The vast majority of Arkansans (around 61 percent) are strongly dissatisfied with the direction of our nation and over 51 percent of Arkansans say their economic situation is fair or poor compared to 5 years ago.

Arkansas is ranked 10th worst place to retire . We have amazing people, a good climate and our cost of living is excellent but (and it is one big but) our tax loads are among the most burdensome in the nation. Arkansas’ State/Local Tax Burden is above national average estimated now at 10.0% of income; Arkansas’ state/local tax burden percentage stands at 14th nationally, above the national average of 9.7%. Arkansas taxpayers pay $3,351 per capita in state and local taxes.

Under our current Arkansas leadership- Congressman Mike Ross (D), who receives a 36% from  the Conservative American Union and 26% from Club for Growth and Senator Blanche Lincoln (D), a 19% and 20% (respectively) along with Governor Mike Beebe (D), who consequently receives a “D” on his report card from the Cato Institute in their“Fiscal Policy Report Card on America’s Governors: 2010” ,  here are some facts:

• The State of Arkansas has 2,000 of more than 8,000 state vehicles that are being used for personal use. The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission has 658 cars for 613 employees to which the commissioner responded “It’s something awfully hard to get rid of. People get used to it.”

• Arkansas has lost 17,300 jobs since the $814 Billion Stimulus was passed , raising unemployment more from 6.8 to 7.5 percent. .  It should be noted that 5 of the 6 Arkansas delegates voted for this bill. (Congressman John Boozman was the exception).

• Arkansas children rank third in the nation with 26.9 percent living in poverty in 2009, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. The percentage of Arkansas children living in poverty has risen steadily since 2006, when it was 23.8 percent.

• From 1998 to 2007 the state government grew by 17%, representing 28,800 new government positions over the past ten years, while population only grew by 8.9%.

• Although Arkansas has a balanced budget amendment our state is billions in debt. According to Sunshine Review~ Arkansas has a total state debt of $7,899,579,400 when calculated by adding the total of outstanding debt, pension, OPEB (Other Post-Employment Benefit) UAAL’s (Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability), unemployment trust funds and the 2010 budget gap. As of June 30, 2008 Arkansas Public School Districts and Education Service Cooperatives had outstanding loans and bonded indebtedness totaling $2,842,716,298 — an increase of $230,838,355 over the previous year.

• Arkansas’ individual income tax has a top rate of 7% that kicks in at $32,600 income.  The Tax Foundation lowered the state’s Business Tax Climate to 40th in the nation. The corporate tax rate has a top tier of 6.5% that applies when income levels reach $100,000 which placed Arkansas in 39th place among the 50 states. But Arkansas hits near the top of the charts as number 12 of states going into debt.

• While Arkansas families & businesses teeter on the precipice of uncertainty not knowing if our taxes will increase dramatically in January, Congressman Mike Ross (D) tours our state proclaiming his dedication to Arkansas citizens yet voted to keep us on the edge of economic strife & come home with no answer. As a result, the average middle class family in Arkansas will see a tax hike of $1,418. (“Affect of Expiration of Bush-Era Tax Cuts on Average Middle-Income Family, By State and Congressional District,” Tax Foundation, 8/1/10).

• Arkansas is the home of the Hogs but we don’t like PORK in our government. Mike Ross opposed the president’s pathetic half percent cut from $3.4 trillion in planned spending siding with the likes of Diane Feinstein, (D) from Ca. (a state that is beyond BANKRUPT). He also voted AGAINST 68 amendments in 2009 to strip outrageous pork projects from the 12 annual spending bills and voted against 49 of 50 in 2007.  While Sen. Lincoln helped defeat an amendment, offered by U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), to the annual transportation appropriations bill that would end taxpayer subsidies for the John Murtha Airport, a little used 650-acre facility in Johnstown, Pennsylvania that has received at least $200 million in taxpayer funding.

• While Governor Beebe is in Arkansas working on a state his $86 million “comprehensive health-care program”,  Congressman Ross  cast a vital vote in committee to move Obama care forward and Senator Blanche Lincoln voted against the people of Arkansas when she  cast the deciding vote to pass the government takeover of healthcare.  Now Sixty-four percent (64%) of Arkansas voters favor repeal of the health care bill, including 51% who strongly favor it. Only 30% oppose repeal, with 20% who are Strongly Opposed.

