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated public policy position of the Republican National Committee, as identified by the voting record, public statements and/or signed questionnaire of the candidate, shall not be eligible for financial support and endorsement by the Republican National Committee; and be further

RESOLVED, that upon the approval of this resolution the Republican National Committee shall deliver a copy of this resolution to each of Republican members of Congress, all Republican candidates for Congress, as they become known, and to each Republican state and territorial party office.

Another good example of a liberty-minded pledge is the one currently being featured at Laura Ingraham’s web site, which she calls “10 for 10:”

1) Taxpayers' Bill of Rights (TABOR). Limit federal spending growth to the percentage in population growth plus the rate of inflation; provide taxpayers the option of filing a post-card sized return using a low, flat tax rate of 15%

2) End Tax-funded abortions. Stop federal payments to Planned Parenthood and prohibit any taxpayer-subsidized health insurance plan from covering abortion

3) Defend American Borders. Complete America's border-protection initiatives using remaining funds from the so-called stimulus bill

4) King Dollar. Preserve a strong dollar so that Americans' savings aren't wiped out by inflation and the U.S. dollar remains the world's reserve currency

5) Empower American Business. Immediately slash corporate tax rates to 15% and scrap the capital-gains tax altogether

6) Defend America. Strengthen America to defend our homeland and fully fund an operational, layered missile-defense system

7) Statism Exit Plan. De-fund czars; immediately cease bailout payments to failed companies; ban future bailouts

8) End Generational Theft. As few believe America's entitlement programs will be able to pay benefits to future generations, provide younger workers the choice of diverting payroll/Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts

9) Restore America's System of Justice. Introduce penalties for frivolous lawsuits, where those who launch unsuccessful lawsuits are liable for the defendants' legal bills

10) American Energy Independence. All-of-the-Above strategy that embraces alternatives, expands and accelerates exploration and production of oil and natural gas, and jumpstarts dramatic increases in nuclear power

Some groups choose to require the candidates to commit to a pledge. The difficultly with a pledge is that they often do not allow much flexibility; and maybe that is the desired goal of the liberty group. But we must remember that 100% agreement (even from within the liberty groups) is nearly impossible. The pledge should convey a commitment to the cause, but respect the fact that there may be a difference of opinion on how to achieve a shared goal. If the language of the pledge is too vague, no candidate will agree to it; if the pledge is too rigid, then the group should be prepared to having very few, or even no candidates taking the pledge. An example of a pledge that liberty groups should consider is a piece called the American’s Creed.

The American’s Creed was commissioned by Congress in 1917, and it is the combination of the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address, so it sets a liberty tone that has stood the test of time:

The American's Creed

by William Tyler Page

I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed, a democracy in a republic, a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.

I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies.

The American’s Creed is one of the strongest dedications to the virtues that made our country great. The Creed respects the understanding that we are a unified nation bound together by core beliefs, while at the same time declaring the importance of States’ sovereignty (the fundamental idea that many believe helps to ensure that government is closest to the people). The Creed is tight enough to repel those candidates that are not liberty minded, while being flexible enough not to scare high-quality candidates away.

Regardless of the type of oath a group opts for, it is important for the group to commit to paper the core principles that best represent their values. By providing a written declaration, the liberty groups will not only provide guidance to potential candidates, but the group will also have a foundational document that will always remind them of their commitment.

And to those candidates seeking the support of liberty groups; do so only if you intend to honor the groups cause, and not just for votes. As I have stated on numerous occasions, much of the liberty groups wrath is directed at those politicians they feel have let them down. Trust me when I tell you that you do not want to be added to that list.

The Tea Parties Born 2009 - R.I.P.2010?

Political truth, like revenge, is a dish best served cold; at least for some in the media. Take for example the recent article by Kenneth Vogel, that appeared on Politico, and was eventual e-mailed throughout the Democratic Party:

Will Tea Partiers turn on each other?
Kenneth P. Vogel November 19, 2009 11:41 PM EST

After emerging out of nowhere over the summer as a seemingly potent and growing political force, the tea party movement has become so rife with internal feuding over philosophy, strategy and money that some supporters fear it will disintegrate before realizing its full potential.

The grass-roots activists powering the movement have become increasingly divided on core questions such as whether to focus their efforts on shaping policy debates or elections, work on a local, regional, state or national level or closely align itself with the Republican Party, POLITICO found in interviews with tea party organizers in Washington and across the country.
Disagreements over those issues have spawned personal and institutional rivalries, at least one highly contentious lawsuit and - perhaps most significantly - resulted in the splintering of local, regional and national groups into a patchwork of hundreds of smaller groups that occasionally seem to be working at cross-purposes.

