This may be the most important election year of our lifetime, and liberty-minded activists are preparing for an all-out sprint to the finish. Every step of the way, American Majority is empowering conservative activists and candidates to win elections in towns, counties, cities, and states where the voice of the people desperately needs to be heard – state and local governments dominated by a “Ruling Class” of long-time incumbents.

As AM’s work continues across the country, the hold of the Ruling Class begins to break. Every week, activists and candidates praise the effectiveness and accessibility of AM’s training programs, and in each election season, these activists and candidates are applying their newly acquired tactics and winning. And here’s the best part: the movement is only beginning to gather momentum.

We at AM firmly believe that these newly elected officials from the grassroots are tomorrow’s national leadership. They are the conservative “farm team” – a new crop of prospects that will be vetted and promoted to the major leagues, and some of them in just a few cycles. This farm team is crucial to the continuity of the cause of freedom – new “recruits” must continuously replenish the ranks of liberty-minded leaders at all levels of government.

But they cannot do it without your help.

American Majority is calling on its supporters to Join the Farm Team in 2012. To achieve victory this year, we must labor until the very end of the process, eleven months from now. Will you make a commitment today to sponsor the farm team for the next eleven months, and see their work through to the end?

Every month, over three hundred liberty-minded activists and candidates receive cutting-edge training and resources from American Majority, and all of it is made possible by generous supporters who have chosen to fund the farm team. Dedicated supporters provide all of the materials, personnel, and logistics necessary to bring these essential tools for victory to aspiring conservative leaders. In this crucial election year, would you consider becoming one of them?

Your support has a direct, tangible impact. Over the course of the next eleven months, your can provide members of the conservative farm team with invaluable resources for victory. Even as a Scout-level sponsor, for just $5 per month, AM manuals will be printed and distributed to 35 conservative activists and candidates. And the impacts only increase:

Scout: $5 per month will print and distribute AM manuals to 35 activists or candidates this year
Coach: $10 per month will print and distribute manuals to 60 local school board candidates in 2012
Manager: $25 per month will train 11 online activists in 2012 who will fight the Left on blogs, social media, Wikis, and other new media platforms
Executive: $50 per month will train 11 candidates for office in 2012 who will continue to break the hold of the Ruling Class in their state and local governments
President: $100 per month will fund an expansion of our local candidate manuals, empowering candidates to run for city council and county commission and win. These governing bodies are in desperate need of small-government representatives, as local government debt continues to build year after year.
CEO: $250 per month will fund an AM training in all 12 AM-identified battleground states in 2012.

American Majority will be working harder than ever to empower the grassroots in 2012, seeing this year through until the job is done. We ask you to do the same by joining the Farm Team, and committing to sponsor American Majority’s trainees for the next eleven months. Together, we can restore prosperity and preserve liberty for our great nation.

This year, as town council, school board and other local elections are held across the nation, voters are getting involved like never before and are standing up to demand accountability and responsibility from their elected officials. As states face critical budget issues, town councils have to decide whether to cut spending or raise local taxes, and corrupt elected officials are taken to task, our country needs patriots who are organized, effective and ready to stand for lower taxes, transparency, and Constitutional government.

American Majority will be conducting an activist training session in Cordele, Georgia on Saturday, October 22nd, sponsored by Brad Faircloth and Misdemeanor Probation. The event will be geared toward giving grassroots activists in Georgia the resources and information that will help them utilize timeless tactics proven to win elections for their chosen candidates, as well as cutting-edge technology meant to streamline and facilitate voter contact. Topics addressed at the training include:

-      Precinct Work: Learn the importance of researching, “microtargeting,” and “hardwiring” the most basic building blocks of the electoral map: precincts. A strategy based on these small groups of voters can make or break an election.

-      GOTV: An age-old acronym meaning “Get out the vote!” Learn time-tested tactics that will bring voters to the polls for your candidate on election day.

-      Community Organizing for Freedom: The Left has spent decades building a permanent political infrastructure in their communities that can be relied upon to deliver electoral victory year after year. Learn their tactics and use them to counter-organize for the cause of liberty.

The training will be held at the Ramada Inn in Cordele, located at  2016 16th Ave. East, Cordele, GA 31015 from 9:00AM-2:00PM. Lunch and training materials will be provided.

If you have any questions or would like additional information, email Ken Mayo at  Ken@AmericanMajority.org.

American Majority is a non-profit and non-partisan political training organization whose mission is to train and equip a national network of leaders committed to individual freedom through limited government and the free market.

* Topics are subject to change. Registration is open to the public.

This year, as town council, school board and other local elections are held across the nation, voters are getting involved like never before and are standing up to demand accountability and responsibility from their elected officials. As states face critical budget issues, town councils have to decide whether to cut spending or raise local taxes, and corrupt elected officials are taken to task, our country needs patriots who are organized, effective and ready to stand for lower taxes, transparency, and Constitutional government.

