Newly elected school board member Joe Nolen of McLoud, OK, had never run for public office.  He had never directed a campaign.  He had never even volunteered for someone else’s campaign.   The term “political newcomer” would not even begin to describe him.

But Joe Nolen was tired of the school board in his town constantly spending more money than they had on hand and running up budget deficits.  So he decided to do something about it.  Joe Nolen decided to run for school board.

I met with Joe Nolan in the middle of January – a little over a month from election day.  I sat down in his living room with him and his wife, and we talked about what it meant to run for public office, the effort it was going to take, and the uphill climb it was going to be for him to be victorious.  Joe understood this because he confessed his fear in going against a 3 term, 15 year incumbent – one who had never been challenged before and who also had more money and more name recognition than Joe.  He told me this entire scenario made him quite nervous.

But that night we discussed various campaign strategies, practical and simple ideas to overcome his multiple deficiencies, and a clear path that he believed would win him his election.

In the end Joe was going to run on three ideas: transparency, accountability, and fiscal responsibility.  These were the elements he believed were missing from the McLoud School Board, and these are the words he would use with every single person he spoke with during the campaign.

By the end of that night, Joe was determined and motivated to out-work his opponent by running a smarter and more organized campaign.  He was also excited to use the tools and resources American Majority had provided him to help in his effort.  But he was on his own until election day, and I was curious about what the result would be.

Yesterday, after a month of putting out yard signs, developing and implementing a micro-targeting goal, walking his entire city, and in the end even employing a small army for his GOTV effort, Joe Nolen defeated his incumbent opponent by a margin of 65% to 35%.  Due in large part to Joe’s efforts, the voter turnout was higher than he, or anyone else, had expected.

In talking to Joe after his victory, he confessed he knew he had won his election the weekend before the vote because of the work he had done and the organized campaign he had put together.  He also told me that he was surprised that the margin of victory wasn’t higher.

As our conversation wound down Joe expressed his appreciation for me driving out to his house that night and helping him achieve his goal.  He sincerely and honestly thanked American Majority for the resources, ideas, and encouragement we offered him as a newcomer in the world of local politics.

But best of all, he was excited, motivated, and ready to get started as the newest member of the McLoud School Board.

Two weeks ago, the nation witnessed the election of Scott Brown over Martha Coakley in the race for the Massachusetts Senate seat previously held by Ted Kennedy for like 57 years.  With this result still fresh on my mind, over the last few days I have attempted an impossible undertaking.

My mission?  Figure out exactly why Scott Brown won, how he won, and the lessons normal Americans can learn from his monumental and historic victory.

In short, I was going to do what seemingly no other human being could (minus, amazingly enough, the MSNBC talking heads):  I was going to pin down the exact reasons that a state senator with a truck beat the pants off of a popular and established (and seemingly insurmountable) opponent in Martha Coakley, herself the current Attorney General of the state.

Yep, I was going to crack this code and find out exactly what went on in this bluest of blue states that led to this political Armageddon.

I began by scouring the internet, newspapers, cable news channels, and even Twitter for days on end.  I chewed up every bit of information I could find and tossed about in a sea of political theories as if I were a gung-ho poly-sci major during the first week of a new school year.

However, what I quickly figured out through all of this information was that theses simple questions of “how” and “why” were going to be a lot harder to answer than I had initially thought.  In stark reality, I found out is that that there is not a consensus on the reasons for Scott Brown’s victory – actually there was not even anything close to what anyone could consider a consensus.

What I did find was spin (oh, there was lots of spin), but there were also literally hundreds of theories and conjectures about what exactly had transpired to make his win possible.  Along these lines, I read the word “populism” a lot.  I saw the word “anger” a bunch. Likewise, there were multiple readings about “incumbent”, “excitement”, “bad candidate”, “momentum”, “establishment”, “Obama”, “healthcare”, and “gaffes”.

But still, it seems to me that literally no one agrees on the why or the how of Scott Brown’s victory.

So my next step was to cut through all of this garbage, look at the campaigns and candidates, and see what the glaring differences were.  In my continued search, one word kept popping off of the pages and into my head over and over and over.  The ads the candidates ran spelled this out, the gaffes that were made spelled this out, and the desperation toward the end of the campaign spelled this word out.

In one word, why and how did Scott Brown defeat Martha Coakley?

EFFORT… Six letters, one word, and the most damaging weapon in Scott Brown’s holster.

