The Nexus of the TEA Party Movement
In recent weeks, I have watched as the "noise" related to the convention in Nashville has escalated. From criticisms about the cost of the convention to personal attacks on the organizers and the assumption that something is "rotten in Denmark". Actually, something was - Olympics and Climate Change . But I digress.
The criticisms and the perceived slights to the movement have often been amplified by the press and in particular, the left leaning publications. The blatant attempt to discredit a worthy effort cries out from the Democratic playbook - divide and conquer - while at the same time has enlisted an unlikely accomplice, TEA Party leadership itself. As a conservative, I am unconcerned with the commentary from the left and the blatant attempt to strip the legitimacy of the people who are attending. I can unequivocally state that over twenty-five people are coming from The Memphis TEA Party membership and I am pleased that they chose to do so after simply being invited to participate.
The fact that attendees are arriving from as far away as Hawaii and Trinidad speaks volumes about the desire to be involved and to have a professional and reasoned convention in a wonderful location with great learning and great speakers. In fact, it is likely that the volume will be turned ever higher by those in opposition to such a convention with the report by Zogby that Sarah Palin is now the leader in a field of Republican contenders for the Republican Primary with 22.2 percent and Governor Romney a close second at 19.4 percent.
In fact a recent comment to Newsmax by a Democratic pollster sums up the reality:
"It suggests to me that reports of her political death are exaggerated," political strategist and Democratic pollster Douglas Schoen tells Newsmax. "In American political life, politicians have not only second and third lives, they have nine lives. And Sarah Palin is on her third or fourth life."
Sarah Palin, upon accepting the invitation to speak, had not yet embarked on her book tour, her many interviews or took her position as a Fox News contributor. And she certainly hadn't been the leader in the 2012 primary in any poll. But to paraphrase Sarah Palin, if you're not the lead dog in the sled, the view doesn't change very much! In this context, I would suggest that the attendees are getting very good value for their money - they have bet on the her sled to come in first and it is now leading!
So as we are but one week out, we are now inundated with over 100 inquiries for press credentials, calls to let in liberal bloggers and news outlets and the criticism that the event should comp tickets, rooms and provide other venues to allow various participant accessibility. It would appear that the TEA Party and its association with Sarah Palin and other conservatives has piqued the interest of the national and international media. And at the same time, resulted in many of our TEA Party leaders merrily making their way to their convention to enjoy Nashville, the networking and the event itself. This sea change is a result of the continued populist and common sense message of Sarah Palin in conjunction with the desire of two local TEA Party leaders to hold a well organized and desirable convention. For that we can thank Sherry & Judson Phillips, who upon taking on this monumental effort, aspired to organize an event like no other in the TEA Party movement!
There are those who suggest that this isn't "grass roots" enough or that their "for profit" TEA Party Nation is somehow tainted by actually wanting to use the profit motive to extend the conservative movement. It is most amusing to hear people calling out that this capitalist idea, with its costs, expenses and fees to speakers, is somehow out of line with the TEA Party movement itself! Have we so embraced the socialism of the Obama administration that we can't celebrate the success of the movement when two entrepreneurial people create such an event? Are we so blinded by the curtain of lies and deceit that this administration, the MSM and the Democrat playbook espouses that we would not cheer for such actions? At the least, one should be glad that actual dollars are supporting a local business and its employees to the tune of nearly $600,000. Now that's real job creation and economic stimulus! And you don't even have to provide a tax subsidy or bailout!
But no is the answer. In fact, conservative, even "grass roots" conservatives, have always had the habit of "eating their own". Michael Steele can fly the RNC staff to a "meeting" in Hawaii, invite a leader of the new media to discuss the very nexus of the TEA Party and the RNC and then revoke this invitation upon finding out that a smart kid who is innocent until proven guilty, may have "tainted" his speech. I thought it was only the Democrats that trampled the Constitution. But we have indeed come to expect this from people who believe that they matter more than the movement. I can almost hear some of these purists spouting their theology - "We are the way the truth and the light and no one comes to the TEA Party except through us".
Indeed, I am proud to be associated with this event. I have no dog in the hunt and paid my $549 to attend. I am privileged to be able to train and speak about things that matter to organizing the movement. And in the end, while we may see commentary that is derogatory or derisive of the people and the organizers participating, this will be a great event with a great cast of "we the people". For those who would wither under the criticism, they weren't in the battle to begin with. But for those who steadfastly make their voices heard, they will indeed enjoy the nexus of the TEA Party movement in Nashville!
In closing, I recall the old adage, "no one marks the second time". It's always the first time we do anything that we cherish and this event apparently is now being pursued like it will be the first time for many!
The TEA Party Movement - "No Head, No Beheading"
Recently, much has been written about the TEA party movement and its leadership. It would appear, based on the talking heads that so often comment, that they seek to find the titular leader of the TEA party movement. In fact, this has been problematic from the beginning. For the political establishment in particular, the lack of an evident leader in the TEA party movement has been one facet of this grass roots effort that has resulted in frustration. And in particular, to those who would attempt to dismantle it! No more has this been evident than in looking at the political ruling class and their commentary, which seemingly moved from the intellectual to the derogatory in a matter of moments, referring to the movement as "tea baggers", racists, rednecks or "birthers", et al. while the same time suggesting the illegitimacy of people who turn up to make their voices heard at town halls, local meetings and even Washington DC. This lack of clarity in the leadership of the movement is one element that is both a strength and sometimes a weakness.
Perhaps it is instructive to review the existence of Tea Party Nation and its founder, Judson Phillips. In crafting a rather interesting, important and certainly fun TEA party convention in Nashville, Phillips' only "crime" is that he had the audacity to actually invite Sarah Palin to such a meeting. And then to hold that meeting at a very fine facility, the Gaylord Hotel, in a city that's known for its music, it's fun and it's hospitality. But his crime was not the fact that he invited her or decided that he would indeed have 600 jovial TEA party leadership arrive in Nashville for such a convention and a big dinner; no his crime was that he actually decided to do this within and through his Tea Party Nation.
Tea Party Nation is nothing much more than a social website through which members can collaborate, share ideas, provide their views and post messages as well as events in their own location. It was indeed a vision of Judson and his wife, Sherry Phillips, that this Tea Party Nation site could be a way in which leadership would collaborate. The site itself is powered by common off-the-shelf software and indeed running the site is the key job of Tea Party Nation, its advisory board and the various volunteers who are contributing to that effort. However, Judson Phillips and his wife were also able to lead and develop the idea of a convention for TEA party leadership. With great speakers such as Michele Bachmann, Joseph Farah, Marsha Blackburn, Phil Valentine and others, and of course the keynote speech by Sarah Palin, the left went into apoplexy. And there were those, who in their attempt to find the individual who might be the "heir apparent", began disparaging Mr. Phillips and his family.
But they fail to understand the real power of this movement. Unlike Organizing for America, where the more than billion dollars raised by Mr. Barack Obama and his ilk have crafted a real Astroturf movement, the TEA party grew out of a frustration and a visceral reaction to the Obama "hope & change - bait & switch" rhetoric that he professed during his campaign. From the now famous Rick Santorelli "rant" on CNBC to the million and a half people that showed up in Washington DC, the movement has grown from the few to the many. And yet, in between all those moments, people who heretofore have never been involved in politics or grassroots movements or even in their government, suddenly became acutely aware of the liberties that they had so taken for granted and which now required fighting for!
It was this idea, formerly non-political people joining together for the very first time in their lives, that resulted in a massive and concerted effort to take back their government. They began to understand the nature of the Founding Fathers and the true passions of those "fifty-six" men who signed the Declaration of Independence. Many had not understood, in the context of the history of our own Revolutionary War and the lessons learned, that a significant few can influence extraordinary outcomes. They were angered by the results of elections, unconvinced by the spending of a nearly trillion dollar stimulus package, a $2.6 trillion budget, spending for healthcare, Cap & Trade and numerous other initiatives which burdened America and sullied the great liberties that we as a nation enjoy. We are indeed, as Americans, fiercely independent in our views and our lives. The actions of previous administrations and in particular, Obama, were sufficient to awaken the sleeping giant. In fact, I would argue, Barack Obama became the "Pearl Harbor" of the conservative movement. Regrettably, for people like James Carville who would suggest that there was to be a 40 year "rule" by the progressive left, found those same Democrats within the time it took to have a baby, on the other side of history!
But it is the TEA party movement itself and the lack of leadership that is not clearly understood by so many in the mainstream media and the left in particular. They seek to find that individual or organization, whether it's FreedomWorks and the likes of Dick Armey, or perhaps Eric Odom and the TEA Party Express or other groups such as Tea Party Nation, that would represent the coalition in a way that constitutes a clear leadership position and head. However, I would argue that this indeed is not required of all grassroots movements. In fact, the TEA party movement itself is about individuals organizing at the community level, something that the left and in particular this administration should have understood, as it has prided itself on its own community organizing skills. It is a most instructive element of the TEA party movement that we simply have co-opted the tactics that were effectively deployed so often by the left. And at the same time, the TEA party movement has assembled real passion, real effort, caring for their community, love of their family and defense of their liberty. Not all moments in a grassroots movement are perfectly executed and in particular we will find a few weeds amongst the strong turf. However, in reviewing a number of the hit pieces that have been shared throughout the blogosphere while railing against Tea Party Nation and its leader Judson Phillips, one gets a sense that some commentary is beyond the pale. Such indignation should be met with a bit of skepticism for it was Judson Phillips who simply had the boldness to ask a woman, indeed a former governor, as to whether she would come and speak!