In partnership with the First Coast Tea Party, American Majority will be conducting an activist training session in Jacksonville, Florida on Saturday, October 15th . The event will be geared toward giving grassroots activists in Florida the resources and information that will help them utilize timeless tactics proven to win elections for their chosen candidates, as well as cutting-edge technology meant to streamline and facilitate voter contact. Topics addressed at the training include:

-      Precinct Work: Learn the importance of researching, “microtargeting,” and “hardwiring” the most basic building blocks of the electoral map: precincts. A strategy based on these small groups of voters can make or break an election.

-      GOTV: An age-old acronym meaning “Get out the vote!” Learn time-tested tactics that will bring voters to the polls for your candidate on election day.

-     Community Organizing for Freedom: The Left has spent decades building a permanent political infrastructure in their communities that can be relied upon to deliver electoral victory year after year. Learn their tactics and use them to counter-organize for the cause of liberty.

-     A special presentation of GroundSWELL by Political Gravity Executive Vice President Matt Armstrong: Political Gravity has developed a cutting-edge tool for Voter Relationship Management (VRM). GroundSWELL is a revolutionary campaign tool designed to allow the conservative movement to take the lead in technology. GroundSWELL consists of a mobile canvassing application, a mobile GOTV application, and is built around a VRM on the back end, which enables campaigns to do sophisticated microtargeting and analysis. These tools are sold to conservative candidates at affordable pricing, and are also available to TEA Parties and conservative grassroots groups at no charge in order to help the conservative movement.

The training will be held at the Holiday Inn Jacksonville I-95 Baymeadows, at 9150 Baymeadows Rd. in Jacksonville, Florida, from 9:00AM-2:00PM. The registration fee of $25.00 per person includes lunch and training materials.

If you have any questions or would like additional information, email Ken Mayo at  Ken@AmericanMajority.org.

American Majority is a non-profit and non-partisan political training organization whose mission is to train and equip a national network of leaders committed to individual freedom through limited government and the free market.

* Topics are subject to change. Registration is open to the public.

What if it’s all on purpose?

The country’s biggest talkers have unabashedly taken this question into consideration in recent weeks as the state of our nation’s economy continues to worsen. Even Rush Limbaugh, the most listened-to man in America, argued that an economic collapse or a default on our national debt would be “intentional” on the part of the current administration.

Intentionally destroying the economy? Why would our elected officials intentionally bring economic hardship on their own people? Who in our representative government would do such a terrible thing? We could ponder these matters all day, but these are the wrong questions.

Two weeks ago, the Department of Agriculture announced that more Americans than ever, a whopping 45.8 million, are on food stamps (now known as SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). Of all Americans with stomachs, nearly 15 percent can’t fill them without the government, uhh, “supplementing” their “nutrition.” These 46 million recipients are only 67 percent of the number eligible to apply. That means that 22%, over one fifth of all Americans, have been determined to be in need of government-distributed money to put food on their tables. This is a tragic development for sure, as the mere thought of families unable to feed themselves is unsettling in this land of prosperity.

Via the Daily Kos

But take heart! Our beloved government has overcome hunger, so we need not despair over such an abysmal expansion of the welfare state. According to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, food stamps are just another form of “economic stimulus.” Well, that’s one way to describe it.

Normally, we would have let out a despairing sigh as we pointed to these welfare numbers as a sign of a poor economy. But as our elected leaders keep digging a deeper hole, the excuse makers are running out of alternative explanations, and the American people are beginning to wonder: Could this be more than a poor economy? Could this be an engineered trend? What could the engineers possibly stand to gain by impoverishing their own people?

Over 150 years ago, a French aristocrat named Alexis de Tocqueville wrote of the dangers of a “soft despotism.” Even a century and a half ago, after only a few years in the country, a foreigner was able to warn us of the risk of democratic oppression of the masses by their own selfishness. When people allow themselves to be nestled into the coddling arms of their own government, they forfeit their liberty, their treasure, their dignity, and the very self-reliance that makes them human.

Half of all Americans now receive some form of government aid, and the statists are happy to provide it not because they hope to solve problems, but because they hope to solidify and enslave a permanent base by holding dignified citizens ransom for votes. What more Americans are realizing every day is that we do not simply have a bad batch of politicians in Washington who are trying and failing at their jobs. We are not even governed, as many like to think, by a group of self-interested fat cats apathetic toward their own constituents’ needs. Our country is run by a crop of malevolent, power-hungry aristocrats bent on the aggregation of power at the expense of the people’s liberty.

Despite our oft-repeated national credo that “all men are created equal,” there is a ruling class in the United States, and its interests stand diametrically opposed to those of the American people.

As they sit in their smoke-filled room, this ruling class clambers for more “stimulus” (in the form of food stamps and otherwise). They toss us, the American people, onto the poker table like inherently worthless chips to be gambled away for more votes, more influence, more power, as they sip their brandy, puff on their expensive cigars, and project a chorus of belly laughs that lack even the slightest hint of restraint or remorse for their daily betrayal of the very people who empower them.

