BLOG.THEMEMPHISTEAPARTY.COM

MTP Blog

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.

There in lies the problem. Without a view towards the ethical decisions we must explore, the actions of the Senate will be taken as a matter of fact and will be based on a path of logic which excludes the vast majority of people who feel otherwise. It is for this reason that the Manhattan Declaration takes on new meaning in the discourse that will surely follow the Senate debate and any subsequent bill that is ultimately signed into law.

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.

Manhattan Declaration

November 20, 2009

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 16^th and 17^th 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-20^th 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

Posted by The Memphis TEA Party at 20 November 2009, 1:34 PM | View Comments (2) | Add Comment

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

by Michael Patrick Leahy

UPDATE

7:14 am est

As temperatures turned brisk this morning in NY 23, Republican turncoat Dede Scozzafava took comfort in the knowledge that revenge is a dish best served cold. Analysis of last night's election results in which Democrat Bill Owens scored a surprising 50% to 45% victory over the Conservative candidate, Doug Hoffman, whose success forced her to withdraw on Saturday, showed that her Sunday endorsement of Owens was the decisive factor in his victory.

Owens carried the three counties Scozzafava represents in the New York State Assembly (Jefferson, St. Lawrence, and Lewis) by a decisive 53% to 42% margin. This was an 11% margin increase from the 36% to 36% tie the Siena Poll released on Monday revealed. Scozzafava's vote dropped from 9% in the Monday poll to 6% in the actual results. Meanwhile, the 19% undecided in the three county region broke hard for Owens. 13% of the undecided went to Owens during a 48 period, while only 6% went to Hoffman.

Scozzafava's strenuous support of Owens during these critical hours was probably the most decisive factor in moving those undecideds. She recorded two robocalls, which were delivered throughout the district, and appeared with Owens at a local event.

One additional factor in Owens' strength in these counties was the endorsement of the local newspaper, the Watertown Daily Times, which came out in support of Owens Sunday morning after previously supporting Scozzafava. Indeed, it was the Sunday morning reporting by the Watertown Daily Times that Scozzafava was quietly telling friends to support Owens that signaled her dramatic public endorsement of him later that afternoon.

The Watertown Daily Times pounded Hoffman on his biggest weakness: lack of knowledge of local issues. That argument seemed to resonate with voters in Jefferson County and much of the rest of the district, apparently. Local constituent service had been one of Scozzafava's strengths, and while Democrat Owens had no greater background in local issues than Hoffman, Owens deftly emphasized local responsiveness as a theme, while Hoffman fumbled the local issues repeatedly.

Heavy spending by the Democratic National Committee in television and radio advertising supporting Owens, combined with a strong last minute on the ground push by the teachers' unions and AFL-CIO also contributed to Owens' victory. In contrast, the Hoffman campaign relied heavily on a slew of last minute robocalls, recorded by Rudy Giuliani and George Pataki, which were so numerous that many voters started complaining that they wanted to be left alone. Robocalls on Hoffman's behalf outnumbered those on Owens' behalf by a 3 to 1 factor at least, one insider estimated.

Hoffman's ground game was also weak. In Central New York, most of the energy of the campaign came from 9-12 activists, who ran a local operation largely without direction from the Candidate's Saranac Lake headquarters.

Hoffman also failed to mount much of a direct mail campaign, a critical misstep in a district where the voters had become very tired of the blare of television advertisements and robocalls from all three sides.

Grassroots activists saw a decided switch in the conduct of the campaign over the last 72 hours, after Scozzafava's withdrawal. Unconfirmed rumors abounded that Hoffman was taking advice from NRCC hotshots who had come up to help over the crucial last weekend, and that the candidate became less accessible to volunteers and was not conducting enough face to face voter events. Though his election day schedule was busy, for instance, his only public event on Monday was the Watertown rally hosted by Fred Thompson.

Dave Weigel, in today's Washington Independent, captured the boots on the ground advantage Owens had over Hoffman.

"Owens, who ran a subtle campaign, benefited from a long-term Democratic canvassing and GOTV effort. He had the backing of powerful unions like SEIU 1199, who worked the district. Hoffman didn’t have access to Republican resources until it was too late. Some Hoffman workers suggested that the conservative effort that did come out was inexperienced, and failed to make the extra step to really pull out voters."

Read the full article here.

New York State Conservative Party Chairman Mike Long raised questions over the manner in which the Obama White House secured Scozzafava's decisive support on Saturday. Publicly, Long has asked for an Federal Elections Commission investigation of possible legal violations involved in reported personal meetings between a White House staff member and Scozzafava on the Saturday afternoon preceding her endorsement of Owens the following day. What, Long and others want to know, did the White House promise Scozzafava to secure her endorsement? Insiders are betting that before long Scozzafava will emerge with a job in the Obama Administration. When it's announced, questions of ethical and legal violations will certainly be raised, they promised.

For her part, Scozzafava's public statements about her decision making process to support Owens dripped with self pity and rationalizations, and showed her to be completely devoid of political principle. "Why didn't any Republican leaders call me after I dropped out?" she wondered publicly, ignoring the slew of gracious conciliatory statements made on Saturday by five local County Chairmen, Michelle Bachmann, and Sarah Palin. Scozzafava pointedly refused to return the phone calls made directly to her personal cell phone by this reporter, a known Republican who was an elected delegate to the 2008 Republican National Convention committed to Mitt Romney.

Owens' victory is a victory for Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama as well. In his public statements, Owens has clearly stated that he will vote for whatever health care bill Pelosi rams through the House this session. Scozzafava's endorsement of Owens in light of this public support for the Pelosi-Obama agenda confirmed the complaints of the conservative blogosphere that she was a left winger all along.

Owens will face his next electoral challenge in November 2010. He is certain to face a strong Republican challenger. This time around, however, the candidate will not be chosen by the eleven county chairmen meeting in a pizza restaurant. A primary will be held on September 14, 2010.

Though he captured the country's attention with his humble nature, Hoffman ran such a poor campaign it is unlikely he would emerge as the Republican nominee in a primary, should he choose to run. Early on favorites include Franklin County legislator Paul Maroun, and Jefferson County former Wall Street wiz Matt Doheny, both of whom showed well in the July 2009 Republican candidate selection process. Hoffman showed poorly in that process, ranking seventh or eighth out of nine candidates in the eyes of almost every county chairman.

Other local drama to come out of this election result: Will RINO Assemblywoman Janet Duprey, who also serves as Clinton County Republican Chairman, resign her county chair seat or be deposed ?

At a national level, Hoffman's surprising loss is certain to heighten a vicious internecine war between the Establishment Republicans in Washington and the insurgent conservative movement powered by the tea party activists. The NRCC and the RNC bet $ 1 million on a left wing candidate whose last minute betrayal proved the decisive factor in giving the Democrats this Congressional seat for the first time since the Civil War. And big name Republicans who are likely to seek the Republican Presidential nomination for the 2012 --Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee-- provided support to Hoffman that can at best be described as a day late and a dollar short.

The big national loser is Newt Gingrich, who repeatedly and shrilly misrepresented the degree to which Scozzafava had local Republican support.

The final November 1 Siena Poll can be seen here.

Click here to view earlier reports on Election Day activities in NY 23.