• The Arkansas Legislature adjourned March 12, 2009 without passing HB 1053, titled the Open Checkbooks in Government Act, sponsored by Dan Greenberg (R-Little Rock). This bill calls for the creation of a searchable website cataloguing all state expenditures and bond proceeds. The website also will include electronic copies of all state grants, contracts, and subcontracts, as well as a listing of all public meetings.

Time, energy and sheer exhaustion are what prohibit me from going on and on and on… ARKANSAS WE CAN DO BETTER!

GET THE FACTS OUT AND VOTE! NOVEMBER 2^ND YOU CAN MAKE THE DIFFERENCE FOR OUR STATE, OUR NATION AND OUR FUTURES~

As we were pleased to do last year, American Majority is providing in-depth training at the Smart Girl Politics 2010 Summit in DC this weekend, and I wanted to share some notes from it with you.

Yesterday, we held five training sessions, with Anita MonCrief and Faulkner Strategies joining us at the Summit- we started off teaching attendees about the system, how the progressive movement has systematically implemented reforms that have created the flawed system we currently face- and perhaps most importantly, how to break it.  Do you want to the learn the same things?  You can view that presentation on our website.

Then we explained how precincts work, why they are important, and how to work your precinct for a candidate you believe in for this upcoming election- or how to target precincts within your district to lead to victory if you’re the candidate yourself.  This is one of the most important presentations for conservative activists to know and understand, as the key to governing is first winning politically.  You can also view this presentation online to better understand precincts yourself.

Anita MonCrief taught attendees how to identify voter fraud- and what to do once they find it.  I broke out some notes from Anita’s stellar presentation in my blog post a few weeks ago.  Understanding legal voter registration, voter fraud and what to do about these issues is going to be of supreme importance to liberty-minded citizens in every election from the very local level, all the way up.

Our good friends at Faulkner Strategies joined us for a session on running for office, titled “Deciding to Run.”  A strong presentation focusing on the different dynamics and decisions that women candidates will be faced with, I saw lots of ink pens flying across note pages during this training session.  I don’t have a copy of Faulkner Strategies’ specific presentation, but we do have one of our “running for office” training presentations online that you can check out.  I am loving the field of strong conservative women who are taking back their communities and running for office this year- let’s keep this momentum growing and keep turning out solid candidates next year as well.

Finally, we spent some time training on the importance of engaging hearts and minds online through Facebook, Twitter, blogging, wiki projects and more.  You can view one of our new media presentations online, where you’ll learn about the history of communication and persuasion that we inherited from our founding fathers, why engaging online is so important, and then step-by-step instruction on how to do so.  New to the process?  Want detailed instruction on how to take your online engagement to the next level?  Download our Twitter or Facebook guides on our website and we’ll walk you through it.

Whether you were able to join us for the Smart Girl Summit 2010 or whether you were at home working hard for a candidate you believe in, or maybe just welcoming in the start of the fall season, we believe that knowledge is power.  So arm yourself, equip yourself, and let’s keep pushing on.

An excellent article describing how one ideology wants to target and change something properly sound, morally just, and historically unique; and another is working feverishly to protect it.

Why the Left Seeks to Transform America

My three year old daughter is awesome.  She’s got more energy than Lance Armstrong, she has an active and never ending imagination, and she is finally (God bless her) figuring out the difference between right and wrong.

More amazing than that, however, is that my daughter has taught me much in regards to advancing the Conservative cause.

(Quick editorial note from my daughter: “Daddy, I am almost four!”)

Thus, here are three lessons I have learned from my daughter that I want to share with fellow Conservatives:

1. Conservatives need to learn to share and play well with other Conservatives…

This is a constant battle at our home.   For some reason when my daughter has friends over she becomes territorial, greedy, and stubborn with her bounty of toys.  She goes from being a princess to being a total monster.

But if you think about it the conservative movement is much the same way.  Within our tent I have seen Tea Parties, 9/12 Groups, and especially our main political party ally be absolutely unwilling at times to share best practices, imaginative ideas, contact lists, and chances to work together.

Granted, in many cases there are certain laws we must be careful to abide by. 