And why should they feel any lingering regret? As goes the dependence of the populace on the provision of the government, so goes the electoral security of the statist machine. Why not laugh with gusto as votes flow into the ballot box and treasure pours into the coffers? Sure, they have to face themselves in the mirror as one-fifth of their citizens hold out their hands for a “nutrition supplement,” but in return, they are assured that these government-manufactured Dickensian shells of once capable and driven individuals would never bite the hand that feeds them.

So what would you do in their position? More Americans than ever look to the government to put food on their tables every night. Would you solve the problem, or expand the base and your job security by adding more citizens to the government dole?

Our ruling class has run out of excuses for this abuse of power, and the American people have run out of patience. Our Washingtonian leaders can no longer claim to be even remotely interested in real recovery because we now see that they care only about power, gathered and hoarded on the backs of once-dignified citizens. It is clearer than ever that real recovery must come from somewhere else.

The President has released his long-form birth certificate, proving that he was, in fact, born in Hawaii as he has consistently said. You can find the (.pdf) here, and the press secretary’s statement here.

It was just a matter of time until this came out. For an explanation of the political expediency of releasing the certificate today, I point you to Erick Erickson at RedState.

This development, of course, means that thousands (and maybe millions) or birfers, including the ever-incendiary Donald Trump, must find a new pastime. As AM President Ned Ryun made clear last year, American Majority does not welcome or encourage discussion of the birth certificate issue (now non-issue). It is, and always has been, a waste of time, resources, and brainpower for otherwise clever and thoughtful would-be activists.

Now, thanks to the president (and I say that without sarcasm), thousands of former birfers can fully devote their efforts to recruiting, supporting, and electing conservative candidates at the local and state levels without concern for conspiracy theories or far-flung scenarios of the president’s birth.

Former birfers, welcome back. Let’s get to work.

You may never hear me say this again, but I am proud to proclaim that I am more progressive than my peers here at UVA.

When a group of twenty of us were asked whether it was worth making the effort to retain objectivity in the reporting of news, nineteen said yes: reporters and news organizations should strive for objectivity, and we should highly value reportage that we determine to be without bias.

The one dissenter was, as you may have guessed, yours truly.

And really, why should we continue the pursuit of this sham we call objectivity? By objectivity, I mean reporting news in such a way as to remove any preconceived notions or opinions from the selection or documentation of facts, conveying to the reader only the relevant information and allowing him or her to form an opinion.

I’ll say it as frankly as I can: objectivity in the media is a fruitless and unfulfillable pursuit that only the naive choose to perpetuate. The more realistic and – dare I say it – forward thinking among us have exchanged objectivity for transparency, and I submit to you that transparency is what we should begin looking for in our news. Call me a cynic if you will, but this is where the world is headed.

Why not value objectivity? The idea seems logical. We would love to have the facts packaged and delivered to us, allowing us to judge for ourselves what the best course of action would be in any given situation. For example, if any of us read a news story composed simply of the current federal budget, we would love to think for ourselves and conclude that cutting spending is the best way to go. Or, if you read a short news story telling you that millions of illegal immigrants come over our southern border every year, you would probably conclude that securing the border is the best first step toward solving the problem. Objective reporting sounds wonderful, doesn’t it?

The problem is that no news outlet reports just the facts. If they did, we would be bored out of our minds. Take the budget example. Do you really want to read “just the facts” about the federal budget? Of course not. It is much more interesting to hear the two sides of the debate and cheer for whichever side has the best ideas. There is nothing wrong with that. But make no mistake: fair and balanced reporting is not objective. If we were given the option of “just the facts” objectivity, most of us would find it very unappealing.

In addition to being boring, objective reporting is a figment of news editors’ imaginations. If you watch any of the major network news outlets or read any of the major newspapers, all of which claim to be “objective,” “unbiased,” or even “no spin,” you know that unbiased reporting is not practiced anywhere and is, in fact, impossible. We have all heard about the New York Times‘ decline and slow, painful, impending death. I’ve got news for the Times: readers have realized that their claims of objectivity are hollow, and their subscriptions have been steadily cut off as a result.

What I encourage you all to do instead is to embrace and perpetuate a trend of transparency in the media rather than objectivity. Accept bias and subjectivity as par for the course. Watch Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, or Neil Cavuto. Listen to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, or Mark Levin. And, in addition, watch Anderson Cooper, Katie Couric, and Rachel Maddow. If you have some obscure cable package that enables you, find Keith Olbermann’s show and become one of his ten viewers. Read RedState.com, the Drudge Report, the Huffington Post, the Daily Kos, or this very blog.

All of these news sources come with bias, preconceived notions, and opinions. What’s more, they wear their subjectivity on their sleeve. They are by no means objective in the way they report, but they are transparent. If you want conservative news aimed at grassroots activists, read the American Majority blog or RedState.com. If you want a conservative take on your national news, watch FoxNews. If you want to find out what the people on the other side of the debate are thinking, turn on MSNBC and grab some antacids. Regardless of what a reporter’s perspective is, we should value his or her transparency rather than objectivity in reporting.