And in that one act, there has evolved a firestorm of criticism, jealousy and rage. However, it has also resulted in another effect that we see before us now. The TEA party movement is becoming a force to be reckoned with and, in my opinion, something akin to the evangelistic movements of years gone by. It is as much about people coming together with differing views, forming and dissolving, developing extraordinary efforts to impact their local government, support candidates, recruit people into primaries and general elections. And of course oppose, with their greatest energy, this administration's march to the left! And in that sense, the TEA party movement in particular, needs no titular head; it needs no individual leader. Instead, it acts more like our Founding Fathers did in the Revolutionary War where only twelve percent of the Colonialists actually fought against the British while nearly twenty percent remained Loyalists. The rest were at home watching "Dancing with Stars", well maybe not, as TV wasn't actually invented then! However, a massive war of Independence was fought on the basis of a significant few with the support of the general population. They saw fit to attack those elements of the Crown that restricted their own desire for liberty and freedom and they were successful. They fought a different type of battle against the Redcoats. It was the first use of guerrilla warfare, hiding from behind trees, taking their tactics from their colonizing experience and taking their shots accordingly. And in the end, they defeated the British, subsequently earning the right to create the United States of America.
Today we see a similar revolution, a peaceful revolution. The TEA party people, having endured name-calling and pejoratives lobbed at them by the left and its leaders, are fighting back in the blogosphere, at the voting booth and in the street. It is not lost on this author that the course of the contest in Massachusetts, where perhaps on Tuesday the balance of power will be changed by the win of Republican Scott Brown, is akin to the "the shot heard 'round the world" of Concord fame. To be sure this movement is real. It is not, as Nancy Pelosi and others have suggested, Astroturf. It is not coordinated by the Republican Party. Indeed the Republican Party would have preferred to be seen as so smart and capable that it had maneuvered such a movement to do its bidding! However, that is not the case and one is lead to contrast this movement to Organizing for America, MoveOn.org and other far leftist organizations. They remind me of the character, Scar in the animated movie Lion King, where when he could no longer have the lionesses hunt and the green grass was gone and left with nothing but barbs, his minions attacked the false leader.
In the end, the TEA party movement's approach to leadership is different, it is localized, it is effective, it's quick to react and in fact prides itself on the looseness of those local organizations. And yet it learns the skills necessary to collaborate, to use technology effectively and resources skillfully, to consider and embrace the common view of the movement's first principles of smaller government, fiscal responsibility, less spending and greater liberty. It is, inherently perhaps, these principles that effectively operationalize that same movement. I am reminded of the theory of self organizing systems and how appropriate this view of the TEA party movement is in describing the power and effectiveness of people's actions. The self organizing nature of systems and in particular communities and societies is so evident that the TEA party movement itself, without knowing these basic tenets, has been able to achieve something that the political parties have not yet fully grasped. It is, in a sense, the proof point of the theory. And as such, without a central leader or leadership structure, the left cannot strike the movement directly. They may torment the individual as they attempt to tear down people like Judson Phillips, who themselves are simple battalion commanders. But the movement does not need the generals to direct the grand strategy or direct its operations. Its very nature is local, its very existence is built upon these small cells, organizing, developing and carrying out actions individually but mindful of the first principles of the movement. A movement like the TEA party has no head. And where this is no head, there can be no beheading!
Contrast that to the "hope and change" crowd who place the entirety of their emotional, intellectual and political expectations in the man, Barack Obama. A man who had never exposed his background, who had hidden with great effort all of the things that he was heretofore except that which he preferred them to know. And as he lurched to the left, attempting to take the country by force, while at the same time deal with the vagaries of the world in his progressive fashion, he has failed with his constituents. He has indeed, as the leader of that very same liberal and progressive movement, simply let them down. And now the "hyenas" have turned and attacked!
I believe that this is why the TEA party movement will be sustained. Over time, it will likely become more sophisticated in tactics and the use of power. But the groups making up this community, organizers in the TEA party movement itself and those local leaders who stand before their members, are bound together by love of liberty. They ignore the name-calling and pejoratives, they refuse to accept defeat or be defined by the mainstream media's definitions and are therefore undeterred. They have awakened to the realities of the limitations of their government and the fallacy of reliance upon that government for those unalienable rights ordained by our Creator. They are the true patriots, that activist minority who are willing to fight in the revolution and they will overcome the "loyalists". To be sure, those dispirited progressives will rejoin in an attempt to overcome that very movement once more. But the passion and the truth of their conservatism will sustain them through the fight. And for the remainder of those who indeed are watching "Dancing with Stars" during this revolution; they will finally delight in the success of these revolutionaries and in the success of the elections to come. And most of all, the country will embrace the accountability of those who are given the right to govern by these same patriots. For the fundamental difference in the TEA party movement above all else is the expectation that the first principles will be embraced by those who would govern from our cities, our states and nationally. And they will stand as guardians, never to allow our liberties to be trampled again.
You may indeed call out this movement in terms which are derogatory, diminishing, dismissive; but you cannot win a Revolutionary war by doing so! Our founders understood the great power of people and the great power of ideas. The left subsumes all of its power and all of its efforts from men like Barack Obama and George Soros. The conservative has placed his faith in God as did our Founders. And while this may seem quaint to some, it is indeed something understood by conservatives, in fact most conservatives. Unalienable truth needs no head and therefore there can be no beheading! TEA party on!
The TEA Party Movement & Republicans - "Getting To Know You"
We've seen much discussion around the relationship of the TEA Party movement to the Republican party. Some of the so-called pundits have suggested that the TEA Party movement embrace the creation of a third party. Others have stated that a rift exists between the party faithful and the TEA Party activists. And still others, journalist David Brooks, have stated that the TEA Party movement is anti-intellectual!
I have refrained from weighing in on this dialogue but felt that comment could add value at this time. There is clearly a difference of opinions within the various TEA Party organizations. I have personally taken the view that there are few to no conservatives legislators who are also Democrats and who will vote for conservative principles when they are faced with the arm twisting and bribes that are presented to them by their leadership. I am unconvinced by the current argument that the TEA Party should ever approach the DNC for any reason. And while I laud the antiseptic and non-partisan approach of many of our leaders and their membership, the localized approach to politics and leadership allows for differences of opinion.
In this light, arguing the finer points amongst each other seems to me to be an exercise in “mental masturbation”. If you are convinced that associating in any way with the Republican party pollutes your local strategy, then don’t! However, to suggest that the Republican party is somehow a problematic relationship is just nonsense. I don’t know which elections can be won without supporting one of the two parties that contend. And as I do believe that the DNC platform is antagonistic to all things conservative, I have to place my bet with the RNC. Now this is not to say that the party is correctly approaching our movement, the electorate or governing in a way that amplifies the conservative message. To the contrary, the party has sorely disappointed many of us in their expansion of government and excessive spending. Indeed , they often appear just like the “Apple Dumpling Gang” in their governance and representation of their constituents.
But, I also believe, based on an objective review of voter turnout statistics, that those same constituents have been remiss in carrying out their most basic duty as citizens – voting. We recently supported our preferred candidates in a special election here in Memphis. With over 151,000 eligible registered voters , just over 10,000 actually voted. The complaints of the electorate ring hollow when we see voting rates on a local basis approaching 10% participation in many races and just over 50% in national races. With this as the background context, I have to ask the question why would we not welcome any discussion with the party that “professes” to be conservative and whose official platform expresses the principles of the TEA Party movement. We must animate those self identified conservatives to take a decision first to vote and to vote for a party that is “reformed” and reflects those same first principles. In this effort, our priority should be to establish these TEA Party distinctives and negotiate our desired outcome. And where those negotiations or responses fail, we need to progress our agenda in any appropriate and responsible way to achieve those same objectives.
However, we should always think about winning elections, changing the makeup of the legislative leadership and holding them accountable throughout their political careers. In this way, the TEA Party movement can morph and adapt to the realities on the ground and respond to our local aspirations while keeping an eye on the national stage. With the exception of those of you who live in Tennessee, influencing our elections at best is limited to phone banking or GOTV by supplying people to local party activities. Any strategy must incorporate the tactics and operational execution required to achieve results. This of course also requires what I refer to as the “necessary and sufficient” capacity to serve. That is, the organization, the single mindedness to focus on outcomes and the energy, skills and execution to achieve the strategy.
And while I applaud the openness of this dialogue, Michael Steele isn’t the enemy or some foreign dignitary, he is a key leader in the RNC who has the control of the apparatus that supports the conservative party in the US, the Republicans. For my part, I welcome associations with the RNC, the NRCC, the NRSC as well as local party affiliations, clubs and relationships. I do this so as to engender cooperation and increase influence for the TEA Party and to act as a change agent within the party at my local community level. And in the process, the Memphis TEA Party gains power to change minds, advance ideas, influence candidates and win elections. This approach may not be appropriate for a given organization, but it is the approach we have taken here and one which is beginning to pay dividends.
The idea of being co-opted by the RNC or by the local Republican leadership is only problematic when TEA Party leadership is uncertain of its own strategic objectives. This is why mission, objectives and tactics become so important to achieving our mutual success and ultimately taking back our country. It is also necessary to retain the mantle of legitimacy and the high favorability rating that we now enjoy! Therefore, we should strive to support each other in our communications and through our actions lest we risk diluting that very same good will. And in that same vein, we must ask, “who would benefit from my commentary outside of the TEA Party movement”.
In the end, you may disagree and even oppose my reasoning, but I welcome your views. And most of all, I encourage you to reflect on your objectives in context of your own local movement and energy!
God bless America!
All The President's History - "Release The Birth Documents"
REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION
By: Michael Johns
Contact
Michael at Email: michaeldjohns@gmail.com
One of
the most constructive developments of the past eight months is that tens of
millions of Americans appear to be reawakening to the critical importance and
relevance of the U.S. Constitution. The brazen growth of the federal
government, which now controls sizable portions of the economy (automobiles,
banks, health care, mortgages and other industry segments), violates the tenets
of free market capitalism, the system that has been the foundation of our
nation's globally unprecedented growth and prosperity. But this debate is not
merely a policy one. Increasingly, as millions of Americans associated with the
burgeoning Tea Party and 912 Project movements are demonstrating, the debate is
about whether such expansions of federal powers are even Constitutionally
permissible.
It is
difficult to pinpoint exactly when the dangerous disregard for our nation's
founding legal document began. It certainly predates this administration. But
the culture upon which it rests might be best exemplified in the apparent
Congressional and media group think that our 44th President holds no obligation
to respond to questions about his Constitutional eligibility, under Article II,
Section I of the Constitution, to hold the office to which he ran and was
elected. This Constitutional provision states unequivocally that no person
except a natural born citizen shall be eligible to the Office of President.