However, if we fail to share key information and ideas with each other (in the proper time and place), we continue to lose the opportunity to unite under common ideas and banners for a common good.  The unfortunate consequence are missed strategic instances to advance our cause – all because of turf wars, information hoarding, and, (to put it bluntly) an unwillingness to share credit.

It is almost as frustrating as my daughter screaming about another kid playing with her Dora backpack.

2. Conservatives need to learn to make “Good Choices”…

The phrase “Good Choices” is the battle hymn of our household.  By this constant drumbeat we are doing our best to make our daughter realize that her choices (good or bad) have consequences.

Indeed, this too is something that all Conservatives need to learn.  Why?  Because as our movement grows and continues to prosper, all of us will increasingly be under the scrutiny of the Left.  At this very moment they are patiently waiting for us to say something “racist”, do something “extreme”, or make a choice that they can use to advance their narrative of us being “hate-mongers”. 

Folks, it is not enough to simply talk about integrity – we must also live lives of integrity.  We must focus on why our ideas and philosophies work better for more people.  On the flip side, we must avoid only talking about how horrible someone is or how much we don’t like them just because they believe and live differently than we do. 

Simply, we must stay above the fray of the nasty, dirty, and personal attacks from those who don’t agree with us.  Let them hate all they want.  This is who they are. 

As individuals and as groups we must make wise choices about how we go about changing our country and taking it back to what our Founders envisioned.  We must not become that which we despise.  Like my daughter, we must learn to make “good choices”.

3. Conservatives need to learn to “use our words”…

As crazy as it sounds, my daughter throws the occasional fit (yes, it’s true).  She starts screaming and crying and very quickly gets completely incoherent.  Thus, she fails to communicate to us what the problem is.

It is in these situations that my wife and I say to her, “It’s okay – use your words.”  What we are doing is trying to calm her down enough to effectively tell us what she is thinking and feeling and why she is so upset.

Why is this important for conservatives?  As people who truly believe in this movement, we must learn how to effectively communicate our views, our plans, the truth, and why our ideas are better for this country.  We must understand how to communicate as candidates for public office, as those who will hold our elected officials accountable, and to those who will increasingly want to fight this battle alongside us.

At the same time, we must use our words carefully and effectively in the midst of our righteous anger, an opponent that will do anything to win, and an electorate at large that is oftentimes apathetic and uneducated about the issues.

I truly believe in my heart that the ideas of the Conservative Movement are better, wiser, and add nothing but prosperity and freedom to our nation.  Thus, I am choosing to use my words to encourage, teach, and change this country through those ideas.

If we as the Conservative Movement can learn to do all of these things, we will be well on our way to winning the battle that lies ahead for our liberty and freedom.

And those are not bad lessons to learn from a three year old.

In the first part of this series, I provided several tips for preparing to go out door knocking.  A successful door-to-door operation depends upon the right people and transportation, quality lists, literature and maps, and a tactfully-branded volunteer.

In this part of this series, I will begin the discussion on maximizing efficiency while on the ground.  In this post, I will highlight the key players involved.  This discussion will assume a team of seven, enough to fill a minivan.

KEY PLAYERS

Let’s take a look at the profile of the key players involved on the ground:

Campaign Staffer – The importance of leadership and direction cannot be understated.  While some volunteers may have some experience going door-to-door, a campaign should never assume.  In addition, some methods or approaches may have changed since the last time a volunteer worked on a campaign.  The campaign staffer’s job is to:

• Explain in detail what the campaign wishes to accomplish.
• Provide instructions for how to go about achieving that goal.
• Overview best practices for door knocking.
• Review the map with the team driver and communicate any important local information that would be useful to the team.
• Provide all literature, maps, lists, gas cards, yard signs, water and food (as applicable).
• Encourage the team to do their best and thank them for their support.
• Be available by phone in case the team gets lost.
• Greet and thank the team when they return, ensure all data is appropriately recorded, and all leftover materials are returned.