“These groups don’t play as well together as they should,” said Kevin Jackson, a St. Louis-based conservative author and activist who has spoken at dozens of tea party-type rallies and is traveling across the South with a convoy sponsored by the national Tea Party Patriots group.

“They’re fractured at the organization level, I think mainly because there are a lot of people who have not had managerial experience who all of a sudden are thrust into the limelight and become intoxicated with it. And when a potential rift comes up, instead of handling it and maybe agreeing to disagree, they splinter and go off on their own.”

The movement exploded onto the scene this year as a backlash to what participants contend are the free-spending, overreaching initiatives pushed by President Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress. It is composed of hundreds of independent local groups, many of which are incorporated as nonprofits, and have localized names referencing the tea parties, “9/12” or “We The People.”

Many of their members also belong to national conservative groups, including FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity and Grassfire, while the local groups often affiliate formally or informally with loose-knit umbrella organizations, including the Tea Party Patriots and Tea Party Nation.

The organizational chaos - combined with a widening apathy at the edges of the movement - has produced a growing consensus among local, state and national tea party leaders that in order for the movement to evolve from the loose conglomeration of fired-up activists who protests and marches across the country into a sustainable block with the power to shape the GOP and swing elections, it will require the emergence of a national leader, group or structure.
Ned Ryun, president of American Majority, a nonprofit that has conducted organizer-training sessions for many tea party activists, said “the next 3 to 6 months” are going to be critical in determining “what’s going to happen with the tea party movement. Are they going to be a bunch of fingers, or are they going to come together to be a fist?”

Yet, while some tout a planned National Tea Party Convention in February (at which former Alaska governor and tea party darling Sarah Palin is listed as the keynote speaker) as a potentially unifying moment and others point to online coordination efforts, there is deep disagreement about what any national organization would look like and who would lead it.
FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity, Grassfire, Americans for Limited Government and a host of other groups have helped organize various efforts capitalizing on the energy behind the tea parties, including providing training, online war rooms that help generate phone calls and ready-to-distribute canvassing literature.

But the groups have also jockeyed - mostly behind the scenes - to take credit for leadership of the movement, which - depending on who’s doing the telling - took its name either as an homage to the 1773 Boston tax revolt that played a major role in sparking the American Revolution or from an acronym standing for “Taxed Enough Already.”

The philosophical and strategic disagreements have been present within the tea party movement almost from the beginning. But they were hidden - or at least overshadowed - by the initial explosion of activist enthusiasm, which has dissipated somewhat, exposing and widening the rifts.

“Some of these groups may burn out, but this is part of this entrepreneurial process and the competition is good,” said Adam Brandon, vice president of communications for FreedomWorks, a nonprofit chaired by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas.

The group has facilitated some of the efforts demonstrating the potential power of the movement. Those have included the confrontations that erupted at congressional strong support from many tea party groups and leaders.

Brandon stressed that the strength of the tea party movement is in its grass-roots nature and that FreedomWorks’s goal is to help facilitate the movement, not to control it.
“One thing that’s clear is that anyone who says they own the tea party movement is going to get run over because no one owns the movement,” he said.

Brandon acknowledged the “rivalries and turf battles” now gripping parts of the movement but said “that’s normal because people have different ideas about what they want. That’s what’s happening now, and it’s sometimes a painful process.”

Those fights have been waged over issues that go to the heart of the movement’s purpose and strategy as well as more mundane rivalries and personal feuds.

In Myrtle Beach, S.C., disputes within the local tea party about how much to engage in partisan politics and whether board members were profiting from contracts to print paraphernalia emblazoned with the group’s logo prompted the treasurer to resign and join with defectors from a North Carolina “We the People” group to form a new organization.

“There’s a lot of fighting, and everyone wants to be in charge, and that’s why you have so many splinter groups,” said the ex-treasurer Janet Spencer, who charged her adversaries within the tea party with saying “derogatory things about me that were very unprofessional.”
She said her new group, called Patriotic Voices of America/Carolina Patriots, counts about 100 members and will not coordinate with the Myrtle Beach Tea Party, whose treasurer, David Ognek, said the friction is “just group dynamics.”

In Texas, a handful of thriving tea party groups severed their ties from the national Tea Party Patriots group after it ousted, then sued a founding board member who had affiliated with a rival group called the Tea Party Express.

“Our fight is in Congress and not with each other or with these other groups,” said Toby Marie Walker, who was the Texas state coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots and also co-founded the Waco, Texas, tea party.