Is
Barack Obama a natural born citizen of the United States? Probably. But because
Obama is going to great lengths to conceal the documents that would settle this
issue definitively, it is impossible to say for sure. Since October 2008, Obama
has spent in excess of $1.35 million in legal fees to file protective and
privacy motions in at least eight federal lawsuits to avoid releasing the
documents--his mother's hospital admission record, his Hawaii certificate of
live birth, his educational records during his four years of residence in
Indonesia, his Indonesian citizen status at that time and the time of his
subsequent reentry to the U.S., and his college and law school admission
records--that likely would definitively establish his Constitutional
eligibility. Congress, the media, and even many Obama opponents, meanwhile,
have failed to exert any pressure on him to halt his pro-active legal measures
to avoid disclosure of these documents.
Quite
obviously, the question of a President's Constitutional eligibility is serious
business. It was serious business when, in February 2008, The New York Times
called into question Senator John McCain's eligibility for the office because
McCain was born on an American Naval base in the Panama Canal Zone, which was
then under U.S. control. "It is certainly not a frivolous issue," The
Times quoted Atlanta attorney Jill Pryor as saying at the time. The questions
also were serious enough for the U.S. Senate to investigate them, with the
Senate ultimately concluding in a unanimous vote that the U.S. administration
of the Panama Canal Zone at that time meant that McCain was indeed a natural
born citizen and eligible for the Presidency.
Whatever
these records might reveal, Obama's extensive, year-long efforts to conceal
them are now inexplicable, inexcusable and harmful to the nation. There is no
innocuous explanation for his extensive efforts to conceal them, especially
since their release is easily authorized and would settle the controversy,
permitting the nation to move on with full confidence in his Constitutional
eligibility and the Constitutional foundations of our nation in 2009. But Obama
has refused to do this and, as a result, a frightening and growing number of
Americans now understandably ask the question: What exactly is he hiding?
Let me
stipulate that, despite following this issue for a year, I am utterly unable to
answer that question. But logic dictates that one would not expend in excess of
a million dollars in legal fees, as Obama has done, knowing that the only
likely result is that a certain percentage of the American people will view
such efforts as non-transparent, or even malfeasant. Conversely, it also is
wrong to conclude, in the absence of these documents, that Obama has
necessarily misrepresented anything about his birth location or Constitutional
eligibility, as some critics of Obama's concealment of these documents continue
to do. Under pressure to settle the issue during his Presidential candidacy,
the Obama campaign ultimately produced a Certification of Live Birth in 2007,
but that document, skeptics argue, is manufactured by the state and is not an
unequivocal authentication of his birth location.
The most important point is this: No national interest is served by permitting these important questions to linger and persist. To settle them, Obama should cease blocking release of the documents sought by the plaintiffs in the various federal cases over his eligibility. And going forward, it seems reasonable to insist that our nation's Federal Election Commission (FEC), which is charged with regulatory oversight of Presidential elections, require Presidential candidates to submit, along with their candidacy filing, the documents that clearly establish their natural-born eligibility for the office. Americans' confidence in our Constitutionally-rooted democratic political system requires no less.
Elections Matter - "District 83 & The Memphis TEA Party PAC"
The TEA Party movement began as a visceral response to the out of control spending in our nation’s Capitol. Rallies were held around the United States and people vented their frustrations in a peaceful demonstration of “we’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore”. Signs were made, meeting and rallies were attended, “instant TEA” protests held and all culminated in the summer of discontent during the August recess of Congress.
However, while these rallies and events served to develop a sense of group outrage and a way in which the conservative values of millions of Americans could be demonstrated, the subsequent “what next” questions began to be asked.
It was clear that the MSM was not going to cover these events or even the movement. The over one million people who marched on Washington were ignored and even Obama stated that he didn’t know that a rally was going on as he jetted off to his healthcare rally in Minnesota. Up until this time, most people were content with their collective expression of anger and frustration. No matter that they were ignored! The political pundits believed that this too shall pass and given enough time, the TEA Party movement would collapse of its own emotional exhaustion.
However, early in the formation of The Memphis TEA Party, it was apparent to this author that the emotion engendered in these early activities needed to be met with a clear call to action if we were indeed going to make a difference in the body politic. To be sure, there were those in the movement who believed that the TEA Party had to be about keeping our “grass roots” orientation with no formal political affiliation. This fact resulted in some splintering of groups, even here in Memphis.
Nonetheless, our view was that in order for the TEA Party movement to be effective, it had to express the collective power of its membership in conjunction with the emotional energy that was being generated through rallies and other events. There were also calls to remain politically neutral to ensure that the movement wouldn’t be tainted by supporting one particular party or another. And while I agree with the notion of not becoming a subsidiary of the Republican Party, I also believe that, just like the old bank robber – you go where the money is, and that is where most of the conservative constituents and representatives reside.
In this context, The Memphis TEA Party recognized the need to create a PAC and so we formed The Memphis TEA Party PAC for purposes of developing candidates and supporting them through the primary election cycle through to their hoped for election to local, state and national offices. We launched a twice weekly radio show, Memphis TEA Party Live! For God & Country on the local AM station, KWAM990. In conjunction with this directed effort, we also began to formulate a strategy around the establishment of a Conservative Precinct Leadership organization that would be run by The Memphis TEA Party and therefore beholding not to any actual party organization. This overall approach would allow us to raise money, develop exploratory committees, recruit candidates and get out the vote during the election cycles. And while we would support various national efforts, such as the NY23 Congressional race with Hoffman, our focus would be on localism.
Our first efforts were to support a state representative candidate in his primary election here in TN for the TN District 83 special election. This position opened up after the incumbent, Brian Kelsey, decided to run for State Senator to replace the incumbent who had resigned in disgrace. Mark White, a solid conservative, small business owner who had always lived in the district and who I had the opportunity to meet through our TEA Party efforts, was contending against John Pellicciotti in the Republican primary.
In order to assist Mark, we had him on our radio show, Memphis TEA Party Live! For God & Country, to do morning and evening interviews, supported his fund raising activity and participated in his calling campaigns and GOTV initiatives. In the end, Mark won the primary by 300 votes and will contend for the general election on January 12, 2010 against the Democrat candidate. The district is heavily Republican and Mark should be able to win with the party and the TEA Party’s help. When asked about our involvement, Mark White stated, "It has been said that all politics is local. The strength of this nation has always been the individual in every community across our great country. The Tea Party Movement represents Grassroots politics at the local level. If we are ever to change the giant bureaucracy that Big government has given us it will be that "We The People" join together community by community and stand firm for the freedoms that our Constitution has given us."
Mark White is a perfect example of how the TEA Party movement can make a difference from the primary election cycle through to the general election and drive the change it seeks. To be sure, we do not believe that The Memphis TEA Party PAC was solely responsible for his election; however, we amplified his own campaign efforts and those of the Republican party throughout the primary cycle achieving our goal of electing Mark White.
So where do we go from here? First, we will help Mark White in the general election. Next, The Memphis TEA Party PAC has formed an exploratory committee to present a candidate to run in a largely Democratic, black district against the incumbent, Congressman Steve Cohen. We will be announcing her candidacy as we move along the vetting and exploratory process. And of course, we have the 2010 election cycle which includes our Shelby County mayoral race, the county commissioner races, sheriff and other elected positions that we will be engaged in helping candidates who reflect our conservative values and orientation towards fiscal responsibility and personal responsibility.
In the end, we believe that the TEA Party movement must focus itself on taking back the levers of power through candidate development, support and elections. There is no success in a third party movement. Our goal should be to establish PACs, collaborate across states, regions and nationally, but be focused on our own local elections to groom the future candidates for national office. The Memphis TEA Party is focused on bringing to bear the emotion, energy, ingenuity and conservative values of its membership in meeting the challenges of our nation and those who would represent us!
Jobs Summit - "Tax Day Tea Party Prescription"
As I reflect on the latest "Job Summit" announced by the President for Thursday, December 3rd, I was reminded of the speech I first offered at the Tax Day TEA Party in Memphis on April 15, 2009. I thought it would be interesting to go back and republish the prescriptions for job creation and then compare those to the likes of the President's initiatives and even those of Newt Gingrich as shared in his "The Real Jobs Summit". See what you think after you get a chance to digest the details! And remember, what may seem like prescience is in fact, common sense. And it is exactly common sense that seems to be sorely missing from this administration!
Good afternoon,
Thank you for coming to this kickoff event in Memphis and thank you for your support of the nationwide TEA Party movement. I say this is a movement because we are here not simply to vent our frustration, but to begin the process of organizing and developing a charter to reduce government in size and scope, drive responsible fiscal policy along with reduced spending and keep taxes low.
Before getting to my prepared remarks, I just wanted to make sure that this group was not comprised of “radicalized right wing extremists”, who as Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano reported, “can be broadly divided into those groups, movements and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."
You cannot ignore the context or the timing of this DHS report. It's no small coincidence that Napolitano's agency disseminated the assessment just a week before the nationwide April 15 Tax Day Tea Party protests. The grassroots events organized by fiscal conservatives, independents, Libertarians and, yes, even some Blue Dog Democrats were fueled by the "current economic and political climate" of bipartisan profligate spending and endless taxpayer-funded bailouts. The growing success of the loose-knit movement has invited scorn, ridicule and fear-mongering from Obama's supporters. Liberal bloggers have likened the Tea Party movement to neo-Nazis, militias and even Weather Underground terrorists.
However, our objective is not to spew hate or to sow the seeds of discord. Our efforts are based on the underlying premise that “We The People”, have the right to make our voices heard and through peaceful assembly, demonstrate our frustration with unabated spending and borrowing. We are creating the basis of a grass roots movement that will further those efforts necessary to hold our government representatives accountable for their actions, both through policy influence and at the voting booth.
For too long -people who have worked hard, kept the faith and did what was expected of them in life, business and family – we have held our tongues and were counted on to keep our place while those who would lord over us made policy. This is not to say that all government is bad or that the responsibility of American citizens does not include contributing for the national good. However, the spending policies of our previous administration and the current administration have saddled every man, woman and child with a debt of over $29,000! Current discretionary spending has reached the $1 trillion dollar mark. The stimulus package, the federal budget and government guarantees now exceed $12 trillion dollars!