UPDATE

12:15 am est

A melodramatic campaign fit for a Shakespearean trilogy ended with yet another twist Tuesday evening when Democrat Bill Owens apparently squeaked out a surprising 49-46 victory over Conservative Doug Hoffman, with 78% of the precincts reporting. A Siena Poll released Monday morning showed Hoffman leading 41-36, with 18% undecided. Based on the results with 78% reporting, it appears that the undecided vote broke 3 to 1 for Owens over Hoffman, driven to Owens perhaps by an aggressive effort of support by embittered RINO turned Democrat endorser Dede Scozzafava.

At about 12:15 am est, Doug Hoffman conceded to Owens from his headquarters in Saranac Lake.

Michael Patrick Leahy is the Publisher of The TCOT Report and the author of Rules for Conservative Radicals

Return to The TCOT Report

Posted by The Memphis TEA Party at 4 November 2009, 10:34 AM | View Comments (1) | Add Comment

Obama Presidency - "Bush Derangement Syndrome"

With nearly ten months into his administration, the current holder of the office of president seems to think that the previous administration is still in charge. With the failure of the current stimulus package, Obama and his minions continue to excoriate the former Bush administration for all that is wrong with the economy. This is a tactic which ensures that the “useful idiots” continue to look backward as opposed to the present and the facts before them. However, if we consider the 30,000 jobs saved or created under the current stimulus plan initiated by “we got to have this now” Obama and his Democrat leadership, we find that the rear view mirror looks pretty good!

For much of the recent history, "former" news organizations calculated and presented the misery index. It really wasn’t all that scientific, but it gave people a sense of the impact of unemployment and inflation related to the administration in office. Looking in that same rear view mirror, we can find that only Clinton and Bush had approximate equivalency in their respective administrations along the unemployment/inflation scoring of the misery index. However, given Obama’s penchant for demonizing Bush, we find that the “Misery Index” also improved, as measured by that same combination of inflation and unemployment.

In contrasting the current administration and their first nine (9) months in office we would get a “Misery Index” (unemploymentrate of 9.8% and the inflation rate of -.96%) of 8.84 which is higher than all years during the Bush administration and the Clinton administration, with the exception of Clinton’s first year in office. With unemployment projections likely to be over 10% and inflation beginning to rise in 2010 due to expansion of the money supply and the falling dollar, we would anticipate that the Obama misery index will be more reflective of the Reagan presidency when evaluated in context of the core unemployment rate.

So it would appear that Obama can indeed claim the mantle of the Regan presidency in context of the misery index and the horrific effects of his early and failed policies. But context of such an index is indeed important. Because while the relative number is nearly the same, the unemployed is substantially different. In fact, the lack of job creation in conjunction with those who are uncounted due to loss of unemployment benefits would likely drive the misery index up to Carter levels while doubling the unemployment of the Carter years! So however you look at it, the old adage rings true – recession is your neighbor losing his job, depression is you losing your job – and from our way of thinking, recovery is when Obama loses his job.

But the problems he is creating by going on the socialization of our economy pales in comparison to the aforementioned indexes. Obama, with a majority Democrat Congress, is pursuing a debt policy that will double the deficit left by Bush while increasing entitlements and the associated liabilities by trillions of dollars more. The graph below provides a view to those actions and the rampant spending that was initiated by Obama and his administration. And these calculations exclude the impact of healthcare or the impact of cap & trade, should those both pass into law.

And all the while, the president plays basketball, holds entertainment events at the White House, attacks Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, continues to appoint the most perverse and radical group of people to his administration and continues to blame Bush and the right wing media. And now he is trying to control the internet through the FCC and the Net Neutrality law that seems benign enough but will have a disastrous effect on the free flow of information by creating the “right” for the FCC to regulate the internet itself and the associated content, distribution and costs related to its use! Throughout all of this, we see a cool and restrained president, never rattled, never angry in his demeanor yet who has calculated the required efforts to “remake” this country. He no longer listens to a large block of the American electorate and is engaged in his mission of change and damn you if you disagree.

As 2010 approaches, we must work hard to undo the domination of the Congress currently held by the Democrat party. Obama knows this and is racing against the election year in which he and his cohorts in crime will be held accountable for their actions. His “hope” is that the “change” he has put in place and the spending and debt he has committed the people of the United States to, will be enough to ensure his radical legacy and enshrine the power of his party over time. So, while you may be interested in watching Dancing With Stars or American Idol, your time would be better spent watching the actions of an administration that is foisting changes on our culture and our nation that pale against past administrations. And they hope to keep you looking in the rear view mirror at the Bush presidency so that you don’t see the train wreck you are about to experience, which is Obama’s American vision. “Bush Derangement Syndrome” and its associated symptoms of blindness, loss of hearing, confusion and an inability to speak clearly, will allow this administration to offer prescriptions for change that won’t cure the disease, but will likely kill the patient! Now that’s healthcare reform that needs a major surgical extraction, as Obama likes to say, in 2010 and 2012. Perhaps the patient can recover if we act soon enough. It's up to you America.

Posted by The Memphis TEA Party at 20 October 2009, 4:04 PM | View Comments (2) | Add Comment

Liberal Republicans - "An Oxymoron in New York"

October 19, 2009

by Michael Patrick Leahy

6:00 am EDT

When John McHugh, Republican Congressman from New York’s 23rd District, accepted President Obama’s nomination to become the Secretary of the Army on June 2, no one could have predicted that less than three weeks before the special election to replace him on November 3 a Democrat would be leading in the polls. But that’s exactly what has happened. A Siena Institute Poll released on October 15 shows Democrat Bill Owens leading in this rural upstate district with 33 % of the vote, followed by Republican Dede Scozzafava with 29%, and Conservative Doug Hoffman with 23%. If Owens wins in November 3 it will mark the first time a Democrat has represented the district since the Civil War.

This debacle has occurred despite the most open and transparent process for the selection of a Congressional candidate in a special election in the history of the New York State Republican Party. The nomination of Scozzafava was orchestrated by two powerful liberal members of the local Republican Party organization, and was aided and abetted by several politically inexperienced local county leaders who failed to grasp the tactical significance of shunning the Conservative Party and did not fully understand the details of their nominee’s record, or her potential vulnerabilities. On July 22nd, the Republican Party nominated Scozzafava, an Assemblywoman whose liberal views on many issues do not reflect the views of the majority of the district’s Republicans. This nomination was tainted by a breach of trust carried out by a key party insider, liberal Republican Assemblywoman Janet Duprey, who also serves as the chairman of the Clinton County Republican Committee.

When McHugh made his announcement, the eleven Republican county chairmen in the 23rd Congressional District were faced with a special challenge. What process would they use to fairly select a nominee to run for his empty seat, and how much time did they have to do it? State law allowed the Governor to establish the date of a special election. No one knew when that would be, though many suspected it would be on the November 3 date the governor ultimately chose. McHugh wouldn’t resign his seat until confirmed by Congress, and no one knew for sure how long that process would take.

Jim Ellis, Franklin County Chairman, decided to take the lead and propose a process for selecting a candidate. He had the recent NY 20 election as an example (where county chairmen without a lot of input chose Jim Tedisco, who lost a special election), and thought he had a way to do it better.