With that word in mind, rewind with me to just before the Massachusetts election.  I am sitting in the living room of a school board candidate of a small suburb of Oklahoma City.  This particular candidate has never been involved in politics, never ran for office, and has never even volunteered for a campaign.  He is the very definition of a green candidate, and no, I don’t mean the save-the-earth kind of green.

Anyway, this guy knew two things about being a candidate for public office: yard signs and election day. That’s it.   He didn’t have a clue about micro-targeting, GOTV, financial reporting, grassroots, or new media applications. He wasn’t aware he needed to do a little fundraising, knock on doors, use both earned and free media, or even simply announce his candidacy to the local press.

But you know what he wanted to do? Work.  He wanted to find folks to vote for him, speak wherever there was a microphone, explain to people what needed to be fixed in the school district, and tell them his ideas on how to fix it.  He burned with a desire to beat the 15 year incumbent who also happened to be the president of the school board…who was also rich…and who had never drawn an opponent.

So for three hours in his living room that night, we talked about effort, messaging, and overcoming the lack of name recognition.  By the end of the night, this completely overwhelmed challenger was convinced that if he could out-work, out-effort, and out-campaign the incumbent, he could win.  Would it take a lot of sacrifice and time?  Yes, but effort always demands those things.

Effort is an action but it is also an attitude; obviously there is always a physically active element that comes with effort but there is also a mentally active element as well.  In short, there must be the desire to put out effort before there can be the action of effort.

Scott Brown illustrates this point in a variety of ways.  He obviously wanted to win or he would not have run for the United State Senate in the first place.  But more than that, he showed how badly he wanted to win by the actions he undertook as he crisscrossed the state to meet voters in every corner of the state.  He even had television ads about how many miles his truck had accrued because of his travels.  Genius!  Couple that by the excitement he fostered in his vast army of volunteers, who then did their best to match his level of effort in their phone calls, canvassing , and GOTV efforts, and you have an atomic bomb of many people working as hard as they could to deliver victory to Scott Brown on election day.  Again, it is all about effort.

However, Martha Coakley’s lack of effort and seemingly dispassionate campaign can easily be seen in her now famous answer about how hard she was working in comparison to Scott Brown: “As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park?  In the cold?  Shaking hands?”

By this quote we can see that Martha Coakley apparently didn’t put out enough of effort or perhaps even have the desire to do so.  In fact, even earlier in the campaign, this very telling quote was made by state Rep. Bill Bowles of Attleboro in the article Sluggish Coakley Effort Irks Dems in the Sun Chronicle of Attleboro, MA:  “I’m not happy with the level of campaign effort I’ve seen.”

Oh boy.

In a related quote, one voter in Massachusetts (and a Coakley supporter) said this in another local paper:  “The Democrats, specifically, expected it not to be close so they sat back.  I mean, I get three calls a day from Scott Brown’s daughters.”

Holy crap.

Notice the difference in the amounts of effort – in this case it relates to what one campaign expected to happen versus what the other campaign made happen.

It is because of these very stark contrasts in effort that I believe shows that you can strip away all of the issues, the anger, the voter turnout, and the memory of Ted Kennedy to very easily see that effort played perhaps the biggest role in Scott Brown’s win.

Furthermore, this is yet another example of a candidate’s willingness to work and put out the effort to win as a major reason for victory.  And granted, this is not always the case – effort is not always the determining factor, and there are probably thousands of examples of both national and local races where this was not true.

However, the flipside of that coin is that a lack of effort can be a major reason for insuring a loss.

In the end the greatest thing for a candidate is no matter how big or how small your election is, effort has a real chance to overcome any hurdles you may face on the campaign trail.

Along these lines, take a look at the school board candidate from earlier.  As we ended our conversation, a few of the tactics he said he was going to employ leading up to election day was to spend time every morning with the vast amount of folks at the coffee shop downtown, walk his town’s neighborhoods with his wife and a few volunteers on a nightly basis, and go to high school basketball games with campaign business cards he created at home with his message and election day information on them.  For him, this was a simple way to get his message out there and encouraged people to vote for him.

But the consistent thread in all of these activities?  Yep, effort.

This gentleman knows that he has a mighty hill to climb, but his plan is to work his tail off and use his effort to make up the ground of experience, name recognition, and money.  These are the lessons we talked about that night after we had briefly discussed the Massachusetts election.