In the city of New York, just over 41,000 people pay 50% of the city income tax. And nationally, the top 25% of income earners pay over 86% of all Federal Income tax. Can we expect to balance the budget and pay down these deficits without expanding the tax base? Do you really expect that you will not be impacted by these facts and the ensuing inflation from printing so much money?
And as it relates to our national security, can we really sleep at night knowing that the Chinese are the major financiers of our debt?
Of course the answer to all of these questions is a resounding NO.
Now to be sure, all is not lost. The effort we are undertaking today will allow us to become a political force to be reckoned with. So what could our prescription look like over the current administration’s views?
Investment & Tax Policy:
First, productive people need to be the drivers of economic improvement. I don’t mean to suggest that people who are lower wage earners should not be helped, but if those who are productive, entrepreneurial and innovative aren’t succeeding, than no one will benefit. In this context, I would propose making the Bush tax cuts permanent thus providing certainty about tax legislation and which will stop or at least reduce the need for “tax strategies” in 2010 that may create aberrations in the current economy. Uncertainty is the worst thing that can happen in tough times and the current tax environment only creates further complexity and noise. Source: thestate.com/business/story/687874.html
Second, take the corporate tax rate down to a cap of 35% from the current 39.3%. The 35% rate would be 1% lower than our friends to the north (Canada for those of you in Rio Linda) and 2% higher than Mexico. But if we really wanted to get radical, we could reduce rates to that other English-speaking nation, the UK and cap it at 30%. Source: taxfoundation.org
Third, individuals invest for their retirement and are motivated by return on investment just like those nasty Wall Street bankers. Look at your 401K lately, those money markets? Well unless you are in various debentures or tax free muni’s, you have either lost money or are earning a whopping 2-3%! So, let’s rev up the returns engine and take the long term capital gains from the current 15% down to 0%. This would incentivize investment while allowing people to take the long view. Heck, you might even buy some of those foreclosed homes, rehab them, lease them out and later sell them, knowing that you would keep all the upside! No longer would just the big guys play this game but the average investor could do the same! Oh, and we would be just like that other bastion of democracy and member of the “special status” of the Republic of China – Hong Kong! Source: lowtax.net
Fourth, instead of all of these bailouts, let the companies fail and allow private equity to come in and buy the assets. However, we do need to assist the financial institutions through organized bankruptcy and backed by the normal insurance practices of the FDIC. These exotic instruments that turned an illiquid asset like real estate liquid are to blame for much of the current pain. But let’s also make sure that the regulatory oversight that was missing in the current environment and the use of a quasi-state enterprise like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are no longer allowed to make loans without sufficient down payments and only to home owners, not home “investors”.
The current bailout tab is $2.2 trillion with a committed liability of $9.9 trillion dollars! Source: nytimes.com/interactive/2009/02/04/business/20090205-bailout-totals-graphic.html. That represents 70% of the GDP of the United States. Putting this in context, we could let all of these banks and institutions fail, move them through a planned bankruptcy and pay out those monies to every man, woman and child in the United States. Now this would mean that an average family would receive a check for over $29,000 based on current expenditures and nearly $128,000 when all liabilities are included. Of course, this still doesn’t deal with the fact that our currency will be made nearly worthless and result in hyperinflation in the future, but it’s fun to imagine the “rebate” checks you would have until our “chickens came home to roost”. So, while this might be fun to imagine – I don’t recommend it and would cease any further bailouts or accepting any further liability unless we were able to unwind the government’s position in the asset in a timely fashion. Interestingly, the government has stopped publishing the M3 money supply but that hasn’t stopped the impact of so much printing resulting in higher costs of goods! Source: seekingalpha.com/article/83506-rising-money-supply-and-the-economy
Energy & Renewables:
First, we are not getting off oil any time soon. Oil powers the country and impacts almost every industry that either manufactures something or moves something. We need oil for the near term and likely for the long term. However, we must move away from our reliance on foreign production and drive local production. Current drilling techniques and technology make drilling less likely to impact the environment and allows for deeper exploration with lower risk. We need to open up off-shore drilling, ANWAR in Alaska, tar sands - the richest of which are in Utah and California with 60-80 billion barrels and 11 billion recoverable (DOE estimates), and of course friendly country exploration.
Second, we need new refinery capacity in this country. We need to incentivize and make available fast track legislation to develop the necessary capacity as no new refineries have been built in this country in the last 20 years. If you wonder why gasoline didn’t drop as fast as oil over the last 6 months, it’s because we buy so much of our gasoline from overseas refiners. Since 1982, we have gone from importing 200,000 barrels per day to approximately 1.3 million barrels per day of foreign refined gasoline – an over six fold increase! Why, because we have insufficient refining capacity. There is plenty of oil just insufficient refining capacity in this country. Anybody want a job? Source: tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wgtimus2w.htm
Third, as it relates to gasoline, as of 2005, we have at least 11 special blends of gasoline mandated by states and metropolitan areas. When factoring in the various grades of gasoline, we have at least 45 different blends and grades that have to be managed through the supply chain! Since 2005, this has increased although the GAO of the US government isn’t sure how many currently are mandated. This fact has increased complexity in delivery of gasoline and the occasional supply interruptions we now see when a storm hits, as did Katrina. As those of you who remember the fitness guru Susan Powter would say – “Stop the madness”. The Federal government (yes even I think they have some function in the economy) needs to present a coherent standard for all states, perhaps reducing the grading system and move to fewer blends. Do any of your actually fill up with 89 Octane versus 87 Octane versus 93 Octane. Couldn’t we just do with 87 and 93 Octane and one or two special blends for environmental benefits? This alone would have an impact on distribution and refining costs. Of course this would create transparency in the supply chain and probably result in the refiners making less money! Source: Highlights of GAO-05-421, a report to congressional requesters
Fourth, we need to leverage our coal technology and figure out how to improve and reduce environmental impact. We are already seeing a delay in the development of coal fired plants which will impact electricity availability in the future unless and until this government gets clear on policies and regulations proposed to the utility providers. How can we create such lack of transparency in the regulatory environment without an alternative? Encourage improved coal fired technology through tax policy and work with the utilities on the best know and future technologies to reduce carbon emissions. Provide a certain regulatory environment and get electricity production moving forward. With over 20 plants cancelled or delayed, parts of the west and southwest will see rolling brownouts and blackouts in the future without further electricity production. Source: articles.latimes.com/p/2008/jan/18/nation/na-coal18
Fifth, we need to go nuclear. Of the 30 countries with nuclear power, the percentage of electricity supplied by nuclear ranged widely: from a high of 78 percent in France; to 54 percent in Belgium; 39 percent in Republic of Korea; 37 percent in Switzerland; 30 percent in Japan; 19 percent in the USA; 16 percent in Russia; 4 percent in South Africa; and 2 percent in China. Present nuclear power plant expansion is centered in Asia: 15 of the 29 units under construction at the end of 2006 were in Asia. And 26 of the last 36 reactors to have been connected to the grid were in Asia. India currently gets less than 3% of its electricity from nuclear, but at the end of 2006 it had one-quarter of the nuclear construction - 7 of the world´s 29 reactors that were under construction. India´s plans are even more impressive: an 8-fold increase by 2022 to 10 percent of the electricity supply and a 75-fold increase by 2052 to reach 26 percent of the electricity supply. A 75-fold increase works out to an average of 9.4 percent/yr, about the same as average global nuclear growth from 1970 through 2004. So it is hardly unprecedented. So, let’s get on with it and stop acting like a third world country and at least meet the goals established by those French Europeans Obama is always talking about! We are at least as smart as the French and the Belgians, are we not? Source: iaea.org/NewsCenter/PressReleases/2007/prn200719.html
Finally, we need to keep working on green technologies to include wind and solar. But these should be developed in concert with the aforementioned approaches. If tax incentives are to be used, they should be capped and limited to a maximum of 10 years. If we can’t make it feasible in that time (remember we sent a man to the moon when we set that goal), then let the technology evolve on its own why relying on traditional approaches.
Healthcare & Education:
Okay, I have lumped the last two into one box because I am tired of fixing all the other problems government has created! So here goes.
First, Healthcare costs are out of control due in part to litigation and insurance. Litigation requires doctors to do more tests, through which they make money – MRI’s are ordered by doctors who own the MRI machine and lawyers would sue if the doctor missed something that would have been caught by an MRI. See how well this loop works? Additionally, doctors have been loath to implement new patient care technologies and office automation. We need this to change to enhance outcome based services and reduce the inefficiency of medical records and diagnostics. As such, both litigation needs to be dealt with through tort reform and for this; doctors will need to commit to embracing these proven technologies. With lower malpractice insurance and improved patient care, doctors will make more money, patients will be better cared for and the lawyers won’t be as busy taking one third to one half of your settlement. I would rather keep my life in any case rather than have my heirs get my half of the settlement. Technology is key here and as a technologist, I have sold and deployed these capabilities in the past. They work and the doctors need to get on the band wagon. Source: ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?article_id=3047
Second, insurance must be made transportable. Existing conditions should not be a deal breaker and mandating that anyone who needs insurance can get insurance is a requirement of this policy. To be sure, we need to manage the charges for this approach and while I am not prescribing an economic model, people who want to pay and often can pay are not able to buy insurance. In addition, I would go back to President Regan’s approach to a “catastrophic health insurance plan”. He was right then and it is right now. This approach would allow for an effective method of reducing the destruction of wealth that occurs in the uninsured while enhancing the insurance people are able to purchase at a lower rate. I would expand this to all uninsured. Source: nytimes.com/1987/02/13/us/text-of-statements-by-reagan-and-white-house.html?sec=health
Ok, now here comes the one bit of social policy I will prescribe. No amount of money is going to correct for the amount of single parent families and the poverty and developmental problems this creates in educational outcome. This does not mean that all single parent families are failures or that children from single family households can’t succeed. It is simply a fact that the research finds that these households are at greatest risk in terms of poverty, lower educational success and delayed emotional development in general. Source: Living arrangements of single-mother families: Variations, transitions, and child development outcomes
While mixed families and transitional arrangements tend to see improved outcomes, the traditional mother and father working with their children has the greatest propensity for success. The current report on births in the USA stated that 4.5 million children were born in the country last year. Over 40% were to single mothers! While some choose to have children and simply live together (think Hollywood), most are out of wedlock births. Source: abcnews.go.com/Health/ReproductiveHealth/wireStory?id=7111878
So with such staggering statistics evident in our society, what is my prescription? Well, first, get the message out and share the statistics. Second, continue to invest in outcome based education such as the “No Child Left Behind Act”. Third, encourage marriage and the family – stop accepting the current behaviors and promote the traditional family as a source of benefit to children. Divorce is too easy and men are too eager to ditch their responsibilities. For until we unite financial, moral and spiritual elements of education and family development, these trends will result in further degradation to our children’s lives and their success – at school and in their adult life!