The idea was to open up the process. It wasn't as open as a tea party, perhaps, but it was far more open than anything the New York State Republican Party (or the New York State Democratic Party) had ever seen in similiar circumstances. Four regional meetings would be held for invited attendees, which included committeemen on the local county committee, local Republican officials, and state party officials who resided in the county. Any candidate who wanted to address the group could do so. Let them say their piece, get a consensus, communicate that consensus to the party chairmen, then let the party chairmen convene and select the nominee, based on a majority vote. Each county chairman received a weighted vote based on the percentage of the district’s Republicans who resided in their district. Franklin County, for instance, received a 6% weighted vote, while more populous Oswego County received a 19% weighted vote.

All five of the county chairmen interviewed for this article consider this "openness" to be a signal accomplishment, though several expressed the opinion that despite the "openness", the outcome did not reflect the will of the majority of the Republicans in the district. It's perhaps an insight into the "group think" of the Republican Establishment in New York State that in the age of the Tea Party Movement not a single county chairman considered an obvious process that would have been far more inclusive and would not have created the public impression that the nomination was obtained based on insider dealing. An Iowa style caucus, in which all registered Republicans in the district were invited to participate, instead of invitation only candidate forums made available exclusively to the regular participants in Republican Party politics would certainly have resulted in a process that was not vulnerable to claims of breach of trust or cronyism. And in all likelihood that process would have resulted in a nominee who enjoyed the support of both the Republican and the Conservative parties.

According to New York Conservative Party Chairman Mike Long, it is this insular and myopic view of the world which characterizes the history and behavior of the Republican Party in New York State, and continues to fuel the existence and growth of the Conservative Party. In an exclusive interview with The TCOT Report, Long put it this way:

"I hear this all the time from politicians from the Republican Party who come to us to receive the endorsement of the Conservative Party as well. When they go before the Republicans, they say, all they hear is things like 'who are your friends', 'how much money can you bring to the table,' and 'what other resources can you bring so we know you can win.' They're just never asked by the Republican leadership their position on the issues. When they come to us, it's always about where they stand on the issues."

Long is a man to whom political positions matter greatly. "The only reason the Conservative Party exists," he said "is that the Republican Party in this state cares only about winning, and not about principle." His withdrawal of the Conservative Party line endorsement from Assemblywoman Scozzafavva in her 2004, 2006, and 2008 races is a clear example of this commitment to principle. First elected to serve in the Assembly to represent St. Lawrence and Jefferson Counties in 1998, Scozzafava's increasingly leftward voting trend concerned Long greatly. When in 2004 Scozzafavva sought out and accepted the endorsement of the ACORN affilliated Working Families Party, Long had seen and heard enough. He withdrew the Conservative Party's endorsement from her, and vowed to never support her again in any election.

"The Working Families Party is nothing but a front group for ACORN. For goodness sake, they office out of the same building in Brooklyn !"

"Scozzafavva is pro gay-marriage, pro abortion, and supported by an ACORN affiliated and directed political party. All three of these disqualify her from receiving our support. I've told Dede this, and every Republican leader in the 23rd Congressional District knows this. I'll give you a couple of other examples of how bad her record of liberal activism is. In this most recent session of the Assembly, on the votes she cast in the Assembly, we gave her a 15% rating. The very liberal Speaker of the Assembly, who comes from the most liberal part of Manhattan has a 10% rating. She's hardly any different from him!"

New York is one of the few states where minor parties can play a role in election outcomes. This is due to a peculiarity of New York election law, which allows vote totals from two different party endorsements to be added cumulatively to a candidate's total. The Conservative Parties is the most prominent minority party in the state, but other fringe parties, such as the Working Families Party, can also play a role in elections. In contested elections in swing districts, these minor party endorsements matter. The extra 5% or 10% from a Conservative line on the ballot for the same candidate can push that candidate's vote total from a losing 41% or 46% to a winning 51%.

Reports of Scozzafava's recent statements on switching parties didn't help public perceptions of her either. Something happened on a vote, the report goes, and she got mad, publicly threatening to switch from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party. Scozzafava quickly retracted her party switch threat, but the damage was done. Rumors abound that should she win the special election as a Republican she might switch to the Democratic party in the 2010 election, especially since she is certain to face Republican primary opposition should she win. Last week, the Weekly Standard ran a story which stated that she would not confirm she would run in 2010 as a Republican. Hours after the story was posted, her campaign spokesman stated that she would, indeed run as a Republican in 2010 should she win, but the candidate herself has not yet made such a public statement.

Conservative Party Chairman Long recounts a stunning meeting he had with Scozzafava in July of this year, after she had announced her candidacy, but before she had received the nomination.

"I was approached by someone in Dede Scozzafava's sphere who said she wanted to meet with me. I said this is going nowhere, but they persisted, so I agreed to meet with Dede in Lake Placid. At the meeting, which took place just a few weeks before the Republican County Chairmen met in Potsdam to select their nominee, she told me that the Democrats had been talking to her about running in the special election as a Democrat. 'Wouldn't you rather be with the winner?' she asked me. I came away from that meeting convinced that she was completely devoid of any principle."

Republican committee men from three counties (Clinton, Essex, and Franklin) met in Plattsburgh, New York on July 16th to hear from the nine candidates seeking the nomination. Earlier, three other candidate forums had been conducted throughout the district, one in Speculator (for Fulton and Hamilton counties), one in Governeur (for St. Lawrence, Lewis, and Jefferson counties), and one in Sylvan Beach (for Oneida, Oswego, and Madison Counties). Each meeting was held with good participation, and attendance ranged from 50 to over 100.

After the July 16th candidate forum in Plattsburgh, the clear consensus from Clinton County committee members in attendance was in support of Paul Maroun, the ideologically conservative candidate with a long record of local government service from nearby Franklin County. Assemblywoman Duprey herself acknowledges this.

“The Clinton County committee members who attended the Plattsburgh event voted for the candidate they supported. Paul Maroun received the majority of the votes. Dede and Matt Doheny also received some votes.”

Doheny was a Jefferson County native who had worked on Wall Street for awhile before returning home, was an Alleghany College and Cornell Law School grad who was as ideologically conservative as Maroun with one major exception. Maroun was pro-life, and Doheny was pro-abortion.

Unlike her fellow county chairmen in Jefferson and St. Lawrence County who communicated with every committee member in their respective counties, including those who did not attend the regional candidate forums as well as those that did, Duprey took no further steps to ascertain the candidate support preference of those Clinton County committee members who did not attend the Plattsburgh candidate forum.

In Jefferson County, Chairman Sandra Corey sent ballots by mail to the 180 committee men that comprise the County Committee. She received back 130 responses, the majority of which were cast in favor of Dede Scozzafava, with local candidate Matt Doheny also receiving a good number of votes. In St. Lawrence County, Chairman Nancy Martin personally phoned every single committee member, and received a majority response in favor of local candidate Scozzafava.

When asked for specific details of the Clinton County committee member vote in an exclusive interview with The TCOT Report, Duprey stated that she ripped up the results after the July 16th Plattsburgh candidate forum where the vote was taken, and couldn’t recall specific breakdowns between Maroun, Scozzafava and Doheny. When further asked for the names of the Clinton County attendees of the Plattsburgh candidate forum who had supported Scozzafava, she refused to do so.