This Waco group recently drew an estimated 4,000 people to a rally it organized with the Tea Party Express, which travels the country hosting rallies. The month before, it had pulled out of the Tea Party Patriots after the Patriots group extremist rhetoric, and raising questions about the Express’s finances.

The Patriots’ attack and lawsuit worried the Waco group’s board, Walker said, because “if you align yourself with someone who is going to be that malicious, then how do we know they won’t turn on us?”

Other local tea party groups, though, cast their lots with the Patriots, heeding the group’s call to disassociate with the Tea Party Express.

In Granbury, Texas, local tea party organizer Josh Sullivan says he believes the movement’s effectiveness is being compromised by extremism.“You have some interesting folks in the Tea Party movement - some of them I can support, but some of them are kind of out there and radical, and I don’t want to associate myself with them,” he said.

In Northern Colorado, meanwhile, a handful of active 9/12 groups - named for the Glenn Beck-encouraged effort to stage the Sept. 12 Washington march - are unhappy with the state 9/12 group’s aversion to fundraising and with its focus on national issues and have discussed forming their own rival statewide group.

“People are beginning to become a little bit de-energized - they’re starting to feel like they’re fighting a losing battle, because we send a lot of letters into Washington, D.C., and things like that, and people are saying they’re not listening,” said Brian Britton, who heads the Greeley, Colo., 9/12 group.

That fear is echoed by Glenn Galls, a Hot Springs, Ark., tea party organizer frustrated with the focus of Arkansas’ state-level tea party groups on national races and issues such as cap and trade and health care.

Democratic email footer:

“If the tea party movement is going to continue to thrive and to grow and to have influence,” he said, “it must start coming together and coalescing and finding its purpose in life, because if it doesn’t, the excitement will fade like it does from anything else.”

Michael Czin Regional Press Secretary Democratic National Committee Office: (202) 863-8106
BBerry: (202) 286-7654

***** End of E-mail *****

Although there is some truth in the original Politico piece, Mr. Czin should not be so eager in ordering the wreath for the wake, because in the words of Mark Twain, “the reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated,” as is the premature death knell of the liberty movement.

I would caution both the Republican and Democratic Parties from reading too much into some of the observations of this article (just as I would have advised Michael Czin from forwarding the email around the Democratic Party – it is the type of thing that can be used to unite the liberty troops). Infighting can be found with any group, from the Cub Scouts to the UN. It is human nature, why would we expect these groups to be any different?

Many of these groups came together because of their dissatisfaction with all levels of government, and that has not changed. The liberty groups see both parties as the disease (a point I disagree with – a few bad apples do not spoil the whole barrel; nor do a few RINO’s speak for the rest of the crash). Watch what happens if this healthcare monstrosity passes. These groups will put their differences aside in defense of a cause. For you see, it is the cause that serves as the surrogate leader. Every time politicians give these groups a reason to fight, such as healthcare, cap-n-trade, illegal alien amnesty, in a perverted sort of way, they are providing the very leadership these groups need to resist them……..the cause! And right now, it is the Democrats that keep providing the ammunition; ammunition that will be used to put the lame donkey out of its misery.

What we are witnessing are growing pains. But at some point a level of realistic, political maturity must be the order of the day for these groups to be considered viable entities. If not, we will continue to witness our representatives standing before us like the highwaymen of old, yelling “Stand and deliver! Your money or your life.” Individual liberty is the cause, but a communal synergy is means of resistance.

However, to the articles’ point, eventually these groups must rally with a common ally. A new group of Founding Fathers must come forth, concerned less about individual accolades, and committed to the greater good of the “united States of America.” In the words of Ronald Reagan, it is amazing what you can accomplish it you do not care who gets credit for the success.

But to the observations in the originally article, I have some advise for the liberty groups. Do not let petty squabbles divide you. United you stand, divided you will fall. The Democratic Party would like nothing more than to see the liberty groups marginalize, preferring to focus on your potential downfall so as to avoid dealing with their own civil war (Democrats.com - Let's Beat the BlueDogs ). Do not give the Democrats the pleasure by proving them right. Rise above your differences, because the reasons that brought millions of Americans together still exist; and the difference between a country committed to liberty and a country whose people are subjects to tyranny have always rested with the liberty groups throughout history.

The lack of leadership, beyond the cause, is easy to resolve. It is time for the liberty groups to start endorsing candidates. The liberty groups should seek out leaders willing and able to run for office. Leaders with integrity, leaders willing to commit to the principals of the group. Each liberty group should create a common, realistic pledge (or list of key principals they stand for), that each candidate would be required to publicly support. This is how the liberty groups will find their “level of realistic, political maturity.”