So there it is – my domestic agenda and my specific actions if I were king – I mean president. It is an alternate vision to this country over the current track President Obama is taking us. Each of these ideas can be personally felt, determined in the household and evaluated in context of your own life and outcomes. There is little ambiguity here and it is a transparent approach to those things that have motivated the American dream for centuries – self worth, self action, collective creativity and a unified nation through its traditional family structure. Would it work? Can’t tell you for we won’t ever get to try. But ask yourself this one question, if these recommendations took place immediately, would you do better financially, would job opportunities in energy, manufacturing, health care increase, would your family be better off financially, would you feel more secure about your future and would you appreciate the value placed on your family and its values?
Thank you for listening!
Junk Science & Liberalism – “Intended Unintended Consequences”
Obama is in a free fall, the Democrats are under pressure for their rabid ideology, the real unemployment rate (U6) is at 17.5% or one in five Americans and now we get confirmation of what we knew all along – global warming is the greatest hoax and power grab ever perpetrated on mankind!
Liberalism lives in a sort of “bizaro” world where good intentions and ideology dictate that the elitists know better and you are simply a rube who is too stupid to understand and recognize what is good for you! Essentially, we see this over time from the progressive “New Deal” policies of FDR to Johnson’s “Great Society” programs and the “Redistributive” practices of the current White House resident. In every case, the intended consequences were to improve life for people, share the benefit of our wealth and prosperity and provide a safety net for Americans from all walks of life.
However, as we moved from safety nets to “save the world”, the ideas became bigger, the taxes and control by a global governmental structure more obvious and the need to “prove” the case that we are in imminent catastrophic danger more urgent. Al Gore first used this idea to promote his agenda and generate his wealth, Ban Ki Moon sees the need for a UN treaty that will bind all nations to this policy and Prince Charles tells us we have only a few months before our destruction. I love this last one because it is his “boys” that created the sham!
But the most interesting fact of all is that when science or the discovery of facts that do not fit the narrative are generated through reasoned inquiry, the liberal needs to square their worldview with the new fact by either a) ignoring the facts, b) attacking the messenger, c) propagandize and d) lie.
Take the New Deal and Great Society programs. Social Security and Medicare, which were to be modest programs providing a safety net, are either bankrupt or about to bankrupt this nation. Can the liberal look back at their own history and review the facts that their projections and desire to expand these services created the failure? No, it doesn’t square with their worldview, so they ignore those facts and obfuscate the issues by attacking anyone who would point this out.
Welfare and public housing were two other “good ideas” that would help the poor, particularly the black inner city population. For over forty years, these programs have paid and paid in what is arguably the largest transfer of wealth ever in the history of man – some $8.2 trillion dollars, according to a study published by the Heritage Foundation. And yet, we have no improvement in poverty, education or family dissolution! In fact, dropout rates are at the highest level in history, out of wedlock births are approaching 50% and over 70% in some communities and incarceration is increasingly the norm on the resume’ of most poor and particularly, inner city populations.
So, as we turn to global warming, we find these same “do gooders” wanting all of us to partake in their Kool-Aid and tax ourselves into oblivion while their science is quoted as proof that we are indeed a world in trouble. Yet when the skeptics attempted to demonstrate otherwise, these same liberals decreed that consensus had been reached and the proof was in the fact that so many scientists and the global community had agreed that global warming was a threat and needed to be addressed. The treaties that have been proposed were such an affront to an freedom loving person as to be completely unacceptable. And of course, the world community would have been able to transfer huge sums from the “rich countries” to the “poor countries” all through a global governmental agency that was to be formed through this treaty!
The problem with this argument all along has been the fact that consensus is not science. It only takes one person to refute the assumption with the facts and you have a correction to that consensus. Most people believed that the earth was at the center of the universe. In fact, Copernicus postulated that it was the sun at the center of the universe. But it was Galileo that proved the sun was actually at the center of our solar system.
It was with great pleasure that I discovered that some crafty hackers were able to discover the “facts” of the chief scientific community when they downloaded 61 megabytes of emails. In a sense, you could say that technology proved the global warming alarmists wrong! And it will be through that same technology that we will discover the depths to which “junk science” is used to prove the case of the ideologue when it comes to climate change and the political implications that go along with such nonsense. You see, these ideologues will not succumb to the facts when it comes to their worldview and their desire to change that world. It is after all the resulting outcome of the intended unintended consequence.
Come to think of it, I believe there is another such ideologue who resides in the White House. But that’s another blog for another day!
Healthcare Reform - "Pass The Taxes Please"
Download | Duration: 00:23:07
Manhattan Declaration - "When Government Declared War on Life"
The Dialogue Has Changed
The current status of the health care legislation is becoming clear. While the TEA Party movement has generally not been about social issues, the declaration of war by the House and Senate on those who hold a pro life view is obvious. The taking of our tax dollars and allocating those same dollars to institutionalize a practice which more than fifty percent of America deems unacceptable is nothing less than an affront to any life affirming person.
In this context, we can no longer stand silent and say that we should only oppose those elements of the legislation that would increase spending, taxes and decrease the quality of health care. With the Senate bill now embedding language which will pay for abortions with those same tax dollars, we must take a stand. From our perspective,liberty includes religious liberty and freedom of speech. While we have never condemned those who take other decisions about life or their views about marriage and the family, it is incomprehensible that these legislators would take this initiative and create such a division between people of faith and their fellow Americans when it comes to the use of our tax dollars.
Most importantly, the continued and often rabid approach to diminishing the role and views of these same people of faith is all to evident in the secular press and now our government. This disregard of the right to abstain from such acts or to confiscate and allocate taxes for such purposes must be opposed with the greatest of efforts. It is interesting to note that several legislators have asked for the IRS to investigate the Catholic Church due to their own opposition of abortion in these bills. This fact should concern anyone who disagrees with this administration or those who do not support such a radical agenda.
It is for this reason that people should inform themselves and make their voices heard with these Senators. On a personal level, I have always argued the point of distinction that the costs and the degradation of our health care services were sufficient to oppose these bills. However, I am also a person of conscience and in this context, I must oppose the use of my tax dollars to support this act of barbarism.
When Roe v. Wade was decided by the Supreme Court in 1973, ultrasound and CAT scan technologies were in their infancy. Our understanding of life in utero was not nearly as complete as it is today. We know that these lives knowingly respond to stimuli, feel pain, dream, recognize sound and taste and have all the attributes of any human before they are viable outside the womb. Our science has allowed us to fully comprehend this fact and it is why thirty-two states are moving towards personhood laws. Contrast this reliance of scientific fact with the fuzzy logic and scientific ambiguity of global warming. Yet those who are "true believers" bellow we are all fools not to embrace their agendas. "Save the world" and "Stop global warming" has resulted in all sorts of reductions in liberty and personal choice. Yet the one choice they will not allow is the choice of that unborn child.
In the end, this is no longer a dollars and cents discussion, but due to the obvious choices of the liberals in our Senate and Congress, it is a matter of life or death. We can no longer sit on the sidelines in this matter. Please read the Manhattan Declaration for yourself and consider your own views on this matter. For me, I will most strenuously object to any legislation that is not fiscally responsible and life affirming.
Preamble
Christians of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God's word, seeking justice in our societies, resisting tyranny, and reaching out with compassion to the poor, oppressed and suffering.
While fully acknowledging the imperfections and shortcomings of Christian institutions and communities in all ages, we claim the heritage of those Christians who defended innocent life by rescuing discarded babies from trash heaps in Roman cities and publicly denouncing the Empire's sanctioning of infanticide. We remember with reverence those believers who sacrificed their lives by remaining in Roman cities to tend the sick and dying during the plagues, and who died bravely in the coliseums rather than deny their Lord.
After the barbarian tribes overran Europe, Christian monasteries preserved not only the Bible but also the literature and art of Western culture. It was Christians who combated the evil of slavery: Papal edicts in the 16th and 17th centuries decried the practice of slavery and first excommunicated anyone involved in the slave trade; evangelical Christians in England, led by John Wesley and William Wilberforce, put an end to the slave trade in that country. Christians under Wilberforce's leadership also formed hundreds of societies for helping the poor, the imprisoned, and child laborers chained to machines.
In Europe, Christians challenged the divine claims of kings and successfully fought to establish the rule of law and balance of governmental powers, which made modern democracy possible. And in America, Christian women stood at the vanguard of the suffrage movement. The great civil rights crusades of the 1950s and 60s were led by Christians claiming the Scriptures and asserting the glory of the image of God in every human being regardless of race, religion, age or class.
This same devotion to human dignity has led Christians in the last decade to work to end the dehumanizing scourge of human trafficking and sexual slavery, bring compassionate care to AIDS sufferers in Africa, and assist in a myriad of other human rights causes - from providing clean water in developing nations to providing homes for tens of thousands of children orphaned by war, disease and gender discrimination.
Like those who have gone before us in the faith, Christians today are called to proclaim the Gospel of costly grace, to protect the intrinsic dignity of the human person and to stand for the common good. In being true to its own calling, the call to discipleship, the church through service to others can make a profound contribution to the public good.