The consensus of support for Maroun was communicated directly to Chairman Duprey by numerous participants. The language was strong and clear—Clinton County Republicans were behind Paul Maroun. But when Duprey arrived at the decisive meeting of county chairmen held in Potsdam the next week, she ignored the wishes of her fellow Clinton County Republicans and cast the deciding vote of the second ballot in favor of Scozzafava, her friend and colleague in the Assembly.

Duprey’s conduct was a slap in the face at the concepts of transparency and openness that many of the other county chairmen had tried to institute in a deliberative process to select the nominee. And it fueled the anger of many members of the Tea Party Movement in the area, who are now backing the Conservative candidate, Doug Hoffman, who was one of nine candidates, including Scozzafava and Maroun, who had sought the nomination and participated in the candidate selection process.

The lack of transparency in this process, the “insider’s back room dealing” that had the nomination wired for Scozzafava against the consensus will of the rank and file Republicans of the district, lead to the pending electoral disaster in which the Democrat, Bill Owens, an attorney from Plattsburgh, is now poised to defeat both the Republican Scozzafava, and the Conservative nominee, Doug Hoffman.

It is precisely this sort of tone deafness to the wishes of the majority of the conservative electorate that has fueled the outrage of the Tea Party Movement towards the Republican Party establishment. That outrage is mirrored in the 23rd Congressional District, where Upstate New York Tea Party leader Mark L. Barie, of Rouses Point, a Clinton County village on the Canadian border, has personally endorsed Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate.

On July 22nd, nine of the eleven county chairmen gathered at a popular restaurant in Potsdam, New York to select the nominee. Oneida County Chairman George Joseph had given his proxy to Franklin County Chairman Jim Ellis, and Maggie Luck attended for Fulton County Chairman Susan McNeil, who was in contact with her by phone throughout the entire process.

After some preliminary discussion, the first round balloting began. The counties were called in alphabetical order. When all eleven counties votes were counted using the population weighted formula, the liberal Scozzafavva had 45% of the vote, with Doheny and Maroun close behind at 28% and 27% of the vote respectively.

After the first round ballot, many of the chairmen in attendance settled in for a long day. Though the liberal Scozzafava was only five percent shy of a majority, the two conservative candidates split fifty-five per cent of the vote.

During the discussion period between ballots, Franklin County Chairman Jim Ellis made an impassioned plea articulating why voting for Dede would imperil the outcome of the election. “Everyone knew that the Conservative Party would never support Dede. In this district, the Republican needs the Conservative line to have the best chance of victory. McHugh had it. All eight of the other candidates would have received the Conservative Line. Only Dede would not get it. And I told the other county chairmen they were making a serious mistake not taking this into account. If the Conservatives ran a candidate, it would cut into the Republicans vote.” Ellis’ arguments fell on deaf ears. Duprey, Corey, Dancks, and McNeil all acknowledge they didn’t anticipate that the inevitable Conservative challenge to Dede would cause much harm. In the case of Dancks and McNeil, inexperience in politics could be a possible excuse for their terrible miscalculation. Dancks had assumed the County chair position only days after McHugh’s announcement in June, and McNeil had been in the position for only a few months. But Corey had served as county chair for four years, and Duprey had spent a lifetime in politics, serving as Clinton County Treasurer from 1986 to 2004, and in the Assembly from 2004. Duprey’s failure to recognize the strategic risk posed by the predictable Conservative challenge to Scozzafava was inexplicable.

When the second ballot began, Clinton County, being first alphabetically, was called first. Several of the attendees were shocked when Duprey switched her vote from the conservative Paul Maroun, who enjoyed broad support in Clinton County, to her friend and colleague, the liberal Dede Scozzafava.

"How could Janet vote for Scozzafava when everything they heard from Clinton County was strong support for Maroun, and little support for Scozzafava?" they wondered.

Everyone in the room did the math instantly. With Clinton County's switch, Scozzafava was over the top. Once the numbers became clear, the remaining party chairmen reluctantly followed suit, knowing that they had just nominated a candidate who would ignite a civil war among Republicans in the district. In a tribute to party discipline, though clearly not to political common sense, all eleven county chairmen ended up publicly supporting Scozzafava as the nominee. Many of them would soon come to regret that decision.

The impression that the entire county chairman nomination meeting was stage managed in secret by Duprey and Scozzafava was re-enforced when the nomination was secured. As the county chairmen walked out of the restaurant that day, there was Scozzafava, with the cameras of the local Watertown television station waiting to break the news that she was the nominee.

In an exclusive interview with the TCOT Report, Duprey justified her quick switch from Maroun to Scozzafava in the second ballot, saying “it was clear Dede was the winner. She had just a whisker below 50%. She was at 49%, maybe more. Everyone wants a winner. Had the circumstances been reversed, I would have voted for Paul in the second ballot.”

But many of the other county chairmen have a very different recollection of the events between the first and second ballot. They find Duprey's characterization that Scozzafava was the clear winner with 45% of the weighted vote (not the 49% Duprey recalls) while two conservative candidates combined for 55% as laughable. Had the conservative votes consolidated around one candidate prior to Duprey's surprise vote switch, the nominee would have been either Maroun or Doheny.

And if either Doheny or Maroun had been the nominee, Conservative State Party Chairman Mike Long had made it clear either one would have received the Conservative nomination as well, virtually assuring a Republican victory in the special election.

But this logical argument, did not resonate with either Duprey, Martin, Corey, or Dancks. In retrospect this lack of awareness of the Conservative threat that accompanied a Scozzafava nomination seems unfathomable.

Several county chairmen also seemed to be oblivious to parts of Scozzafava’s record, or the potential vulnerability that record presented. The Working Families Party affiliation did not register, nor did her “RINO” publicly announced support for Obama’s stimulus package.

Conservative opponent Hoffman’s web site highlights Scozzafava’s support for Obama’s stimulus package. When asked if they could either confirm or deny if this claim was factual, neither Chairman Corey of Jefferson County or Chairman Dancks of Madison County were knowledgeable of their candidate’s position on that issue. Clinton County’s Duprey, in an exclusive interview, acknowledged that Scozzafava had in fact publicly indicated support of Obama’s stimulus package “but only,” Duprey said “as it relates to public infrastructure projects.” Duprey elaborated “I think that’s a very conservative position, one that all conservative across the country would agree with.”

Clearly, conservatives around the blogosphere, ranging from Erick Erickson at Red State to Michelle Malkin have a very different definition of conservativism than Duprey does. Arguably, every single Republican member of the House of Representatives also has a different definition of conservatism, since they unanimously voted against the Obama Stimulus Bill when it passed the House in February.

When news of the Scozzafava nomination spread throughout the Republicans in the 23rd District, the reaction varied from lukewarm enthusiasm to outright disdain. One of those deeply troubled by the nomination was Saranac Lake accountant Doug Hoffman. Hoffman had been one of the nine candidates who had sought the Republican nomination, and he had not fared well in the process. Though intelligent, well respected, and an uncompromising ideological conservative, Hoffman wasn't much of a stump speaker. He was new to the political process, and his lack of polish showed.

Despite having signed a pledge to support the eventual nominee to emerge from the process, Hoffman considered the possibility of asking for the Conservative Party's endorsement to run against Scozzafavva, making it a three way race. When Paul Maroun declined Mike Long's offer to run on the Conservative line, Hoffman approached Long and asked for the nod. Happy to have a credible candidate, Long agreed, and a three way race was on.