If we know a news source’s bias before reading, we know how much credence to give it while consuming it. For decades before our current one, Americans bought into heinous stories and philosophies because they received them from what they thought were “objective” news networks reporting the “facts.” We know better now. In this world of new media, social media, blogs, and do-it-yourself reporting, we know that objectivity is impossible and fruitless. What we need is transparency and honesty. May we pursue it, and may we become better armed as a result.

This time he’s taking on Google, and this is sure to be a battle of epic proportions.

In this clip found on NBC Bay Area’s website (more on this less-than-professional news outlet in a moment), Beck questions the ties of the internet giant and says that he will most likely not be using Google anymore.

Now, briefly, I’d like to point out that, contrary to the article’s title, Beck does not “urge a Google boycott.” In fact, he emphatically says the opposite. He states that he personally will not be using it, but that he is not trying to lead a boycott. Second, look at the picture of Beck posted at the top of the article. I’m not sure if it’s the NBC affiliated status, the San Francisco location, or both, but something tells me these guys don’t like Glenn Beck very much.

Now, about Google.

Beck explains that, for several reasons, he is “uncomfortable” with Google because of its involvement in the recent Egyptian revolution, its coziness with the U.S. government, and its donations to some left-wing organizations. His discomfort is warranted.

Last year, Google donated $145 million to charity, some of these donations to left-wing non profit groups. However, as found here, Google has a policy of matching the charitable gifts of its employees up to $12,000, meaning that plenty of non-left-wing groups received Google money as well. As Beck mentions, Google has partnered with the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, an agency that exists to provide satellite images to government intelligence services. This could be good for national security given the sophistication of Google Earth, but it is also a bit disconcerting.

But all things considered, the bigger question is: what should we do about it? Even Beck says,

I’m not sure if I want my search engine involved in government overthrows, good or bad. What I want from a search engine is good search results.

Like Beck, I would prefer that my search engine not be involved in revolutions. But the sticky part of this situation is that Google is the undisputed king of good search results. It is the single most visited site on the internet with over three billion hits per day. Statistically, over 95 percent of you found the American Majority website for the first time through Google.

Moreover, American Majority recognizes the importance of using Google to your advantage as a conservative activist, even though Google and its executives have shown themselves to be liberal more often than not. When we speak of Search Engine Optimization (SEO), we are really talking about what we call “Google Juice,” your ability to appear high on a list of Google Search results. SEO is crucial in creating your online presence as a candidate or activist, and Google is virtually the only search engine worth focusing on.

So, being that Glenn Beck influences so many people, what do we do now? Is Google worth worrying about, or will we go on using it because it is the biggest and best? I don’t know about you, but I have to think for a few seconds to even come up with the name of an alternative search engine to Google. Can we even make a dent? Should we even try?

Or is he onto something?

It’s only been three weeks, and Marco Rubio, the newest Senator from Florida, may be in some hot water with his base already.

As reported Monday evening by Ricochet.com (one of my favorite blogs these days), Fox News, The Daily Caller, and others, Rubio has refused to commit to joining the Senate Tea Party Caucus. Though he was elected with undeniable and substantial Tea Party support only two months ago, Rubio recently told a Florida political blog that joining the caucus could potentially lead to the co-option and adulteration of the so-far relatively pure Tea Party movement.

Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Rubio enthusiastically voiced his support for and participation in the Conservative Steering Committee, a similar group of senators headed by South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, whose conservative credentials are beyond dispute. Consequently, Rubio frankly asked, “Why do we need something in addition to the steering committee?” (Watch the video interview here).

His point: the Tea Party Caucus is redundant and unnecessary. What’s more, by allowing a group of senators to label themselves active representatives of the Tea Party while on Capitol Hill, the grassroots nature of the Tea Party would be almost certainly jeopardized. Such senators would inevitably proceed to dictate policy to the Tea Party, completely reversing the bottom-up structure that made the movement such a force to begin with.

This brings up a bigger question, though. The implication of Rubio’s reasoning here is that conservatives can make their voices heard in the Senate via previously established conservative channels. The Tea Party label does not necessarily have to be on a caucus to make it effective. Similarly, I have heard it said by a few doubting friends (whose conservative credentials, like Jim DeMint’s, are also beyond dispute) that the Tea Party itself is not truly necessary. Their line of thought goes as follows: “If people would take the energy and enthusiasm that they devote to their local Tea Party and instead show up to their local Republican Party demanding conservative candidates and principles, our problems would be solved and the Tea Party would be redundant.” A provocative statement, to be sure, but I remain unconvinced.

So here are the two big questions:

• Is Marco Rubio right in saying that the Senate Tea Party Caucus is unnecessary and redundant?
• If so, does this redundancy stretch into the grassroots, and could we make just as much of a difference through previously established channels such as primary elections and party conventions?

This may be more of an academic question (we obviously will not see the end of the Tea Party anytime soon), but I am interested to hear what you think. The Tea Party has obviously had a massive impact on elections these past few years, but some skeptics would contend that these same results could have been achieved without establishing an entirely new para-party movement.