Driver – The driver plays an integral role in door-to-door operations.  Minimum suggested qualifications are as follows:

• Be at least 21 years of age (25, preferred) and have a valid Driver’s License and proper insurance documentation. (Note: Most rental car companies require that drivers be at least 21 years of age and at least 25 to drive without an additional fee.  There are no age requirements for personal vehicles).
• Possess a level of maturity to ensure the safety of all team members and who is willing to help the campaign meet its stated goals.
• Be in good enough physical health to drive.  (Note: The role of the driver can be given to someone who is not able to walk long distances, but all drivers should be physically able to endure several hours of residential driving with frequent stops and movement in and out of the vehicle.)

The driver has many key responsibilities.  Specifically, the driver should:

• Continually monitor the progress of the team including whether they are achieving goals and the overall attitude and health of the team.
• Encourage the team to keep their energy up and praise them for their progress.
• Plan out the route of the operation in the most efficient means possible.
• Monitor gas consumption and refill during scheduled breaks.
• Shuttle the door knockers from their last location to the start of the next, helping them cover ground when possible.
• Promote the safety of all team members.

Door Knockers (List Keepers) – Each group of two door knockers should designate a list keeper, three in total.  This individual is responsible for recording the necessary response information for the campaign.  The campaign may wish, for example, to record information such as which addresses received literature, houses that contained supporters of their candidate, supporters of their opponent, or undecided voters, houses with yard signs, etc.  Responsibilities include:

• Recording accurate and legible data from their own knocking efforts and that of their partner’s.
• Directing their partner what doors to knock on if the partner does not have a copy of the list.
• Staying in communication with the driver as to the progress of the team.
• Ensuring that the team has enough literature each time exiting the van.
• Keeping themselves and their team member hydrated.
• Practicing safe door knocking techniques.
• Encouraging the entire team in their efforts.

Door Knockers (Team Members) – Last, but certainly not least, there will be three individuals leftover to help carry out the operation.  Responsibilities include:

• Communicating accurate response data to the list keeper.
• Ensuring the team has enough literature each time exiting the van.
• Keeping themselves and their team member hydrated.
• Practicing safe door knocking techniques.
• Encouraging the entire team in their efforts.

Part III of this series will provide tips and tricks for hitting the door-to-door ground running to ensure maximum result.

Among the seven candidates in the recent Republican primary for Oklahoma’s Fifth District Congressional seat were a current state House member (“Candidate A”), a former state House member who previously ran for this seat 4 years ago (“Candidate B”), and the former director of the largest Baptist church camp in the country (“Candidate C”).

Here is what happened on Election Day: “Candidate A” received 18% of the vote while “Candidate B” received 32% of the vote.

And in a stunning and surprising win, “Candidate C” (the former church camp director) received 34% of the vote.

But those results only tell half the story…

Who Are These Guys?

As my buddies Trait and Brett have previously and masterfully documented here and here, Oklahoma’s primary season was quite entertaining and many lessons should be learned from many of the races.

But this Fifth District race was especially interesting because of the unlikely result.

In reality, this primary was supposed to be a two-horse race between “Candidate A” (who had the backing of much of the business community) and “Candidate B” (who had been actively campaigning for the office for the past 2 years).

But something funny happened on the way to the voting booth.

As the campaign really began heating up, it became apparent that there were three candidates who were going to battle for the nomination and not two as previously believed.

“Candidate A” had raised A LOT of cash and had some decent TV ads.  He had also gotten some good press over the last couple of years in the state House and had viable name ID.

Unfortunately, apart from that he was a very bland candidate with no real narrative to set him apart from “Candidate B” and “Candidate C”.  It was almost as if he was a “zombie candidate” in that he ran a decent, well funded campaign but did not do nearly enough to set himself apart and motivate enough voters to cast their ballots for him.

On the flip side, “Candidate B” had been campaigning for two years, had also raised a ton of money, was very active among the grassroots, and had spent big money on TV ads that highlighted (over and over) his military service.  He constantly communicated how he had helped “prosecute” the War in Iraq and how he had won a bronze star for his service.

That was his narrative, and he pushed it and pushed it and pushed it.

That leaves “Candidate C”.  A political newcomer, “Candidate C” quietly built a massive volunteer army, went to every political and civic event on the calendar, and used his church connections to build name ID and raise a substantial amount of money little by little around the district.

Moreover, the narrative he pushed could be encapsulated in his campaign slogan: “We’ll never change the status quo in Washington BY SENDING THE STATUS QUO TO WASHINGTON” (emphasis mine).