The Democrats, for their part, took notice of the Republicans and their poor choice as nominee. With a three way race, the Democrat had a chance. Responding to the opportunity, a credible candidate, well respected Plattsburgh attorney Bill Owens stepped forward. With a credible candidate, a split between the Republicans and Conservatives, the Democratic Party money began pouring in. All the usual liberal suspects, including the infamous SEIU, which threw in $100,000 last week, lined up to throw cash behind Owens.

Meanwhile, Scozzafava's fundraising lagged, and Hoffman's climbed, as both the Club for Growth and former Republican Senator from Tennessee Fred Thompson endorsed him.

Susan McNeil, the newly named Republican Chairman in Fulton County started hearing complaints from Republicans in her county about Scozzafava's liberal views soon after she was nominated. In an exclusive interview with The TCOT Report over the weekend, she articulated this dissatisfaction:

"I have had constituents tell me they are disappointed with some of her decisions."

Scozzafava's defenders seem incapable of understanding the nationwide opposition to her from the Tea Party Movement and conservatives within the Republican Party. A broad array of conservative new media leaders have documented countless instances of Scozzafava's left wing policies, ranging from support of the Obama stimulus package to support of "card-check" legislation to any number of social issues. Mysteriously, these issues appear not to count as "real" tests of conservativism to Scozzafava's apologists.

Sandy Corey, who last month resigned as Jefferson County Chairman, seems to know little about Scozzafava's liberal record. In an exclusive interview with the TCOT Report, she excused Scozzafava's support of card-check legislation.

"I agree with secret ballots, but you know we don't have to agree with our candidates on every position," she said.

When asked to explain why Conservative candidate Hoffman's support has surged to 23%, she responded that "it's only because of all the lies the Conservative Party has been telling about Dede's record on taxes. I am disappointed in Mike Long and the Conservative Party for being such liars."

Corey's support for Scozzafava, it appears, is based almost exclusively on her admiration of Scozzafava's personal qualities. It certainly can't be based on her support of Scozzafava on the issues, because she disagrees with her on one key issue, and appears unaware of her positions on most other issues.

Corey's attitude appears to be shared by Republican Congressman Pete Sessions, who represents a very conservative district in Dallas, Texas, and chairs the National Republican Congressional Committee(the NRCC), the Republican National Committee, and former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.

Within the past month, the NRCC has both endorsed Scozzafava and provided hundreds of thousands of dollars of cash to her campaign. Michael Steele and the RNC, which had equivocated in their support of Scozzafava, last week endorsed her and donated $85,000 to her campaign. And on Thursday, Gingrich endorsed her.

Gingrich's endorsement ignited a fierce backlash from the blogosphere. Red State's Erickson pronounced him done as a legitimate candidate for the 2012 Presidential nomination as a consequence. And the Tea Party Movement, which embraced his early participation in the April 15 Tax Day Tea Party, skewered him for his support of a candidate who embodied every aspect of political life the movement abhors.

For her part, the woman who engineered this epic Republican political fiasco, Assemblywoman Janet Duprey, remains unbowed and unrepentant in her conservative apostasy. Nor does she make any excuses for the blatant cronyism she exercised in supporting her friend and ideological compatriot in the New York State Assembly in her bid to win a seat in Congress.

To the outside observer, while Duprey's actions are both legal and within the rules of the Republican Party, they exemplify the kind of cronyism and insider dealing that makes the every day Americans who comprise the Tea Party Movement furious and disgusted with elected political officials of both parties.

At the very least, Duprey left herself open to charges of cronyism by not acting more transparently and inclusively in the decision making process to determine the candidate for whom she would vote. While it is not against any law or party rule for one individual to simultaneously hold an elective position in the State Assembly and the Republican Party Chairmanship in a county (at least one other politician in New York holds both positions simultaneously), it clearly concentrates power in the hands of one individual in a way that creates the opportunity for the abuse of power.

Duprey claims that she reluctantly accepted the County Chairman position early in 2009 when it became vacant, and no other qualified candidate emerged. While this may be accurate, it is hard to imaginge that within a county that has a population of close to 80,000 there existed not one qualified Republican who would have been willing to assume the Chairmanship when the news that a special election was in the wings became public in June.

Such considerations of propriety apparently still fail to register with Assemblywoman Duprey. Remaining true to form for those who have risen within the Republican Party power structure in New York State, Duprey closed out her exclusive interview with The TCOT Report by focusing on the issue that really matters most to her.

"Dede is a winner. She will win this special election. She will end up with a little over 50% of the vote. The other two candidates will split the rest."

It remains for the voters of the 23rd Congressional District to determine if they agree with Assemblywoman Duprey's hand picked candidate and the methods the two of them use to succeed in the political arena.

The answer will be revealed for the entire country to see on election day, two weeks and a day from today, on November 3.

Author's Note:
I grew up in the 23rd Congressional District. I was born in Oswego, attended elementary school at St. John's Academy in Plattsburgh and Dannemora Public School (both in Clinton County), and attended Stockbridge Valley High School in Madison County.

Michael Patrick Leahy is the publisher of The TCOT Report and author of the new book Rules for Conservative Radicals. You can reach him at michaelpatrickleahy@gmail.com.

Posted by The Memphis TEA Party at 19 October 2009, 8:20 AM | Add Comment

The 9/12 NATIONAL TEA PARTY

The following letter was sent to me by Mrs. Judy Guthrie and is reprinted with her permission. The sentiment is elegantly expressed:

On September 12, I joined not thousands, but tens of thousands of Americans on the national mall in Washington, D.C. for the 9/12 Tea Party. The Tea Party movement has no central leader. It is, rather, voluntary and spontaneous. It brought to mind the Suffrage Movement and the marches for Civil Rights. These are the manifestations of Americans whose hearts become so full that they are fairly bursting to be heard.

In leaving our hotel around 10:00 on the morning of the 12th, I turned a corner onto Pennsylvania Avenue and sucked in my breath at the sight before me. There it was, a river of humanity spilling onto the streets and flowing like a slow-moving tidal wave toward the Mall. As I joined this crowd, everywhere I looked I saw smiling faces, not anger, not hate, but smiles. However, the air was fairly crackling with intensity. Excitement, yes, but there was also a singularity of purpose, and that was to have our voices heard in Washington.

The people were young and old, of every race, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and Libertarians. They came from every walk of life imaginable: doctors, nurses, lawyers, government employees, nuns, farmers, miners, business owners, retirees, and musicians. Mothers were pushing babies and even a few were pushing their dogs in baby strollers. A-n-n-d they brought their signs. The creativity and originality of those signs was exceptional. Most were homemade, some were made professionally, some were comical, others were outright works of art and they became a type of “mouthpiece” for the Tea Party. Without them it would have been like a birthday cake without the candles.

People came from every state in the nation. Some came from as far away as Alaska and even Hawaii. They filled the Mall as far as the eye could see. From our ground level position, our cameras couldn’t capture the enormity of the crowd, but we later caught an aerial shot that gave us the real picture. It jolted ones senses and was one of the most stirring sights I have ever witnessed. . . that this many people had come from such great distances, at great expense and tons of logistics to make this trip. We heard of two buses that left Knoxville, TN, late Friday, drove all night, attended the rally, and drove back all night Saturday with no sleep except what they could catch on the bus. That’s dedication!