In conclusion, the issue of effort makes complete sense in the context of running for public office.  Whatever office you desire, just be determined to go after it with all of your might.  And think about it: if effort can help a free market and limited government conservative win in Massachusetts, effort can definitely help you win, too.

Local and state governments across the country are going through difficult times.  One need only spend a few minutes glancing at the daily newspaper or viewing the lead stories on the evening news to get a sense of the budget crunch.  An issue that has recently surfaced is that of compensation for local elected officials.  This week, one of the local news stations in Tulsa aired a report which mentioned that six of our nine city councilors would voluntarily give up 5.2% of their $18,000 per year salary due to the frailty of the city budget.  The mayor has offered to take a pay cut of 8.6%.  However, two councilors indicated they will not take a pay cut while one is undecided.

During the report, viewer comments concerning councilor pay cuts were aired and they were not favorable toward the councilors who indicated they would prefer to remain at their present rate of pay.  While I didn’t record the comments verbatim, many of them were along these lines: Councilors shouldn’t be compensated at all.  Councilors are public servants and should therefore work for free.

On the surface, that sentiment definitely resonates.  After all, we want local elected officials who are in the position for the right reasons.  We want our representatives in the halls of government to serve the public interest.  However, let’s step back a moment.  Think about the kinds of people that you want representing your interests at all levels of government.  Do you only want people who are independently wealthy to be able to run for office?  Do you only want those with trust funds to serve or do you want laborers, nurses, small business owners, corporate workers, etc. to be able to serve? 

Many of our founding fathers believed in the idea of citizen legislators.  In other words, they believed that the best government comes from those who have to live under the very rules they make.  As it is right now, most local elected officials don’t just attend a meeting or two and call it a week.  They attend board and commission meetings in addition to various neighborhood and political meetings.  They meet at all hours of the day and in the evenings as well.  In other words, they put in a great deal of time into public service in addition to the time they spend at their regular jobs.  They deserve to be compensated for that time.  My economics professor in college used to tell me, “A worker is worthy of his hire.”  I believe that phrase fits in this situation.  Just because someone is a public servant, that doesn’t mean they should give away the time, energy, and effort they bring to their jobs.

I admire the councilors and the mayor who voluntarily decided to cut their collective salaries (although, ultimately, it will make a negligible impact on the city budget).  In times of cost cutting, it is good for everyone to share in the pain.  However, the councilors who declined the pay decrease aren’t necessarily wrong and their views shouldn’t be construed as such, especially when any action by government can be taken as precedent.  In the future, I want to see local elected officials come from all walks of life, not just the privileged few who have the wherewithal and the free time to take such positions.

I recently had a dream that went a little something like this:

I am a regular 31 year old guy from middle America who is tired of politics as usual in Washington…

I am fed up with both parties, and I am frustrated by the lack of answers and the overabundance of lies…

I am tired of not being able to tell what is a lie and what is the truth…

I am absolutely sick of the constant campaigning and the negative personal attacks each side relentlessly fires off year round…

Most of all, I am fired up about things not getting done by our government and by our elected officials…

Basically I am just angry, and I want the opportunity to tell the world about it…

So I call a press conference.

I send out a bunch of e-mails and faxes and I tell as many people as I can about it…

I do my best to create buzz on the internet and through the local media…

And I purposefully reach out to the national media and invite them to gather at my house in a few days so that I can talk about what I think is wrong with our political system.

My pitch to them is that as a regular, hard-working American, I simply want a few minutes in front of their cameras to make my case and plead for cooperation and leadership amongst our politicians.

Simply put, I just want my voice to be heard.

And in my dream something strange happens: people actually show up to my front lawn.

Cameramen and reporters and gawkers and the national press corps camp out in the front of my house because they want to know what I have to say about the state of our country…

They want to see who this kid is that asked them to come to the middle of the country just to give them his opinion…

They want to know why my opinion should matter…

And I don’t disappoint.