Declaration
We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities. We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image. We set forth this declaration in light of the truth that is grounded in Holy Scripture, in natural human reason (which is itself, in our view, the gift of a beneficent God), and in the very nature of the human person. We call upon all people of goodwill, believers and non-believers alike, to consider carefully and reflect critically on the issues we here address as we, with St. Paul, commend this appeal to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.
While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.
Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense. In this declaration we affirm: 1) the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life; 2) marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society and; 3) religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image.
We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right - and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation - to speak and act in defense of these truths. We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence. It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty.
Life
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:27
I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. John 10:10
Although public sentiment has moved in a pro-life direction, we note with sadness that pro-abortion ideology prevails today in our government. The present administration is led and staffed by those who want to make abortions legal at any stage of fetal development, and who want to provide abortions at taxpayer expense. Majorities in both houses of Congress hold pro-abortion views. The Supreme Court, whose infamous 1973 decision inRoe v. Wade stripped the unborn of legal protection, continues to treat elective abortion as a fundamental constitutional right, though it has upheld as constitutionally permissible some limited restrictions on abortion. The President says that he wants to reduce the "need" for abortion - a commendable goal. But he has also pledged to make abortion more easily and widely available by eliminating laws prohibiting government funding, requiring waiting periods for women seeking abortions, and parental notification for abortions performed on minors. The elimination of these important and effective pro-life laws cannot reasonably be expected to do other than significantly increase the number of elective abortions by which the lives of countless children are snuffed out prior to birth. Our commitment to the sanctity of life is not a matter of partisan loyalty, for we recognize that in the thirty-six years since Roe v. Wade, elected officials and appointees of both major political parties have been complicit in giving legal sanction to what Pope John Paul II described as "the culture of death." We call on all officials in our country, elected and appointed, to protect and serve every member of our society, including the most marginalized, voiceless, and vulnerable among us.
A culture of death inevitably cheapens life in all its stages and conditions by promoting the belief that lives that are imperfect, immature or inconvenient are discardable. As predicted by many prescient persons, the cheapening of life that began with abortion has now metastasized. For example, human embryo-destructive research and its public funding are promoted in the name of science and in the cause of developing treatments and cures for diseases and injuries. The President and many in Congress favor the expansion of embryo-research to include the taxpayer funding of so-called "therapeutic cloning." This would result in the industrial mass production of human embryos to be killed for the purpose of producing genetically customized stem cell lines and tissues. At the other end of life, an increasingly powerful movement to promote assisted suicide and "voluntary" euthanasia threatens the lives of vulnerable elderly and disabled persons. Eugenic notions such as the doctrine of lebensunwertes Leben ("life unworthy of life") were first advanced in the 1920s by intellectuals in the elite salons of America and Europe. Long buried in ignominy after the horrors of the mid-20th century, they have returned from the grave. The only difference is that now the doctrines of the eugenicists are dressed up in the language of "liberty," "autonomy," and "choice."
We will be united and untiring in our efforts to roll back the license to kill that began with the abandonment of the unborn to abortion. We will work, as we have always worked, to bring assistance, comfort, and care to pregnant women in need and to those who have been victimized by abortion, even as we stand resolutely against the corrupt and degrading notion that it can somehow be in the best interests of women to submit to the deliberate killing of their unborn children. Our message is, and ever shall be, that the just, humane, and truly Christian answer to problem pregnancies is for all of us to love and care for mother and child alike.
A truly prophetic Christian witness will insistently call on those who have been entrusted with temporal power to fulfill the first responsibility of government: to protect the weak and vulnerable against violent attack, and to do so with no favoritism, partiality, or discrimination. The Bible enjoins us to defend those who cannot defend themselves, to speak for those who cannot themselves speak. And so we defend and speak for the unborn, the disabled, and the dependent. What the Bible and the light of reason make clear, we must make clear. We must be willing to defend, even at risk and cost to ourselves and our institutions, the lives of our brothers and sisters at every stage of development and in every condition.
Our concern is not confined to our own nation. Around the globe, we are witnessing cases of genocide and "ethnic cleansing," the failure to assist those who are suffering as innocent victims of war, the neglect and abuse of children, the exploitation of vulnerable laborers, the sexual trafficking of girls and young women, the abandonment of the aged, racial oppression and discrimination, the persecution of believers of all faiths, and the failure to take steps necessary to halt the spread of preventable diseases like AIDS. We see these travesties as flowing from the same loss of the sense of the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of human life that drives the abortion industry and the movements for assisted suicide, euthanasia, and human cloning for biomedical research. And so ours is, as it must be, a truly consistent ethic of love and life for all humans in all circumstances.
Marriage
The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Genesis 2:23-24
This is a profound mystery - but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. Ephesians 5:32-33
In Scripture, the creation of man and woman, and their one-flesh union as husband and wife, is the crowning achievement of God’s creation. In the transmission of life and the nurturing of children, men and women joined as spouses are given the great honor of being partners with God Himself. Marriage then, is the first institution of human society - indeed it is the institution on which all other human institutions have their foundation. In the Christian tradition we refer to marriage as "holy matrimony" to signal the fact that it is an institution ordained by God, and blessed by Christ in his participation at a wedding in Cana of Galilee. In the Bible, God Himself blesses and holds marriage in the highest esteem.
Vast human experience confirms that marriage is the original and most important institution for sustaining the health, education, and welfare of all persons in a society. Where marriage is honored, and where there is a flourishing marriage culture, everyone benefits - the spouses themselves, their children, the communities and societies in which they live. Where the marriage culture begins to erode, social pathologies of every sort quickly manifest themselves. Unfortunately, we have witnessed over the course of the past several decades a serious erosion of the marriage culture in our own country. Perhaps the most telling - and alarming - indicator is the out-of-wedlock birth rate. Less than fifty years ago, it was under 5 percent. Today it is over 40 percent. Our society - and particularly its poorest and most vulnerable sectors, where the out-of-wedlock birth rate is much higher even than the national average - is paying a huge price in delinquency, drug abuse, crime, incarceration, hopelessness, and despair. Other indicators are widespread non-marital sexual cohabitation and a devastatingly high rate of divorce.
We confess with sadness that Christians and our institutions have too often scandalously failed to uphold the institution of marriage and to model for the world the true meaning of marriage. Insofar as we have too easily embraced the culture of divorce and remained silent about social practices that undermine the dignity of marriage we repent, and call upon all Christians to do the same.
To strengthen families, we must stop glamorizing promiscuity and infidelity and restore among our people a sense of the profound beauty, mystery, and holiness of faithful marital love. We must reform ill-advised policies that contribute to the weakening of the institution of marriage, including the discredited idea of unilateral divorce. We must work in the legal, cultural, and religious domains to instill in young people a sound understanding of what marriage is, what it requires, and why it is worth the commitment and sacrifices that faithful spouses make.
The impulse to redefine marriage in order to recognize same-sex and multiple partner relationships is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture. It reflects a loss of understanding of the meaning of marriage as embodied in our civil and religious law and in the philosophical tradition that contributed to shaping the law. Yet it is critical that the impulse be resisted, for yielding to it would mean abandoning the possibility of restoring a sound understanding of marriage and, with it, the hope of rebuilding a healthy marriage culture. It would lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about procreation and the unique character and value of acts and relationships whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion and protection of life. In spousal communion and the rearing of children (who, as gifts of God, are the fruit of their parents’ marital love), we discover the profound reasons for and benefits of the marriage covenant.
We acknowledge that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct. We have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity; and we pay tribute to the men and women who strive, often with little assistance, to resist the temptation to yield to desires that they, no less than we, regard as wayward. We stand with them, even when they falter. We, no less than they, are sinners who have fallen short of God's intention for our lives. We, no less than they, are in constant need of God’s patience, love and forgiveness. We call on the entire Christian community to resist sexual immorality, and at the same time refrain from disdainful condemnation of those who yield to it. Our rejection of sin, though resolute, must never become the rejection of sinners. For every sinner, regardless of the sin, is loved by God, who seeks not our destruction but rather the conversion of our hearts. Jesus calls all who wander from the path of virtue to "a more excellent way." As his disciples we will reach out in love to assist all who hear the call and wish to answer it.
We further acknowledge that there are sincere people who disagree with us, and with the teaching of the Bible and Christian tradition, on questions of sexual morality and the nature of marriage. Some who enter into same-sex and polyamorous relationships no doubt regard their unions as truly marital. They fail to understand, however, that marriage is made possible by the sexual complementarity of man and woman, and that the comprehensive, multi-level sharing of life that marriage is includes bodily unity of the sort that unites husband and wife biologically as a reproductive unit. This is because the body is no mere extrinsic instrument of the human person, but truly part of the personal reality of the human being. Human beings are not merely centers of consciousness or emotion, or minds, or spirits, inhabiting non-personal bodies. The human person is a dynamic unity of body, mind, and spirit. Marriage is what one man and one woman establish when, forsaking all others and pledging lifelong commitment, they found a sharing of life at every level of being - the biological, the emotional, the dispositional, the rational, the spiritual - on a commitment that is sealed, completed and actualized by loving sexual intercourse in which the spouses become one flesh, not in some merely metaphorical sense, but by fulfilling together the behavioral conditions of procreation. That is why in the Christian tradition, and historically in Western law, consummated marriages are not dissoluble or annullable on the ground of infertility, even though the nature of the marital relationship is shaped and structured by its intrinsic orientation to the great good of procreation.
We understand that many of our fellow citizens, including some Christians, believe that the historic definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is a denial of equality or civil rights. They wonder what to say in reply to the argument that asserts that no harm would be done to them or to anyone if the law of the community were to confer upon two men or two women who are living together in a sexual partnership the status of being "married." It would not, after all, affect their own marriages, would it? On inspection, however, the argument that laws governing one kind of marriage will not affect another cannot stand. Were it to prove anything, it would prove far too much: the assumption that the legal status of one set of marriage relationships affects no other would not only argue for same sex partnerships; it could be asserted with equal validity for polyamorous partnerships, polygamous households, even adult brothers, sisters, or brothers and sisters living in incestuous relationships. Should these, as a matter of equality or civil rights, be recognized as lawful marriages, and would they have no effects on other relationships? No. The truth is that marriage is not something abstract or neutral that the law may legitimately define and re-define to please those who are powerful and influential.