There were many, many speeches. Some were quite eloquent. Some were simple. But to a one, they were sincere and from the heart. They spoke of how our system of government is broken. The common thread that ran through them all was the urgent need for us to return to the constitutional principles upon which our Founders established our nation; to go back to what is common sense and to return hope and pride in our great country.

There were thousands who were so far from the speakers’ podium they were unable to hear them, but the startling thing was that even at the end of the day, no one was making any effort to leave early. They just kept standing there in unison wearing their love of country.

Upon reflection, I was so privileged to be a witness to this electrifying force that is the American spirit that is our Freedom of Speech and our Democracy at work. I believe that this silent majority has finally come awake and can no longer be ignored in Washington. It can no longer watch while their Social Security, their retirements, their businesses, their health care, and the future of their children, their very life’s blood, is being leached away as though they no longer count for anything. The 9/12 Tea Party is a ground swell that is growing in this nation. It is an awakening giant that will no longer be silenced. Congress cannot afford to continue to ignore this Washington Tea Party and the many others held around the nation. It was emblematic of a large majority of Americans, the voters who will be at the polls in 2010.

I can comment only with pride about the stellar behavior and the overall courtesy and consideration of the people who were there. A sense of camaraderie permeated the crowd, and dare I say, a shared hope that Washington will listen to us.

It was an event that I was so privileged to be a part of, and one that I will remember for the rest of my life. It was a beautiful thing to see Freedom at work.

Judy Guthrie

Posted by The Memphis TEA Party at 15 September 2009, 4:24 PM | Add Comment

Obama Now - "The Acorn Doesn't Fall Far From The Tree"

Well, it has been a very interesting week. With the advent of the termination, excuse me, resignation of Van Jones, the stepping aside of the NEA executive due to propagandizing for Obama, the termination of the census relationship to ACORN, the Senate vote to terminate funding for ACORN for housing consulting and the videos showing how ACORN supports tax evasion, prostitution, pimping, human trafficking and underage sex workers (whew - another week like this and I won’t be able to write about it) AND a million plus showing upin Washington to protest his policies and spending actions, the Obama administration has found itself in deep difficulty. We might ask ourselves that proverbial question: if a tree (oak of course) falls on the White House, does Obama hear it?

And what is the president’s response? Obama-vision, all day, every day – 24 hours and weekends too! Yes, we get another Obamathon whenever this president is in trouble. He makes Chavez and Castro look like pikers when it comes to using the media to hide the problems he has caused himself. Remember, the mighty oak tree grows from the little acorn, or in this case, the president’s mighty problems have grown from the crooked ACORN. Yes, community organizing is a great business – you can teach people how to launder money, avoid taxes, take illicit deductions, get a “business loan”, open a brothel, get free legal advice and gain access to the president of the United States of America.

The truth of the matter is that the relationships that Obama has nurtured throughout his life and his career have now come back to haunt him. As my father always used to say, you may be a perfectly fine person, but you will be judged by those with whom you associate. From his earliest days in Hawaii, he has associated with known communists, Marxists, the likes of Ayers and Dohrn, Reverend Wright, Tony Rezko, former Governor Rod Blagojevich, Rashid Khalidi, Van Jones, Cass Sunstein, Mark Lloyd and of course the mighty ACORN.

Now, with the advent of their criminal activities coming to light and calls for a special investigation, we will see if his Attorney General, the ever responsible Mr. Eric Holder, will be as erstwhile in his pursuit of justice with this criminal group under the RICO act as he is about prosecuting the CIA! Of course, if his dismissal of the Black Panther voter intimidation charges during election 2008 are any indication, we shouldn't hold our breath. So, we ask ourselves, is this administration not only associating itself with some of the most radical elements in our society but also the most corrupt? Will Obama begin to address the constant drumbeat of radicalism coming out of his administration and now, a corrupt and morally derelict group of community organizers like ACORN?

I would suggest not, for if Obama rejects ACORN, he rejects the entirety of his persona and the narrative that has filled his resume’ to date. No, in fact Obama has not produced the kind of people that we would normally associate with in developing his administration or his policies. Most of us would not imagine having relationships with two or three of these people with whom he has built his adult experience. And based on the continued support of the likes of ACORN and the unprecedented access he has provided them and the likes of the SEIU to his administration, we can only imagine the destructive impact they are having in crafting some of the legislation coming out of his administration.

So, will this group of community organizers become the “acorn around his neck” or will he finally do the right thing and initiate the appropriate investigation into this group’s activities and criminal actions. As long as Obama continues down the current path, the American people will reject his policies and be suspicious of his motives. No amount of rhetoric will be able to overcome the facts and with the illegitimacy of the MSM, he will no longer have the blind eye of his propaganda machine to help him. We need to keep the pressure on him and our legislators and make our voices heard! Remember that other old adage from our fathers; “the acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree”.

Posted by The Memphis TEA Party at 15 September 2009, 2:40 PM | Add Comment

Radio Diversity - "The Venezuelan Solution"

Well, while it wasn't much of a prediction, I had stated on Friday during the TEA Party Express rally that Van Jones would be gone by Tuesday morning. And while anyone who was listening and watching could have suggested the long holiday weekend would be used to mitigate the "newsworthiness" of the event, his departure marks the first of what we hope will be many departures from the Czarist regime of Barrack Obama.

It is interesting that the administration went to great pains to note that the president did not order the termination of Van Jones. He, in light of his continued distraction to the president's message, decided to resign. It is amusing that the president could not make a decision to terminate a known communist-social justice-name calling-truther believing-green jobs czar, but COULD quickly make the decision to terminate a capitalist CEO and head of General Motors within weeks of his ascendancy to the presidency. But alas, I digress, Van Jones was simply a victim of a smear campaign. After all, he would ask, do you believe me or your lying eyes?

Yes, in the internet age, you don't say or write what you don't want to come back to you later. The fact that his videos, speeches and actions were evidence enough to "convict" didn't diminish his position in the eyes of this president. Van Jones simply did the right thing and removed himself from the controversy. Never mind that Glenn Beck and those TEA Party people mobilized to make sure the press, our legislators and the general public knew of this man's predilection for radicalism. But in the end, it was the enormous pressure to make sure the slate was clean as the president was preparing to address Congress this week that likely caused the green jobs czar to vacate.

So where do we go from here? Well, I would suggest that we need to continue the pressure to remove the entirety of the czarist infrastructure of the Obama administration. And the next man that needs to go is the FCC Diversity Chief. He is a clear and present danger to our free speech through his radical views of the airwaves and in context of conservative radio in particular. As Glenn Beck has provided, this is a man whose radical views of democracy suggest that the Venezuelan dictator, Hugo Chavez is a role model for "democratic revolution" and the appropriate use of media generally. As you will find in the video below, Mark Lloyd is particularly impressed with Hugo and his democratic revolution. And he has a few "taxing" ideas on how to level the playing field through localization in radio. Check out the link below along with Glenn Beck's commentary.

FCC Diversity Chief Extolling the Virtues of Chavez

So let's examine the current events in Venezuela that Mark Lloyd found so inspiring! Reuters UK published the following article providing the status of that free speech bastion Venezuela and the Chavez regime that Mr. Lloyd thought so much of only a short time ago! Read on and consider why Mark Lloyd must be the next to go.