Either way, all of us at American Majority are strong supporters of Tea Party groups and grassroots efforts of all kinds. We strongly encourage principled, everyday Americans to participate in the political process, most of all by running in primaries for local- and state-level office. Regardless of your affinity or skepticism toward the Tea Party, we encourage all caring citizens to get involved, bringing principled leadership to your local and state governments, and ultimately to Washington. At the end of the day, a politician’s choice to accept or decline an invitation to a Tea Party Caucus or some such group makes little difference; his or her principles count for everything.

It gave me great hope to read headlines such as “Judge Calls Health Law Unconstitutional” and similar titles, but to say that U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson of Virginia ruled the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional is simply not true.

Now, make no mistake. I am pleased to hear of Hudson’s ruling on the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision, as should be every American. In short, Virginia’s challenge to the constitutionality of a penalty to be imposed on any taxpayer refusing to purchase health insurance was upheld in a federal court today, and this is good news. Hudson, a George W. Bush appointee, has become “the first judge to rule against the law,” according to the Associated Press.

However, as lexington_concord writes over at RedState, it is essential for conservatives to realize that Hudson severed the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision from the larger Affordable Care Act, ruling only the “problematic” portion of the bill (namely, the penalty) unconstitutional.

Hudson’s argument is comprehensive and his reasoning sound. After reading through the ruling (it takes about an hour or so), one can be more or less satisfied with Hudson’s understanding of the Tenth Amendment and constitutional limits on the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause.

Most importantly, Hudson ruled that the federal government does not have the power to impose a penalty to enforce any law that is not an enumerated power. Unfortunately for Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Hudson firmly believes that the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision “is neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution.” Despite Congress’ attempt to categorize the penalty as a tax, thus bringing it under the legislature’s enumerated authority to tax, Hudson was not convinced. “The two words [tax v. penalty] are not interchangeable,” Hudson quotes, “and if the exaction [is] clearly a penalty, it cannot be converted into a tax by the simple expedient of calling it such.”

Amen.

Also importantly, Hudson is doubtful as to Congress’ authority to forcibly compel citizens to participate in a market by unwillingly purchasing a commodity. He writes, “A thorough survey of pertinent constitutional case law has yielded no reported decisions…extending the Commerce Clause or General Welfare Clause to encompass regulation of a person’s decision not to purchase a product.” That’s right. Just as we thought, this is an unprecedented move by Congress, or as Hudson calls it, an extension of the Commerce Clause “well beyond its current high water mark.”

Despite these encouraging statements and Hudson’s sound reasoning, his severance of the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision from the larger health care bill is less than many had hoped for. In effect, though he has ruled the most controversial part of the bill, the “individual mandate,” unconstitutional, the massive government regulation, interference, and taxation also imposed by the Affordable Care Act remain in effect.

There is still plenty of work to be done, though the Virginia ruling is encouraging, to be sure. As one caller on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show said today, “salvation will come from the South.” As a native of Virginia, I am proud to hear that that appears to have been the case today. But the incompleteness of the Hudson ruling reminds us that this is a battle not yet won, and the fight for limited government and increased liberty will be long and tenacious. Thankfully, such signs of progress as these will sustain us until we achieve victory.

As a continuation of my last post, the following excerpt is from the 1874 platform of Iowa’s Anti-Monopoly Party (the big opposition party that year – the Democratic Party of Iowa had temporarily dismantled, and the Anti-Monopolists became the chief dissenters in Iowa in the 1874 elections). Anyway, here’s another timeless anecdote of animus from a rising anti-incumbent wave:

The conduct of the present Administration in its bold defiance of public sentiment and disregard of the common good; in its prodigality and wasteful extravagance; in the innumerable frauds perpetrated under its authority; in its disgraceful partiality for and reward of unworthy favorites; in its reckless and unstable financial policy; and in its incapacity to meet the vital questions of the day, and provide for the general welfare, stands without a parallel in our national history; and the highest considerations of duty require the American people, in the exercise of their inherent sovereignty, to correct these accumulations of evil, and bring the Government back to its ancient landmarks of patriotism and economy.

Interestingly, that was all one sentence.

Read more about the 1874 mid-term elections here.

I love it when my assigned scholarly research actually produces something useful:

“The present Federal Administration — by its utter inability to comprehend the dignity or responsibilities of the duties with which it is charged; by its devotion to personal and partisan interests; by its weak and incompetent management of the national finances; by its unwarranted interference with the local self-government of the people…by its complicity with corrupt practices and scandals in various quarters; and by its appointment of notoriously incompetent men to high official positions — has justly brought upon itself the condemnation of the American people.”

It’s a bit long to put on a poster, but it sounds about right, doesn’t it? If you are anything like me, you were nodding your head throughout that whole paragraph. So who said it? Krauthammer? Erickson? Palin? Gingrich? Boehner? Not even close.

This succinct indictment of the incumbent administration (and more generally, of the American “ruling class”) was first penned in February of 1874 by the Democratic Party of Connecticut as part of their yearly platform. The incumbent administration was that of Republican President Ulysses S. Grant, infamous then and now for its corruption and incompetence. For six years, Grant had overseen the program known as Reconstruction, which was the broadest, most overt exercise of federal and executive power ever before attempted. The harvest reaped by Grant after his administration’s repeated snafus was, as this Democratic plank so bluntly puts it, “the condemnation of the American people.”