No one has a civil right to have a non-marital relationship treated as a marriage. Marriage is an objective reality - a covenantal union of husband and wife - that it is the duty of the law to recognize and support for the sake of justice and the common good. If it fails to do so, genuine social harms follow. First, the religious liberty of those for whom this is a matter of conscience is jeopardized. Second, the rights of parents are abused as family life and sex education programs in schools are used to teach children that an enlightened understanding recognizes as "marriages" sexual partnerships that many parents believe are intrinsically non-marital and immoral. Third, the common good of civil society is damaged when the law itself, in its critical pedagogical function, becomes a tool for eroding a sound understanding of marriage on which the flourishing of the marriage culture in any society vitally depends. Sadly, we are today far from having a thriving marriage culture. But if we are to begin the critically important process of reforming our laws and mores to rebuild such a culture, the last thing we can afford to do is to re-define marriage in such a way as to embody in our laws a false proclamation about what marriage is.
And so it is out of love (not "animus") and prudent concern for the common good (not "prejudice"), that we pledge to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to rebuild the marriage culture. How could we, as Christians, do otherwise? The Bible teaches us that marriage is a central part of God's creation covenant. Indeed, the union of husband and wife mirrors the bond between Christ and his church. And so just as Christ was willing, out of love, to give Himself up for the church in a complete sacrifice, we are willing, lovingly, to make whatever sacrifices are required of us for the sake of the inestimable treasure that is marriage.
Religious Liberty
The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners. Isaiah 61:1
Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's. Matthew 22:21
The struggle for religious liberty across the centuries has been long and arduous, but it is not a novel idea or recent development. The nature of religious liberty is grounded in the character of God Himself, the God who is most fully known in the life and work of Jesus Christ. Determined to follow Jesus faithfully in life and death, the early Christians appealed to the manner in which the Incarnation had taken place: "Did God send Christ, as some suppose, as a tyrant brandishing fear and terror? Not so, but in gentleness and meekness..., for compulsion is no attribute of God" (Epistle to Diognetus 7.3-4). Thus the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the example of Christ Himself and in the very dignity of the human person created in the image of God - a dignity, as our founders proclaimed, inherent in every human, and knowable by all in the exercise of right reason.
Christians confess that God alone is Lord of the conscience. Immunity from religious coercion is the cornerstone of an unconstrained conscience. No one should be compelled to embrace any religion against his will, nor should persons of faith be forbidden to worship God according to the dictates of conscience or to express freely and publicly their deeply held religious convictions. What is true for individuals applies to religious communities as well.
It is ironic that those who today assert a right to kill the unborn, aged and disabled and also a right to engage in immoral sexual practices, and even a right to have relationships integrated around these practices be recognized and blessed by law - such persons claiming these "rights" are very often in the vanguard of those who would trample upon the freedom of others to express their religious and moral commitments to the sanctity of life and to the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife.
We see this, for example, in the effort to weaken or eliminate conscience clauses, and therefore to compel pro-life institutions (including religiously affiliated hospitals and clinics), and pro-life physicians, surgeons, nurses, and other health care professionals, to refer for abortions and, in certain cases, even to perform or participate in abortions. We see it in the use of anti-discrimination statutes to force religious institutions, businesses, and service providers of various sorts to comply with activities they judge to be deeply immoral or go out of business. After the judicial imposition of "same-sex marriage" in Massachusetts, for example, Catholic Charities chose with great reluctance to end its century-long work of helping to place orphaned children in good homes rather than comply with a legal mandate that it place children in same-sex households in violation of Catholic moral teaching. In New Jersey, after the establishment of a quasi-marital "civil unions" scheme, a Methodist institution was stripped of its tax exempt status when it declined, as a matter of religious conscience, to permit a facility it owned and operated to be used for ceremonies blessing homosexual unions. In Canada and some European nations, Christian clergy have been prosecuted for preaching Biblical norms against the practice of homosexuality. New hate-crime laws in America raise the specter of the same practice here.
In recent decades a growing body of case law has paralleled the decline in respect for religious values in the media, the academy and political leadership, resulting in restrictions on the free exercise of religion. We view this as an ominous development, not only because of its threat to the individual liberty guaranteed to every person, regardless of his or her faith, but because the trend also threatens the common welfare and the culture of freedom on which our system of republican government is founded. Restrictions on the freedom of conscience or the ability to hire people of one's own faith or conscientious moral convictions for religious institutions, for example, undermines the viability of the intermediate structures of society, the essential buffer against the overweening authority of the state, resulting in the soft despotism Tocqueville so prophetically warned of.1 Disintegration of civil society is a prelude to tyranny.
As Christians, we take seriously the Biblical admonition to respect and obey those in authority. We believe in law and in the rule of law. We recognize the duty to comply with laws whether we happen to like them or not, unless the laws are gravely unjust or require those subject to them to do something unjust or otherwise immoral. The biblical purpose of law is to preserve order and serve justice and the common good; yet laws that are unjust - and especially laws that purport to compel citizens to do what is unjust - undermine the common good, rather than serve it.
Going back to the earliest days of the church, Christians have refused to compromise their proclamation of the gospel. In Acts 4, Peter and John were ordered to stop preaching. Their answer was, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard." Through the centuries, Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required. There is no more eloquent defense of the rights and duties of religious conscience than the one offered by Martin Luther King, Jr., in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Writing from an explicitly Christian perspective, and citing Christian writers such as Augustine and Aquinas, King taught that just laws elevate and ennoble human beings because they are rooted in the moral law whose ultimate source is God Himself. Unjust laws degrade human beings. Inasmuch as they can claim no authority beyond sheer human will, they lack any power to bind in conscience. King's willingness to go to jail, rather than comply with legal injustice, was exemplary and inspiring.
Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's.
1Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
Drafting Committee
- Robert George
Professor, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University - Timothy George
Professor, Beeson Divinity School, Samford University - Chuck Colson
Founder, The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview (Lansdowne, Va.)
Signers (as of November 19, 2009)
- Dr. Daniel Akin
President, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (Wake Forest, N.C.) - Most Rev. Peter J. Akinola
Primate, Anglican Church of Nigeria (Abika, Nigeria) - Randy Alcorn
Founder and Director, Eternal Perspective Ministries (EPM) (Sandy, Ore.) - Rt. Rev. David Anderson
President and CEO, American Anglican Council (Atlanta) - Leith Anderson
President of National Association of Evangelicals (Washington, D.C.) - Charlotte K. Ardizzone
TV Show Host and Speaker, INSP Television (Charlotte, N.C.) - Kay Arthur
CEO and Co-founder, Precept Ministries International (Chattanooga, Tenn.) - Dr. Mark L. Bailey
President, Dallas Theological Seminary (Dallas) - Gary Bauer
President, American Values; Chairman, Campaign for Working Families - His Grace, The Right Reverend Bishop Basil Essey
The Right Reverend Bishop of the Diocese of Wichita and Mid-America (Wichita, Kan.) - Joel Belz
Founder, World Magazine (Asheville, N.C.) - Rev. Michael L. Beresford
Managing Director of Church Relations, Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (Charlotte, N.C.) - Ken Boa
President, Reflections Ministries (Atlanta) - Joseph Bottum
Editor of First Things (New York) - Pastor Randy & Sarah Brannon
Senior Pastor, Grace Community Church (Madera, Calif.) - Steve Brown
National Radio Broadcaster, Key Life (Maitland, Fla.) - Dr. Robert C. Cannada, Jr.
Chancellor and CEO, Reformed Theological Seminary (Orlando, Fla.) - Galen Carey
Director of Government Affairs, National Association of Evangelicals (Washington, D.C.) - Dr. Bryan Chapell
President, Covenant Theological Seminary (St. Louis) - Most Rev. Charles J. Chaput
Archbishop, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Denver - Timothy Clinton
President, American Association of Christian Counselors (Forest, Va.) - Chuck Colson
Founder, The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview (Lansdowne, Va.) - Most Rev. Salvatore Joseph Cordileone
Bishop, Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland, Calif. - Dr. Gary Culpepper
Associate Professor, Providence College (Providence, R.I.) - Jim Daly
President and CEO, Focus on the Family (Colorado Springs, Colo.) - Marjorie Dannenfelser
President, Susan B. Anthony List (Arlington, Va.) - Rev. Daniel Delgado
Board of Directors, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference; Pastor, Third Day Missions Church (Staten Island, N.Y.) - Dr. James Dobson
Founder, Focus on the Family (Colorado Springs, Colo.) - Dr. David Dockery
President, Union University (Jackson, Tenn.) - Most Rev. Timothy Dolan
Archbishop, Roman Catholic Diocese of New York, N.Y. - Dr. William Donohue
President, Catholic League (New York) - Dr. James T. Draper, Jr.