Chavez minister vows more Venezuela radio closings

Sat Sep 5, 2009 10:14pm BST

* Radio stations to be pulled after 34 closed in August

* Critics say hits free speech, government says democratic

* Anti-Chavez TV network in the spotlight over coup rumor

CARACAS, Sept 5 (Reuters) - Venezuela will pull the plug on 29 more radio stations, a top official in President Hugo Chavez's government said on Saturday, just weeks after dozens of other outlets were closed in a media clampdown. Infrastructure Minister Diosdado Cabello closed 34 radio stations in July, saying the government was "democratizing" media ownership. Critics say the move limits freedom of expression and has taken critical voices off the airwaves.

The powerful Chavez ally has threatened to close over 100 stations in total, part of a long-term campaign against private media that the government says are biased against Chavez's government. "Another 29 will be gone before long," he told thousands of Chavez supporters at a political rally, without giving details which stations would be closed or when. Cabello also said he was launching a new legal case against Globovision, the country's most prominent anti-government television network, accusing it of inciting a coup against Chavez.

Text messages circulated Last week in Venezuela saying a coup against Chavez was imminent. Other messages circulated among Chavez supporters calling for them to be on the alert. The government quashed the rumors quickly and said all military units were acting normally. "They (Globovision) aired a tape supposedly with telephone messages calling for a coup d'etat," said Cabello, a member of Chavez's inner circle who took part in the president's first bid for office -- a violent and abortive coup in 1992. Chavez was himself ousted for 48 hours 10 years later in a short-lived army rebellion after he won office democratically. That putsch had the support of some of the country's television companies.

In 2007, Chavez took revenge, refusing to renew the concession of Venezuela's oldest and most widely watched private station, RCTV, which is now visible only on cable. 9/6/2009 Chavez minister vows more Venezuela.

Now to be sure, Mark Lloyd was only trying to demonstrate his international bonafides in referencing the Chavez democratic revolution. I am certain that we have all misunderstood his views in context of this video, the current events in Venezuela and the alignment of numerous writings of the learned and "informed" Mr. Lloyd. And of course, the president really didn't know anything about Mark Lloyd except that he liked his "diversity" of opinion when it came to radio station ownership, tax policies regarding that ownership and of course the elimination of conservative talk radio. You see, as Mr. Chavez understood, you need to control the media and eliminate your enemies so as to limit their damage to your "democratic" efforts to level the playing field and provide equal outcome!

No, this administration is either the dumbest bunch of thugs to ever come out of the city of Chicago or the shrewdest group of schemers ready to restrict your freedoms and ensure their agenda through the deployment and hiring of this shadow government. I hope that you will pick up your phone, dial your representative and request that they investigate these people and the constitutionality of these czars, special advisers and avowed radicals. And in the meantime, arm yourself with the facts and read, view and assess the words of these people who would remake our country. In the end, perhaps we can actually gain some valuable insight from the Venezuelan solution - and that is once you get the bums out, keep them out!

Posted by The Memphis TEA Party at 6 September 2009, 10:12 PM | Add Comment

Educator Obama - "Pep Talk or Social Rally"

Obama Set To Speak To All Public School Children on September 8, 2009 at 12 Noon!

Do You Know What Obama Will Tell Your Children?

After discussing the current initiative by PresidentObama to speak to all school children, we felt you should have a copy of the communication and documents that are being proposed. Regrettably, there is no transcript for the president's speech or the specific content of that speech.

What we do know is that he has asked to speak to the entirety of the US public school student population as is communicated in the note from the Secretary of Eduction, Arne Duncan, which we have attached for your review.

First, as a parent and father, I am able to review the books and curriculum my children are being taught. If I disagree, I can review it with the principal or hold my child out of school at the time of any objectionable material being presented or pursue other actions should the school not consider those objections. This is not the case in the Obama message.

Second, the timing is such that no prior review is possible and the "event" is being presented as a benign effort to encourage learning. However, if you look at the attached Q&A and Activities lists, you will note a clear orientation of justifying and considering Obama's views rather than an objective assessment of learning generally.

While the president is a learned man, he is no educator. I reviewed this situation with the principal of my children's school and she has confirmed that they will not be participating in this action. I further indicated that should that change, my children will not be in class that day!

No one has the right to tell my children what to do or what to think without my PRIOR review and approval. I vet the teachers through parent-teacher meetings, evaluate coaching staff, verify background checks, etc., etc. And given the current administration’s social engineering, I would not wish my children to embrace his views. The president is a politician, not an educator.

I urge you to review the attached documents and article and make your own decision. However, I would encourage you to discuss this with your family and friends, review the situation with your principal and children's teachers and ultimately come to your own conclusion.

To be forewarned is to be forearmed. On a personal level, I am fully in opposition to this effort in light ofthe lack of any concrete statement of objective, the actual speech itself and without a change in the "activities and questions" that are clearly oriented towards affirming Obama rather than the message.

You decide!

(See Documents Below for Your Review)

Letter From Secretary of Education

Q&A for Grades PreK~6 Q&A for Grades 7~12

Article - Parents Rebelling Article - No Junior Lobbyist Left Behind

Posted by The Memphis TEA Party at 1 September 2009, 11:29 PM | Add Comment

Insurance Reform - "Socialists Need Not Apply"

The current healthcare debate seemed to first center on healthcare reform. As the details and the “weight” of the bills as drafted became known, the administration began to discuss health insurance reform. The thinking here was that by changing the terminology the electorate would settle down.

Of course, we know the result – further degradation in the numbers and an angrier electorate. And now, we find the Democrats calling for reform in context of “Teddy Kennedy” – the new rallying cry. Can you imagine, the very guy that used all of his money and power to stay alive is now going to be the posthumous sponsor of a bill that would limit choice, limit treatment and limit life! In fact, Kennedy loved life so much that he sacrificed a young woman’s life by leaving her in a car in the water, later discovering she had ripped the liner of the car while likely surviving the accident – that is until her air bubble collapsed. Maybe the Kennedy association would be appropriate for those it would leave “behind” through rationing and allocation of resources.

However, I have a different view that I would offer. It is essentially based on “five pillars” of health insurance reform – and socialists need not apply. These pillars or regulatory changes incorporate the best of our private insurance with existing programs and reform that is working. The key elements are:

Transportability
Pre-Existing Conditions
Pooling
Cafeteria Selection
Tort Reform

So let’s look at why these regulatory reforms would help solve much of the problem.

First, transportability is a requirement that will allow anyone with a policy to retain that policy should they change jobs, move to a new market or suffer a job loss over time. Transportability would ensure that those people who purchase their own policy can retain that policy whether they work for another company or entity that may or may not provide health insurance.

Second, pre-existing conditions must be covered by any newpolicy holder, period. The idea is that most corporate plans allow for pre-existing conditions to be covered, such as high blood pressure, pregnancy, etc. This model could be applied through the same reform and ensure that all people who desire to be covered can be covered. Critical to this effort is the need for pooling.

Third, pooling will allow for the further spreading of risk across a larger group of insured. Texas does this in the state and is looking for the ability to do pooling across state lines. This is currently limited by federal law. In addition, pooling is one way the Federal government is able to balance its risk for Federal employee benefits. If it works for the government plan it should be allowed for the privately insured.