In my press conference I malign the parties, I disparage the press, I call on the country to wake up to the real issues plaguing us, I demand that our politicians are held accountable for their greed, I praise the few men and women I think are doing well, and I call on the carpet those who are not…

I take on career politicians, I take on those who claim to care about me, I take on flip-floppers, I take on the talking heads who think they are important, and I take on those who promise change but cannot deliver…

I scream and I holler and I say all the things I have always wanted to say to those in Hollywood and those who, like me, don’t think they have a voice…

I stand up for myself and all of the average American folks who are like me…

My voice is heard, and I begin to sense the world is going to change because of it…

I start seeing tears beginning to well up in those who are listening to me, and I can hear “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” played by some mysterious invisible orchestra…The music is gathering steam and it is reaching its crescendo just as my speech is beginning to peak…

And that is where the dream ends, and my alarm goes off…

That is when I stumble out of bed and look at myself in the bathroom mirror and automatically know which side of my body I slept on because my hair reflects it…

That is when I walk slowly into the living room to turn on my TV so that I can watch the Today show while I eat my waffles and finally feed the dog after much consternation on her part…

And what do I see on my TV? 

Unfortunately, more of the same:

Attacks and denials, poll numbers and wedges, stones being thrown and rhetoric attempting to destroy credibility, solutions with no teeth and problems with no end, gotcha questions and fluff answers, elected officials campaigning and celebrities bloviating as if they are important, anchors giving opinions and everyone blaming a certain ex-President for everything that is wrong in this world…

And I don’t see anyone really trying to solve anything.

And I realize this is why no one cares anymore.

Because many in power really don’t care about us…They don’t want our opinions, and they certainly wouldn’t show up on our doorsteps asking for it…

They just want us to be sheep.

The truth is than any of us could call a press conference, but nobody would come…

We could fly to New York or Washington or Los Angeles, but no one would give us a serious platform from which to speak…

We could even make some dramatic statement through an illegal act, but then we would just look like criminals…

All we can do is vote…Or blog…Or Tweet…Or go to public meetings…Or make phone calls and send letters…Or write letters to the editor…Or volunteer for a campaign… Or build a coalitions with like-minded folks…

Or we could comment on stories we think are biased and have educational conversations with those around us about all the stuff going on…

Or we could do research for ourselves on what the issues really are and then make our own decisions on who we think would do the best job for our country…

Or, heck, maybe we could even run for office…

In reality, we all just need to do something, anything, to get involved…

Because in reality, we don’t need microphones and cameras…We don’t need press conferences and AP reporters…We don’t need to be ignorant celebrities who spout off as if their opinion matters more than yours…

We just need to do SOMETHING…

Who knows?  We might actually be able to start fixing things if we all just started putting out some effort – and in reality, we wouldn’t need a press conference for that…

For Part 1 of this article, please click here.

It did not take long for disagreements to ensue between the states and federal government.  Quite contrary to Madison’s prediction, the lines of jurisdiction between the state governments and the national government became increasingly blurred.  The country quickly divided into camps officially known as Federalists and Anti-Federalists.  Generally speaking, the Anti-Federalists were supporters of states’ rights while the Federalists were proponents of a strong national government.  Significant early Federalists were Hamilton, Washington, and Adams.  Noted Anti-Federalists were Jefferson and Madison.  Yes, you read that correctly – Madison, under the influence of his mentor Jefferson, became an Anti-Federalist and strong advocate for the state sovereignty point of view.  In his Virginia Resolutions published in 1799, Madison stated, “…in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by the said compact, the States, who are parties thereto, have the right and are in duty bound to interpose for arresting the progress of evil…”

 One would assume that Madison, Jefferson, and the other states rights believers intended to utilize the Tenth Amendment as the crucifix by which to the exorcise the demons of excessive national power.  If so, it is a pretty good strategy, especially since it never hurts to have the Bill of Rights on your side.  However, in doing research for this post, I came upon a fascinating essay by Walter Berns in the book, A Nation of States.  The piece is entitled The Meaning of the Tenth Amendment.  In the piece, Berns believes that the state sovereignty argument in terms of the Tenth Amendment holds little weight when viewed through the lens of the Constitution.  The reasons are thus: A) the states did not intend to be ultimate reviewer on federal power, B) if they did intend to be the judge on the limits on federal power, they would have insisted on such provisions in the Constitution, and C) if the intention of the states was to be the ultimate judge on the federal government’s power, there would be no need for the Tenth Amendment. 

 In essence, if the states were to be the ultimate judge on federal power, they would have outlined this in the Constitution.  However, this was not their intent as the founders had experienced just such regulations under the Articles of Confederation.  The government under the Articles of Confederation was impotent and the founders did not wish to recreate a scenario in which the states were free to act fully on their own. 