Armed with this message and narrative as the ultimate political outsider, not only did “Candidate C” force his way into a runoff, but his win in the primary caught many people off guard and even had “Washington Republicans scratching their heads”.

In the end, “Candidate C” came out of nowhere and “Candidate B” finished strong partly because of the narratives they pushed and how they stood apart from their fellow competitors.

Unfortunately “Candidate A” somehow forgot the age old phrase that “People don’t buy the steak, they buy the sizzle” and lost out on reaching the runoff with a disappointing result.

What Can Potential Candidates Learn?

There is a great lesson to be learned from this race and others from around Oklahoma in regards to how candidates can differentiate themselves from their opponents.  These lessons are especially important before primaries when candidates actually agree on many issues.

So how do candidates stand apart from the crowd when running for public office and avoid becoming “zombie candidates” with no real flair or sizzle?

1. Push a Distinct Narrative/Identity: The example from the Fifth District race captures perfectly the role a narrative/identity plays in picking up votes.

2. Push a Different and Distinct Message: While this may be easy during a general election, the Democratic primary for governor in Oklahoma is a great example of how one candidate stood apart from her competitor before the primary by pushing an entirely different message.

In what ended as a surprise win, the message of the current Lieutenant Governor during her gubernatorial campaign has been one of social issues such as equal pay for women, children’s issues, and education reform.  She has pushed these issues in a very calm, cool, and personal way and in a consistent manner.

However, her competitor, the current Attorney General, focused his message mainly on jobs and the economy.  While his message was definitely timely and adequate, it did not convey the same type of emotional response or passion of his opponent’s message.  While some say the Attorney General was also outworked and out campaigned, the difference in message was also very obvious.

Subsequently, though he was heavily favored to win, the Attorney General narrowly lost to the Lieutenant Governor in the gubernatorial primary by 1,493 votes.

3. Campaign Differently than Your Competition: Lastly, a great lesson can be learned from taking the high road and avoiding the type of negative campaign tactics the electorate at large does not appreciate.

An example of this occurred during the Republican primary for Attorney General in Oklahoma.  With both candidates working hard with much the same message, one candidate decided to go negative in a TV spot.  The strategy apparently backfired as this local blog points to the fact that the candidate who was attacked saw his poll numbers and fundraising efforts increase mightily in the weeks after the ad aired.

It must be pointed out that the candidate who was attacked never fired back at his opponent but rather stayed on message and stayed above the fray.  In the end he won the primary handily by 12 points even though he did not raise nearly as much money as his opponent.

In summary, these few examples show how candidates must run their campaigns in such a way that allows them to stand out in the crowd.  If you are a candidate, whether through your narrative, your message, or by the way you campaign, differentiating yourself in any way from your fellow candidates is vitally important if you truly want to win your election.

And if you do these things, you can and will avoid becoming the dreaded “zombie candidate” in your race.

Working in politics sometimes overwhelms me.  Seriously, at times it absolutely drains me.

Granted, I love constantly being aware of what is happening both in Washington and in my local community, and yes, it is very exciting to work in the political world.

But to be honest, I go home every night and purposely avoid the major news networks.  I may talk to my wife about what is going on and check Twitter to get news updates, but for the most part, I turn politics off at my house.

I do my best to keep this same attitude on the weekends as well.  I work in my yard and watch sports and Sundays are for church and naps with my kids.

In fact, at my church (which I would characterize as “center-left”) I purposely avoid talking about politics if at all possible.  Fellow church members know what I do for a living, but for the most part politics is thankfully not a normal topic of conversation.

So you can imagine my surprise a few weeks ago when a guest speaker at our church said these things during his sermon*:

“The Pharisees in Jesus’ day, they were the first century Tea Party people.  On the issue of taxes they were the radical religious right and the Christian libertarians of their day.  The only system of government they cared to support was a biblical theocracy.  They were adamantly opposed to paying taxes to the Romans and their puppet government.”

And this:

“The men who wrote and approved the Declaration of Independence took it for granted that there was a god….Few of them were what fundamentalists and evangelicals and most Baptists would call ‘born again Christians’.