Fourth, a “cafeteria” approach to insurance would allow for selection of different levels of benefits, much as auto insurance or homeowners insurance does today. The approach would further allow for people who prefer a minimum level of insurance to make that decision, taking this out of the government’s hands. Further, a cafeteria option would allow for selective insurance based on gender or family situation – essentially reducing the expense for those people who today may be paying for a “blended” policy.

Finally, tort reform must be part of an overall reform package. Tort reform has been proven to enhance medical care through improved delivery and a reduction of costs related to lawsuits, generally. It is instructive that the administration has done little to advance this option and has ignored the results in Texas which have clearly demonstrated its success. It is importantl to note that capping non-economic damages does NOT reduce the payment for economic damages relating to the inability of the affected patient to work or make a living.

And given the scant discussion of tort reform, the Texas model provides an instructive review of its actual benefits to a patient community, those practicing medicine, those manufacturing pharmaceuticals and medical devices and finally the actual cost of insurance generally. The discussion below, presented by Governor Rick Perry of Texas, provides a remarkable picture:

The state of Texas capped non-economic damages at $250,000 per defendant, or up to $750,000 per incident, while placing no cap on more easily determined economic damages, such as lost wages or cost of medical care due to injury. This ended the practice of allowing baseless, but expensive, lawsuits to drag on indefinitely, requiring plaintiffsto provide expert witness reports to support their claims within four months of filing suit or drop the case.

These measures were supported by the people of Texas, who in September of 2003 approved a ballot measure, Proposition 12, authorizing all of these changes. Changes were seen immediately, and continue to be felt. All major liability insurers cut their rates upon passage of these reforms, with most of those cuts ranging in the double digits.

More than 10 new insurance carriers entered the Texas market, increasing competition and further lowering costs. As a result, Texas doctors have seen their insurance rates decline by, on average, 27 percent.

The number of doctors applying to practice medicine in Texas has skyrocketed by 57 percent. In 2008, the Texas Medical Board received 4,023 licensure applications and issued a record 3,621 new licenses.

In all, in just the first five years after reforms passed, 14,498 doctors either returned to practice in Texas or began practicing there for the first time. And the reforms finally brought critical specialties to underserved areas. The number of obstetricians practicing in rural Texas is up by 27 percent, and 12 counties that previously had no obstetricians now have at least one. The statistics show major gains in fields like orthopedic surgery, pediatrics, neurosurgery and emergency medicine.

The Rio Grande Valley has seen an 18 percent growth in applications to practice medicine, adding about 200 doctors to this critically underserved area.

And what about the money that used to go to defending all those frivolous lawsuits? You can find it in budgets for upgraded equipment, expanded emergency rooms, patient safety programs and improved primary and charity care.

Success stories like Texas need to be told and need to be remembered as we continue this national debate. Instead of handing down "one size fits all" mandates on how it's going to be, Washington should be enabling states to set their own agendas, and solve their own problems when it comes to health care. And of course, these “pillars of reform” do not require the wholesale takeover of our healthcare system by an administration that has been unable to gain the trust of the people by promoting its current agenda. Again, Socialists need not apply!

Posted by The Memphis TEA Party at 28 August 2009, 4:31 PM | View Comments (1) | Add Comment

Town Hall - "It's All Make Believe"

I simply could't pass this blog up and with credit, added this to our site. The MSM keeps telling us that the "right wing mobs" are astroturf! Nothing real about the portests going on - simply paid for and instigated by large hidden corporate and Republican organizations. Except that most of that payment is from the Democrats and the Obama administration and now their supporters are even pretending to be doctors! You'll enjoy the read and take satisfaction that the loons that are the libs continue to embarass themselves and this President. I wonder if she amputated anyone's feet for the $30,000 reimbursement? Oh, sorry, that would have been a General Surgeon, not a Pediatrician - as dear leader stated in his latest staged Town Hall event!

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Playing Doctor for ObamaCare

Posted by: Meredith Jessup at 2:24 PM

During Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee's town hall meeting... you know, the one where this happened... a doctor stood to voice her support for the proposed health care plan:

When prompted, Dr. Roxana Mayer told the congresswoman she had been practicing medicine for four year and told the Houston Chronicle that she was a "pediatric primary care physician." In their story recapping the meeting, theChronicle noted:

Some attendees at the meeting spoke in favor of the plan, go so far as to want a system where the government had complete control. [sic]
One supporter, Dr. Roxana Mayer, a physician who does not live in Jackson Lee’s district, praised the reform plan for overhauling a broken system.
“I don’t know what there is in the bill that creates such panic,” she said.

A photo of Dr. Mayer hugging the congresswoman also ran with the story:

Turns out, the name "Dr. Roxana Mayer" doesn't appear in the database maintained by the Texas Medical Board, a registry of all licensed doctors in the state. But the name "Roxana Mayer" does show up on Barack Obama's websiteas a Texas Delegate for Obama--a small bit of information the Chronicle was aware of, but didn't report in its story.

Though the Chronicle didn't bother to check into Ms. Mayer's background, some average citizens did. Unable to find evidence of her medical practice, Patrick Frey of Patterico.com emailed Mayer to get more information on her background. Mayer responded to Frey's email correspondence, saying:

...For what it’s worth, I went to get a question answered for myself and two other people close to me who are doctors. Too bad she didn’t answer it. I also went to lend support to the reform effort. It’s easier to be against something especially since anger is such a great motivator... I do think this is all very funny because I just assume that if my going had been part of a conspiracy, it would have been more seemlessly executed.

But when pressed further by Frey as to whether or not she was actually a doctor, Mayer said she was not and joked:

But who knows, that was only my first town hall meeting–even though I was a delegate. If I go to another one, which I seriously doubt because my husband is already extremely annoyed, then maybe I’ll play a plumber.

The Lone Star Times later picked up the story:

Our own David Jennings secured a phone interview, in which Mayer admitted to impersonating a physician, saying — get this — she thought it would help her credibility. (It didn’t.)

The Times also ran a photo, which shed a new, crazier light on the whole situation:

Some people might recognize the face of the woman who sat in the background while Mayer stood to praise ObamaCare. That woman, who accompanied Mayer to the town hall meeting, was Maria Isabel--the Obama devotee who ran a campaign office which proudly displayed the Che Guevara flag.

What a circus. Let this meeting be a "teachable moment" for everyone attending town halls: question what you hear and keep your eyes open for loons.

Posted by The Memphis TEA Party at 13 August 2009, 4:18 PM | Add Comment

Older Entries

Newer Entries

Main Navigation

Manhattan Declaration - "When Government Declared War on Life"

The Dialogue Has Changed

Preamble

Declaration

Drafting Committee

Localism - "Politics Is Still High Touch"

Obama Presidency - "Bush Derangement Syndrome"

Liberal Republicans - "An Oxymoron in New York"

The 9/12 NATIONAL TEA PARTY

Obama Now - "The Acorn Doesn't Fall Far From The Tree"

Radio Diversity - "The Venezuelan Solution"

Educator Obama - "Pep Talk or Social Rally"

Insurance Reform - "Socialists Need Not Apply"

Town Hall - "It's All Make Believe"

Back to Main Page

Quick Search

Calendar

Media Player

Syndicate

Monthly Archives

Category Archives

Recent Entries

Recent Comments

Subscribe

Twitter Link