 Berns sums up his argument this way:

 ”The Tenth Amendment would make no sense as an admonition addressed to the states.  It can be understood only as an admonition to the Supreme Court that the federal government may not legitimately exercise all of the powers of government.”

 Now, the problem with the Tenth Amendment (if you choose to view it that way) comes into focus.  It has no teeth.  There is no way, other than by petitioning the Supreme Court, to ensure that the federal government plays on its side of the playground.  It’s a guidepost and a warning, one which even the founders viewed as superfluous.  When taken into account in light of the “necessary and proper” clause and the commerce clause, the Tenth Amendment becomes even weaker.  Over time, Congress has used the ambiguous language of these clauses to pass legislation pertaining to all manner of things designated of national importance. 

 Nevertheless, the states did not intend themselves to be at the complete mercy of the Supreme Court.  Quite the contrary, actually.  A key event which weakened the Tenth Amendment even further and diluted the power of the states in relation to the national government was passage of the 17th Amendment.  The 17th Amendment provided for the direct election of U.S. Senators.  Previously, senators were chosen by the state legislatures with the purpose of representing the interests of the state in the U.S. Congress.  The U.S. House of Representatives was the only body in the bicameral legislature directly elected by the people and tasked with doing their will at the federal level.  This is why the states currently find themselves at the mercy of the federal government.  There is no group vested with the responsibility of ensuring that the spirit of the Tenth Amendment is upheld.  Instead, we have unfunded mandates and states begging for handouts from the national government because their original advocates in Congress are now beholden to the people.  Unfortunately, the people do not care about the line between state and national power.  They care that their lives are made easier, even if that comes at the expense of the state’s Constitutional jurisdiction and perhaps, their liberty.

This is the first of two blog entries on the Tenth Amendment:

If you follow the news at all, you’ve probably heard accounts of state legislators, governors, members of Congress, Tea Party groups, and others call for a return to the principles of limited government.  Most recently, these fires have been stoked by the health care legislation currently making its way through Congress and the economic bail outs which were doled out to auto companies, banks, and insurance companies at the end of 2008 and beginning of 2009.  The argument for limited government tends to be accompanied by the state sovereignty view of the U.S. Constitution.  In other words, the states are viewed as completely autonomous entities with the power to nullify federal legislation and decrees which are deemed outside the bounds of the enumerated powers in the Constitution.  To that end, the Tenth Amendment is cited which reads as follows:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

These arguments spurred my thinking on the subject and compelled me to look deeper into the history of the Tenth Amendment.  I wanted to find out why is was adopted and what power, if any, it contains to truly ensure the federal government plays within its given sphere of influence.  Before I do that, however, I think a bit of a refresher on history is necessary.

After the United States won its freedom from Britian, the prevailing task at hand was to form a new government.  Rightfully wary of a strong national government, the sovereign states (think of each state as a nation unto itself at this point) entered into a pact called the Articles of Confederation.  This arrangement was similar to today’s European Union or the Confederate States of America from 1861-1865.  At that time, our founders didn’t identify themselves as Americans, but rather as Virginians, Georgians, etc.  For example, when Thomas Jefferson wrote letters to friends indicating his desire to return to “my country,” he was speaking of Virginia.  The Articles of Confederation contained very few enumerated powers.  In fact, the legislature had no power to tax, raise an army, or control interstate commerce.  The legislature could not pass laws, but instead were limited to resolutions which required 9 of 12 votes for passage.  With such stringent guidelines for action to occur, the U.S. was not able to effectively address numerous problems, not least of which was the substantial debt from the Revolutionary War.

Our brilliant founding father, James Madison, recognized the issue and realized that the U.S. would be dissolved just as quickly as it was formed if decisive action was not taken soon.  Perhaps his greatest feat, Madison convinced George Washington to come out of retirement and chair the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.  Washington reluctantly agreed as he was not keen on the idea of risking his place in posterity for what could be perceived as a fool’s errand.  Had Washington not agreed to participate, it is highly likely that the convention would have never occurred.

Seeking to bolster their argument for a stronger national government, Madison and Hamilton wrote the bulk of what we know today as The Federalist Papers.  Not ignorant to the fact that many were quite disturbed by the idea of a bolstered national government, they sought to allay the fears.  Federalist 45 pointed out that the national government’s powers were “few and defined.”  It went on to note that the powers given to the states were essentially without limit.  In Federalist 46, Madison pointed out that the state and federal governments had such different purposes that it was difficult to conceive of the notion that they would encroach on each other’s territory.