Later that year, the House of Representatives underwent the largest flip in American history, which still has not been matched to this day. Before 1874, the Republicans controlled the House 199-88, an absolutely insurmountable majority. At the end of the year (elections were held anytime between February and November), the Democrats controlled it 182-103, with two seats being held by independents – almost a complete reversal of the majority. In one year’s time, the American people completely rejected the ruling party, sending a clarion-clear message to the Grant administration that they would not tolerate more of the same.

As the title of this post states, some things never change. Unfortunately, the condemnations of this 125 year-old platform are still relevant today. Corruption, federal usurpation of state power, incompetence, and political pandering have not even begun to cease among America’s career politicians. In fact, most would argue that they have worsened. However, the good news is that the American people have not changed either. They are just as fed up and just as vigilant today as they were in 1874.

May we take heart as we reflect on the power of one year’s elections. In one year’s time, the American people achieved almost a complete inversion of power, ended an era of aristocratic rule, and effectively halted a theretofore unstoppable political agenda. We may not be looking at the same proportions as voters were then, but this year will, according to most predictions, be an undeniable rejection of the policies of an increasingly despised Congress. Regardless of allegiance to the Democrats, Republicans, Tea Party, or whatever else, we are all approaching an opportunity to participate in a comprehensive change of course this year. The United States was founded on the concept of power being vested in the people, and elections such as this one are powerful reminders of the timelessness of that truth. If it happened a century ago, it can happen now. The next 1874 may be only a few days away.

Values or victory? That is the question. Do we want politicians who will surely win, or do we want to elect the candidate most solidly representing constitutional principles and guaranteeing greater liberty to the American people? The past few election cycles have shown that the two seldom truly coincide, and so we are left with a choice between picking a winner and picking the person least likely to betray solid principles.

As Rob Long of Ricochet.com and National Review wrote earlier today, the problem with the past few decades is that voters “keep nominating and electing squishy non-conservative go-alongers, who wind up in the House or Senate and compromise away the core ideas of their supporters: smaller government, lower taxes, leaner regulatory structures, and common-sense values.” I think we can all agree with that statement.

However, the growing controversy lies in the solution to the problem of “non-conservative go-alongers.” The two sides to this argument go basically as follows: either we vote uncompromisingly for the person who has the best values but maybe not the best experience or record, or we vote for the person most likely to win, while potentially compromising some assurance of stalwart conservatism.

Following yesterday’s victory by Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, the battle lines are quickly and starkly being drawn. The most vocal opponent of O’Donnell’s candidacy by far has been long-time Republican strategist and accomplished political architect Karl Rove. He has been widely criticized by the Tea Party for his comments asserting that O’Donnell’s “bizarre statements” and “checkered background” make her race unwinnable. Similarly, Rob Long opined today that “If Republicans are ever going to take back the Senate, they’re going to have to do it with some squishy RINOs on the team…It’s as simple as that.” The Republican establishment seems to agree. The National Republican Senatorial Committee’s salutation of O’Donnell’s victory lasted all of one sentence. On the other hand, endorsements by Sarah Palin, Mark Levin, and others show that O’Donnell has plenty of supporters in the Tea Party as well.

Now, with the nominations of Sharron Angle, Joe Miller, and now Christine O’Donnell, the murmur has been growing louder. Is this what incumbents want? Does Harry Reid want to run against Angle? Many have said yes. One commentator called O’Donnell’s victory a scene from “Harry Reid’s dream journal.” Why?

It’s because truly conservative candidates from the grassroots tend to be less electable by traditional standards. Many voters are intimidated by candidates who do not compromise on principle, for better or worse. This brings us back to the question at the top of this post. In cases where the two do not coincide, do we vote for winners, or do we vote purely based on values? This question is largely moot at this point in the election season, but it can also be an important gut-check for our voting consciences.

Policy is made by the politician who wins the race, and there is no denying that. So the question becomes, is an election purely a matter of conscience, or is it a choice between the lesser of two evils? The Tea Party would answer the former, and the strategic among you would answer the latter. Your answer could very well determine the outcome of the referendum in November and in years to come.

This weekend’s “Restoring Honor” rally in Washington, D.C. drew hundreds of thousands of participants and onlookers, all gathered with a common desire. Consistent with the event’s tag line, who would not want to restore honor to their beloved homeland? I was not in attendance, but for the most part, the reports I have read give me a good impression of the day’s content. By all accounts, it seems to have been an uplifting, encouraging day of unity and reconciliation. However, at the risk of stirring up a bit of controversy, it would be wise to examine and contemplate some of the statements made by Beck’s critics. And just to be clear, I am not talking about those who disagree with him politically.