President Emeritus, LifeWay (Nashville, Tenn.) - Dinesh D'Souza
Writer and Speaker (Rancho Santa Fe, Calif.) - Most Rev. Robert Wm. Duncan
Archbishop and Primate, Anglican Church in North America (Ambridge, Pa. ) - Joni Eareckson Tada
Founder and CEO, Joni and Friends International Disability Center (Agoura Hills, Calif.) - Dr. Michael Easley
President Emeritus, Moody Bible Institute (Chicago) - Dr. William Edgar
Professor, Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia) - Brett Elder
Executive Director, Stewardship Council (Grand Rapids, Mich. - Rev. Joel Elowsky
Drew University (Madison, N.J.) - Stuart Epperson
Co-Founder and Chariman of the Board, Salem Communications Corporation (Camarillo, Calif.) - Rev. Jonathan Falwell
Senior Pastor, Thomas Road Baptist Church (Lynchburg, Va.) - William J. Federer
President, Amerisearch, Inc. (St. Louis) - Fr. Joseph D. Fessio
Founder and Editor, Ignatius Press (Ft. Collins, Colo.) - Carmen Fowler
President and Executive Editor, Presbyterian Lay Committee (Lenoir, N.C.) - Maggie Gallagher
President, National Organization for Marriage (Manassas, Va.) - Dr. Jim Garlow
Senior Pastor, Skyline Church (La Mesa, Calif.) - Steven Garofalo
Senior Consultant, Search and Assessment Services (Charlotte, N.C.) - Dr. Robert P. George
McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University (Princeton, N.J.) - Dr. Timothy George
Dean and Professor of Divinity, Beeson Divinity School at Samford University (Birmingham, Ala.) - Thomas Gilson
Director of Strategic Processes, Campus Crusade for Christ International (Norfolk, Va.) - Dr. Jack Graham
Pastor, Prestonwood Baptist Church (Plano, Texas) - Dr. Wayne Grudem
Research Professor of Theological and Biblical Studies, Phoenix Seminary (Phoenix) - Dr. Cornell "Corkie" Haan
National Facilitator of Spiritual Unity, The Mission America Coalition (Palm Desert, Calif.) - Fr. Chad Hatfield
Chancellor, CEO and Archpriest, St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary (Yonkers, N.Y.) - Dr. Dennis Hollinger
President and Professor of Christian Ethics, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (South Hamilton, Mass.) - Dr. Jeanette Hsieh
Executive Vice President and Provost, Trinity International University (Deerfield, Ill.) - Dr. John A. Huffman, Jr.
Senior Pastor, St. Andrews Presbyterian Church (Newport Beach, Calif.); Chairman of the Board, Christianity Today International (Carol Stream, Ill.) - Rev. Ken Hutcherson
Pastor, Antioch Bible Church (Kirkland, Wash.) - Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr.
Senior Pastor, Hope Christian Church (Beltsville, Md.) - Fr. Johannes L. Jacobse
President, American Orthodox Institute; Editor, OrthodoxyToday.org (Naples, Fla.) - Jerry Jenkins
Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Moody Bible Institute (Black Forest, Colo.) - Camille Kampouris
Publisher, Kairos Journal - Emmanuel A. Kampouris
Editorial Board, Kairos Journal - Rev. Tim Keller
Senior Pastor, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (New York) - Dr. Peter Kreeft
Professor of Philosophy, Boston College (Mass.) and at the Kings College (N.Y.) - Most Rev. Joseph E. Kurtz
Archbishop, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Louisville, Ky. - Jim Kushiner
Editor, Touchstone (Chicago) - Dr. Richard Land
President, The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the SBC (Washington, D.C.) - Jim Law
Senior Associate Pastor, First Baptist Church (Woodstock, Ga.) - Dr. Matthew Levering
Associate Professor of Theology, Ave Maria University (Naples, Fla.) - Dr. Peter Lillback
President, The Providence Forum (West Conshohocken, Pa.) - Dr. Duane Litfin
President, Wheaton College (Wheaton, Ill.) - Rev. Herb Lusk
Pastor, Greater Exodus Baptist Church (Philadelphia) - His Eminence Adam Cardinal Maida
Archbishop Emeritus, Roman Catholic Diocese of Detroit - Most Rev. Richard J. Malone
Bishop, Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, Maine - Rev. Francis Martin
Professor of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Heart Major Seminary (Detroit) - Dr. Joseph Mattera
Bishop and Senior Pastor, Resurrection Church (Brooklyn, N.Y.) - Phil Maxwell
Pastor, Gateway Church (Bridgewater, N.J.) - Josh McDowell
Founder, Josh McDowell Ministries (Plano, Texas) - Alex McFarland
President, Southern Evangelical Seminary (Charlotte, N.C.) - Most Rev. George Dallas McKinney
Bishop, Founder and Pastor, St. Stephen's Church of God in Christ (San Diego) - Rt. Rev. Martyn Minns
Missionary Bishop, Convocation of Anglicans of North America (Herndon, Va.) - Dr. C. Ben Mitchell
Graves Professor of Moral Philosophy, Union University (Jackson, Tenn.) - Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
President, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, Ky.) - Dr. Russell D. Moore
Senior Vice President for Academic Administration and Dean of the School of Theology, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, Ky.) - Most Rev. John J. Myers
Archbishop, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark, N.J. - Most Rev. Joseph F. Naumann
Archbishop, Roman Catholic Diocese of Kansas City, Kan. - David Neff
Editor-in-Chief, Christianity Today (Carol Stream, Ill.) - Tom Nelson
Senior Pastor, Christ Community Evangelical Free Church (Leawood, Kan.) - Niel Nielson
President, Covenant College (Lookout Mt., Ga.) - Most Rev. John Nienstedt
Archbishop, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis - Dr. Tom Oden
Theologian, United Methodist Minister; Professor, Drew University (Madison, N.J.) - Marvin Olasky
Editor-in-Chief, World Magazine; Provost, The Kings College (New York) - Most Rev. Thomas J. Olmsted
Bishop, Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix - Rev. William Owens
Chairman, Coalition of African-American Pastors (Memphis, Tenn.) - Dr. J.I. Packer
Board of Governors' Professor of Theology, Regent College (Canada) - Metr. Jonah Paffhausen
Primate, Orthodox Church in America (Syosset, N.Y.) - Tony Perkins
President, Family Research Council (Washington, D.C.) - Eric M. Pillmore
CEO, Pillmore Consulting LLC (Doylestown, Pa.) - Dr. Everett Piper
President, Oklahoma Wesleyan University (Bartlesville, Okla.) - Todd Pitner
President, Rev Increase - Dr. Cornelius Plantinga
President, Calvin Theological Seminary (Grand Rapids, Mich.) - Dr. David Platt
Pastor, Church at Brook Hills (Birmingham, Ala.) - Rev. Jim Pocock
Pastor, Trinitarian Congregational Church (Wayland, Mass.) - Fred Potter
Executive Director and CEO, Christian Legal Society (Springfield, Va.) - Dennis Rainey
President, CEO, and Co-Founder, FamilyLife (Little Rock, Ark.) - Fr. Patrick Reardon
Pastor, All Saints' Antiochian Orthodox Church (Chicago) - Bob Reccord
Founder, Total Life Impact, Inc. (Suwanee, Ga.) - His Eminence Justin Cardinal Rigali
Archbishop, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia - Frank Schubert
President, Schubert Flint Public Affairs (Sacramento, Calif.) - David Schuringa
President, Crossroads Bible Institute (Grand Rapids, Mich.) - Tricia Scribner
Author (Harrisburg, N.C.) - Dr. Dave Seaford
Senior Pastor, Community Fellowship Church (Matthews, N.C.) - Alan Sears
President, CEO, and General Counsel, Alliance Defense Fund (Scottsdale, Ariz.) - Randy Setzer
Senior Pastor, Macedonia Baptist Church (Lincolnton, N.C.) - Most Rev. Michael J. Sheridan
Bishop, Roman Catholic Diocese of Colorado Springs, Colo. - Dr. Ron Sider
Director, Evangelicals for Social Action (Wynnewood, Pa.) - Fr. Robert Sirico
Founder, Acton Institute (Grand Rapids, Mich.) - Dr. Robert Sloan
President, Houston Baptist University (Houston) - Charles Stetson
Chairman of the Board, Bible Literacy Project (New York) - Dr. David Stevens
CEO, Christian Medical and Dental Association (Bristol, Tenn.) - John Stonestreet
Executive Director, Summit Ministries (Manitou Springs, Colo.) - Dr. Joseph Stowell
President, Cornerstone University (Grand Rapids, Mich.) - Dr. Sarah Sumner
Professor of Theology and Ministry, Azusa Pacific University (Azusa, Calif.) - Dr. Glenn Sunshine
Chairman of the History Department, Central Connecticut State University (New Britain, Conn.) - Luiz Tellez
President, The Witherspoon Institute (Princeton, N.J.) - Dr. Timothy C. Tennent
Professor, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (South Hamilton, Mass.) - Michael Timmis
Chairman, Prison Fellowship and Prison Fellowship International (Naples, Fla.) - Mark Tooley
President, Institute for Religion and Democracy (Washington, D.C.) - H. James Towey
President, St. Vincent College (Latrobe, Pa.) - Juan Valdes
Middle and High School Chaplain, Florida Christian School (Miami, Fla.) - Todd Wagner
Pastor, WaterMark Community Church (Dallas) - Dr. Graham Walker
President, Patrick Henry College (Purcellville, Va.) - Alexander F. C. Webster
Archpriest, Orthodox Church in America; Associate Professorial Lecturer, The George Washington University (Ft. Belvoir, Va.) - George Weigel
Distinguished Senior Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center (Washington, D.C.) - David Welch
Houston Area Pastor Council Executive Director, US Pastors Council (Houston) - Dr. James Emery White
Founding and Senior Pastor, Mecklenburg Community Church (Charlotte, N.C.) - Dr. Hayes Wicker
Senior Pastor, First Baptist Church (Naples, Fla.) - Mark Williamson
Founder and President, Foundation Restoration Ministries/Federal Intercessors (Katy, Texas) - Parker T. Williamson
Editor Emeritus and Senior Correspondent, Presbyterian Lay Committee - Dr. Craig Williford
President, Trinity International University (Deerfield, Ill.) - Dr. John Woodbridge
Research Professor of Church History and the History of Christian Thought, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (Deerfield, Ill.) - Don M. Woodside
Performance Matters Associates (Matthews, N.C.) - Dr. Frank Wright
President, National Religious Broadcasters (Manassas, Va.) - Most Rev. Donald W. Wuerl
Archbishop, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. - Paul Young
COO and Executive Vice President, Christian Research Institute (Charlotte, N.C.) - Dr. Michael Youssef
President, Leading the Way (Atlanta) - Ravi Zacharias
Founder and Chairman of the Board, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (Norcross, Ga.) - Most Rev. David A. Zubik
Bishop, Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh
Localism - "Politics Is Still High Touch"
Hoffman Concedes to Owens in NY 23
Scozzafava's Revenge
Her Endorsement of Democrat Owens Gave Him a 3 to 1 Edge with Undecideds Over Last 72 Hours
| November 4, 2009 |
Media Player