After the Constitution was ratified by the States, those fearing excessive national power advocated for the Bill of Rights.  The Tenth Amendment was proposed in 1789 in the First Congress.  Based on arguments previously mentioned in Federalists 45 and 46, both Madison and Hamilton viewed the amendment as redundant.  Thomas Jefferson, however, had quite the opposite opinion.  He viewed the amendment as absolutely necessary in order to prevent the encroachment of federal power into the arena reserved specifically for the states.

During debate on the Amendment, a representative from South Carolina sought to change the wording to read, “The powers not expressly delegated to the United States by the Constitution…”  On the surface, this distinction seemed inocuous, but Madison objected, noting that implied powers were necessary for the national government, otherwise the Constitution would become quite a burdensome document with every granted power spelled out in triplicate.  The issue died when no other representatives supported the change in wording.  The amendment ultimately was not contested by Madison or Hamilton because they did not view it as harmful to the new federal government’s mission or enumerated powers.  As we all know, the amendment was ratified by the states and became a permanent part of the Constitution.

That’s only the beginning of the story, though.  Stay tuned for Part 2.

Every elected official, from school board member to state legislator to the President of the United States plays a vital role in shaping the policies and direction of our communities, states, and nation. These offices deserve men and women who are grounded in the principles of liberty and individual freedom.

American Majority Oklahoma is hosting a Candidate Training on Saturday, February 20 at Tulsa Technology Center (Business and Career Development Training Center) located at 3638 S. Memorial in Tulsa. The training will run from 8:30am to 4:00pm with registration beginning at 8:00am.

Regardless of campaign experience, American Majority’s Candidate Training Program makes running for office easier! American Majority Candidate Training Seminars are designed specifically to educate candidates on every level how to run effective and victorious campaigns and prepare them to become successful elected officials.

The Candidate Training Program includes:

• Lectures* from campaign veterans, including:
  • “Your Campaign Plan to Win: Planning for the Time, People and Money to Win.”
  • “Dollars and Sense: Fundraising for What You Need, Not What You Can Get.”
  • “New Media Engagement: The New Ways to Talk to Voters and Engage Supporters.”
  • “Grassroots Action: How Ordinary People can get Extraordinary Results.”
  • “American Majority’s Core Principles.”

• Personalized communications training.
• Interaction with individuals thoroughly involved with the issues confronting your state.
• The opportunity to network with other liberty-minded candidates.
• A complimentary resource guidebook full of material designed to further assist candidates.

Upon completion of the seminar, candidates will receive continuing education materials, access to podcasts and other presentations, communications curriculum, and suggestions to help them utilize think-tank resources.

The cost is $50 per candidate/first attendee in advance or $75 per candidate/first attendee at the door, and $25 for each additional attendee (spouse, campaign staff, campaign volunteers, etc.) in advance or $40 for each additional attendee (spouse, campaign staff, campaign volunteers, etc.) at the door.  Space is limited.

Please click here to use our online reservation system and secure your place now! If you have any questions, please contact Trait Thompson at Trait@americanmajority.org or call (918)-289-0159.

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

*Lectures are subject to change

American Majority Oklahoma together with OK for Tea is pleased to announce that an Activist Training will be held on Tuesday, February 9th in Tulsa, OK for citizens looking to make a difference in their community, state and nation.

The seminar will be held at St. James United Methodist Church located at 5050 E. 111th Street in Tulsa.  Registration for the event will begin at 6:15 pm, with the first session beginning at 6:30 pm.  The seminar will end at approximately 9:00 pm.  This cost for this training is FREE and open to the public.

American Majority Activist Trainings are designed specifically to educate and unite liberty-minded activists from around the state by giving them practical ideas for successful activism and equipping them with creative ways to be more effective in their communities.

Topics for the seminars include: “Building Coalitions and Organizing Events”, “Hitting the Campaign Trail”, and “Holding Elected Officials Accountable through Effective Communication”

Upon completion of the seminar, participants will receive complimentary continuing education materials, communications curriculum, and a list of recommended reading materials to become better equipped and stronger activists in their communities.

To RSVP for the event or for more information, contact Trait Thompson with American Majority Oklahoma at 918-289-0159 (e-mail: trait@americanmajority.org).