While no one of sound mind has criticized Beck for his message of optimism, honor, or even the restoration of God-centered living, some have bristled at his posturing, whether intentionally or unintentionally, as the leader of a nationwide Judeo-Christian revival begun on August 28th, 2010. Thus far, the strongest voices of opposition (see here) have come from Christian pastors who cannot help but wonder why American evangelicals are looking increasingly to the Mormon Beck to energize a nationwide awakening. One preacher in particular stated in unequivocal terms that “America needs the biblical, historical Gospel of Jesus, not the gospel of Beck.”

Now, I think we can all agree that if a message of hope, optimism, and the development of integrity and good character is being promoted in an ecumenical context, it does not matter who is speaking. Judging by all indications, it does not appear as if Beck was attempting to do anything more than that this past weekend. However, the reaction of many American Christians has been interestingly forgiving of the theological – nay, fundamental – divide between the Christian church and the Church of Latter Day Saints. This development brings two challenges to mind.

First, will Glenn Beck set the record straight, discounting any ascribed role as a spiritual leader, Judeo-Christian revivalist, or any such position of de facto authority? In other words, will he tell his audience that he is nothing more than a radio and television personality?

Second, and more importantly, will Americans, particularly American Christians, think critically about the prospect of an unordained man who professes a different faith leading what is now being called a religious revival? In his own words, Beck resolved to have America “turn back to God” at the 8/28 rally. Will those Americans who profess the Christian faith think twice about following a Mormon back to God? To be clear, I do not advocate an out-and-out dismissal of Beck’s message. Rather, I urge all of his listeners to think freely and independently about the credence and respect they give to his opinions.

With this post, I do not intend to start a debate over the theological points of Christianity or Mormonism, nor do I wish to see ad hominem attacks on either. Rather, I am interested in the thoughts of the AM readers on Glenn Beck’s role in restoring honor and integrity to American society. Here at AM, we talk often about bringing honesty and accountability back to our political culture, but such values must first be cultivated in the lives of individuals. Naturally, we will look for resources that will aid in cultivating those values. In your own personal opinion, is Glenn Beck such a resource, a skilled cultural commentator with some good, helpful ideas, or is he someone worth looking to for spiritual or moral encouragement, or even guidance?

If you’ve been reading my posts at all this summer, you know that I cannot stop looking to the past. As a student of history (though by no means an expert), it has been my privilege to blog to such a sizable, open-minded, and appreciative audience as the one here at American Majority. So as my summer internship here at the national headquarters comes to a close, I ask you to indulge me as I recall a few lessons learned, particularly applicable historical ones.

First, consider the American tradition of localized involvement. As I and other contributors have discussed here before, the American colonists were governing their towns and immediate communities in a free and democratic way long before the notion of independence from Britain had even crossed their minds. (For more information, check out the “Days of Revolution” podcast, researched and co-written by AM President Ned Ryun and yours truly). Town hall meetings and local elections predated the American Revolution by centuries in some places, making community government more than just an American legacy. Rather, it is a tried and true embodiment of the timeless pursuit of liberty, a worthwhile, concerted effort to establish and preserve God-given rights that are inextricably linked to our very humanity. Jonah Goldberg, a very astute (and entertaining) pundit once argued that localized policy making is not only traditional, but that it is crucial to the preservation of liberty. “If you win in a democratic fight,” Goldberg said, “and you infringe on the rights or the prerogatives of somebody else in your community, you’ve got to look them in the eye every day.” Imagine, if you will (and if you will permit me to wax Lennon-esque for a moment),  an America in which our elected representatives had to look us in the eye every day. Would politicians truly be able to perpetrate such invasive regulation, irresponsible spending, and unjustifiable intrusion if they had to truly see the effect it has on us, our children, and our grandchildren? Such a system can be established through the vigilance of ordinary citizens and the restoration of locally accountable government.

Second, acknowledge the importance of working within the unchangeable elements of the current system. “Pragmatism” is a word commonly associated with the political Left, but its true meaning is one that is useful for all of us. What is “pragmatic” in politics is that which will ultimately be most useful for achieving victory. There is a strong temptation in the liberty movement today to abandon politically realistic strategy in the name of principle. While this is honorable in the abstract sense, policy is made by politicians who win elections. Unfortunately, a great idea will not win an election without effective marketing, and thus we are constrained, whether we like it or not, to operate within certain limits of our political system. We should by no means abandon principle in the name of achieving victory; indeed, such cutthroat, careless politicking is what created our current condition in the first place. Unaccountable, stagnant, spineless representatives rule our country today because they cared only about winning. However, candidates who scoff at advertising, endorsements, (ethical) connections, or the two-party system in general unnecessarily complicate and almost always shipwreck their campaigns. History shows unequivocally that third parties seldom make a difference, with the exception of splitting what has traditionally been one party’s constituency.

Instead, American Majority’s mission is to make the parties a reflection of the will of the people once again, as has been stated here time and again. Even George Washington, the oft-cited critic of political parties in general, acknowledged that the “spirit of party” was “a fire not to be quenched.” History has certainly proven this to be true. As a result, we can either use the system to our advantage or ignore it at our peril.