 The truth is Thomas Jefferson was a deist.  Most of the founding fathers were deists.  They lived in a world with a long history of Christians starting wars and killing each other trying to find a way to force everyone to believe the same things about God…

So despite all of the rhetoric from the religious right for the last 50 years, the founding fathers were not standing up against secular, atheistic humanism to announce their belief in the biblical God.  The God of the Bible is a God that intervenes in time and history.  The God of the bible is one who sent His son to die for the sins of the world and redeem us.  That is not the god of the Founding Fathers.  And it’s dishonest to pretend that it is.” (Emphasis mine)

Wait.  Did that guy just equate the Pharisees (the Jewish religious leaders that had Jesus killed) to Tea Party folks?  Did he just use the phrase “radical religious right”?  Twice?  Did he just say they founding fathers were all deists?

I always thought preachers were supposed to leave their politics at the door and not bring them behind the pulpit?  Isn’t that what liberals say about conservatives?

Well, first off, the man who delivered this sermon is neither our pastor nor a regular speaker at our church.  He is not on staff, but he is among those who started our church nearly 10 years ago. 

He is also very well known in the community and within our church as a liberal activist.  In fact, through his blog, a radio show, and as a public speaker, he is a leading advocate across the state on the issue of separation of church and state and religious liberty.

On top of that, our church also is very much in favor of the separation of church and state issue to the point that our pastor is adamant about politics and political causes not being preached from the pulpit under any circumstance.  He avoids it because he hates it when “fundamentalists” and “conservatives” do it, and thus it has no place at our church.

So it is that I cannot even begin to fathom is what the response would have been in our church if someone would have gone behind the pulpit and then proceeded to rip on war protestors or unions or pro-choice advocates or other “left wing” groups while equating them with the folks in Jesus’ day that hated him and were ultimately responsible for having him killed. 

What would have been the response if someone had labeled liberals…well, liberals?  Can you begin to imagine the outcry?

Unfortunately, then, what this story clearly illustrates once again is the prevailing liberal thought: Do as I say and not as I do.  It seems to me that this is a common attitude among those on the left. 

In fact, countless times I have seen this type of hypocritical attitude from liberal political leaders and activists.  By now that is my default expectation for those on the other side of the political spectrum. 

But to be honest, it is truly sad to me to see that this type of “do as I say and not as I do” behavior can even be seen from those on the left who make their living behind a pulpit or as an expert on separation of church and state. 

There is just no place for that as far as I am concerned.

*To listen to the entire sermon, go here.

The answer to our dilemma really seems fairly simple, at least it does to me on its face. If we are going to make a real difference as conservative voices in this nation, a lot of us are going to have to change our approach and significantly elevate the level of conversations we have to include facts and reason.

More and more on facebook and other social media outlets, I see people who engage in heated emotional arguments sometimes degrading dialogue filled with name- calling, swearing and outright hostility.

Why all the animosity and smearing toward others? Why does anyone believe harsh language and deep resentments aimed at anyone else can change anything about the way they believe? Hasn’t anyone ever heard of the children’s story of the wind and the sun arguing about getting who could get the trench coat off the man first? The cold wind blows hard and the man only tightens his coat. The sun heats up just a bit and the man takes the coat off willingly. Lotsa truth in that folks.

I’ve observed that most people have loosely formed ideas of why they believe as they do. Yet what is it that causes anyone to believe – or disbelieve – anything in their life? Seems to me it all boils down to the way we’ve been taught by others since birth, blended with our personal experiences. In short, most of us are simply products of our surroundings, what we’ve been told, and the environments that continually envelope our lives. If we are told falsehoods, then chances are we will come to believe falsehoods, right?

The ole adage; birds of a feather flocking together, has proven itself true time and time again. As a parent this Truth has some very real personal meaning and potential consequences. If my teenage daughters were allowed to hang out with drug-addicted gang members what do you think the chances would be they would soon become drug users? And worse.

Many groups have realized this piece of reality and taken advantage of it. For instance, Moveon.org. since 1998 has been “reaching out” to people who like-mindedly consider themselves “disenfranchised,” offering to “help” and get them involved in the system so they can take advantage of all their rights.
Statistics show that liberal messaging beats conservative message by a whopping 85 to 15. Although I do believe we are gaining ground, I can’t help but wonder what is our message?