Third, we must value most highly a commitment to morality and our Creator. As our Founding Fathers firmly believed, a nation cannot prosper without a reverence for the God who gave us the freedoms and blessings we enjoy. We live in a time when moral degradation and cultural decline go hand in hand, and we cannot bear to ignore an absolute standard of right and wrong. The preservation of our liberty hinges on the involvement of good citizens, and good citizens are produced by good parents. The vast majority of my generation has grown up watching MTV, reality television, gratuitously violent movies, and pornography. We are now preparing to take control of this country. Does that comfort you? Does a generation of leaders flooded with such morally reprehensible content give you hope for the future of the United States? It is imperative to our future prosperity and the preservation of liberty that we reverse the downward spiral by teaching responsibility, moral standards, and integrity to our children NOW.

Finally, I will bookend this summer by restating the thesis of my first post. Liberty, in and of itself, is not our goal. Surely we fight for liberty, but only so that we can DO something with it. In this post, and across the American Majority website, are strategies and tips for restoring liberty, accountability, and integrity to our political system, from the abstract to the nitty-gritty. However, what you will do with that liberty is up to you.

It has been an honor and a privilege to intern here at AM, and I look forward to seeing our (everyone’s) hard work pay off in November and beyond! God bless.

A special thanks to Austin James for sending this story my way.

In a Wall Street Journal report that has made quite a splash online, we see the true colors of many protest movements underway across America every day. The story profiles several “activists” from Washington, D.C. to California, who have discovered that picketing can be a prudent moneymaking strategy in these tough economic times. That is, if you can find an organization that pays.

Yeah, you read me right. Paid protestors.

If this looks familiar to you, don’t worry. It is. This time last year, during the last throes of opposition to Obamacare, the now-disgraced nonprofit group ACORN paid protestors at rallies in support of the controversial bill. Many have speculated that other leftist stalwarts such as SEIU and Organizing for America paid demonstrators as well.

Now, several questions immediately arise from this trend. First, is our current recession as terrible as we are told? This WSJ piece tells us that paid demonstrators are generally out-of-work tradesmen, recent college graduates, or senior citizens looking to make an extra buck. Now, we cannot fault people for taking an easy job that will help pay the bills. After all, I did the same thing throughout high school and over the summers in college. However, what should make us think twice about the steepness of this economic “crisis” is the fact that demonstrations cannot attract people (especially in the case of union protests) who come out because they simply care about the cause.

Apparently times are not yet tough enough for the “Want your job back, union member? Come out and picket” strategy. Instead, unions and organizations are plugging their events with something more like, “Want to make minimum wage for a day? Come out and protest a cause you don’t care about. Put on our tee shirt, hold our sign, and yell the words written on this index card.” Here’s your 25 dollars.

Second, we should question the dedication of unions to their issues as they hire scabs to protest for a union cause. I think the title of this WSJ article says it all: “To Protest Hiring of Nonunion Help, Union Hires Nonunion Pickets.” Sure, your union has sufficiently deep pockets to pay some recent college grad to spend the day yelling about a construction company hiring nonunion workers. The question is, do you really want to compromise the integrity of your organization by stooping to such a hypocritical low? Just because scab protestors are an option does not mean that they should be used.

Third, in cases involving paid protestors (union or otherwise), we should greet with wholehearted skepticism any claims of “grassroots concern” or assertions that “the people are unhappy.” The pro-Obamacare protests are a perfect example. If the people were truly dissatisfied with the healthcare status quo, they would get out to the picket line for free, scream their lungs out all day, and go home with their only compensation being the satisfaction of having been active for a cause about which they deeply cared. Then, they would wake up and do it all over again.

This is the difference between the cause of liberty and those fighting to preserve politics-as-usual. The big government crowd knows that there is no such thing as mass support for statist initiatives. Never in a million years will people freely give of their time and energy to demonstrate in favor of a government plan to further erode their individual liberty. Large protests for government expansion do not simply materialize. (Not in America, anyway.) They are created by wealthy donors, large corporations, unions, and politicians who consider paid demonstrators an “investment” from which they will reap returns in taxes, government subsidies, and surrendered freedoms.

Compare this strategy with Americans protesting for the cause of liberty. Why are Tea Party events scheduled on weekends? People pay their bills by working a job during the week, and they protest on their days off. They receive no compensation, aside from a general feeling of camaraderie and the satisfaction of having supported a worthy cause. Often, average Tea Party members are putting money into their organizations, not receiving payment from them. History has shown, and is now showing once again, that liberty, in and of itself, is a cause worth fighting for. It requires no supplemental incentives; it begs no top-down orchestration. Freedom is both the goal and the fuel for the pursuit of that goal.

The United States was founded on timeless ideals such as independence, individuality, liberty, and God-given rights. The comparison between paid protests for state initiatives and grassroots protests for increased liberty has proven to us once again that those ideals remain at the forefront of Americans’ minds. Sadly, paid protests show us that Americans, in their inescapable fallibility, can also be convinced to sell out their ideals, along with their dignity, for $8.50 an hour and a free tee shirt. Let us hope and pray that the appeal of freedom will triumph.