Our message should be focused solely on: Limited government, fiscal responsibility and free markets related to our communities as opposed to national stories inflated to draw our attention away from where our true power and influence lie.

So how do we change the all-critical message? For once, GET THE FACTS on any issue or debate. If we are going to unite to keep our country free and filled with opportunity for all, there naturally will be work involved. We can’t only send continuous e-mails and post rantings and unformed opinions about the BP Oil spill on facebook, call President Obama a Marxist, and believe with any intellectual honesty that we are doing any real good and our work is done. I wish that preserving our precious Republic were that easy. Unfortunately, it’s not anywhere near what is needed.

Those of us, who truly believe our nation finds itself at a tipping point, will have to do pretty much the same things our Founders did. What say we agree to educate ourselves on historical FACTS. How, you might ask? We can begin by reading and understanding theConstitution (yep the whole thing), and the Declaration of Independence written a decade beforehand. Next, let’s all read and understand The 5000 Year Leap by W. Cleon Skousen;  Why America is Great. Now we need to visit David Barton’s site at Wall Buildersfor a plethora of resources.

Then learn the names and biographies of our local representatives. Discover the pattern of their votes and how they relate to the issues facing our communities. Then let’s encourage others to come along side us, not by making our present situation about Barack Obama or Democrats or Republicans or those dratted incumbents, but rather about making our own community a more prosperous, community-minded place to live.

If you’d like to learn more about how to do this and how to utilize the social media to your best advantage contact us at American Majority. We will gladly come to your community and work alongside you toward our common goals of preserving American freedoms on every level.

Election season is in full swing even for those last-minute candidates who waited for the filing deadlines before announcing.  I’ve talked to several candidates this week who are jumping into the door-to-door campaign feet first, full of vigor and excited to get out and start walking.

The bad part?  They hadn’t done their homework.  I understand that crunching numbers to understand the historical voting results in your precinct or district, which voters historically turn out to vote, which precincts you must win in order to be victorious- well, it’s all pretty tedious stuff.  There’s nothing overly exciting about it, I’ll admit.  But it is oh-so-necessary.

Here’s an example: I spoke with a candidate yesterday who was reluctant to give up some door-to-door time on a Saturday for our campaign training.  When I asked about his door-to-door strategy, he was planning to start at the geographical “top” of his district, and work his way down.  He had no idea how many votes he needed in order to win, because he hadn’t checked historical vote totals.  He had no idea which precincts tended to be more aligned with the issues and values he championed, because he hadn’t looked into those voting results.  And he had no idea which voters living within those precincts turned out to vote in primaries- the race he’s currently running in.  Walking door-to-door without a good plan is like stumbling through the darkness.

Sometimes candidates think they will win on virtue of their good ideas and hard work.  I believe strongly in good ideas.  Every positive change in our country began as a good idea.  I also believe strongly in the value of hard work- I know what it’s like to walk door-to-door in the hot Kansas sun and thick humidity until your jeans stick to your legs, your shoes stick to the pavement, and you don’t think you can do it anymore.  Campaigning does take hard work.  But here’s the thing- no matter the strength of your ideas or the dedication with which you’re willing to work, implementing any part of a campaign without a strategy or plan is a recipe for disaster.

Bad ideas with good implementation will always beat good ideas with bad implementation.  Whether it’s attending a campaign training, sitting down with trusted advisors, or simply taking an hour to sketch out a plan on a pad of paper, planning is as important as doing.  Should the candidate I described earlier make it to our candidate training, he would learn how to understand the precincts within his district, which precincts he should target, how many votes he needs to win, which voters are most likely to turn out and to vote for him, and how to target those voters in necessary precincts effectively.  He would learn how to organize and implement a strong door-to-door plan that would allow to multiple contacts with each voter.

He would learn how to fundraise effectively, communicate strongly, network efficiently and campaign victoriously.  As it is today, he is wondering through precinct after precinct, without a clear goal in mind, and without a means to attain it.

Winning is ultimately the art of getting it right.  Before one can implement those good ideas in the form of policy as an elected official, he or she must first win their campaign.  If you are running for office or volunteering for someone who is, now is the time to get trained.  At the very least, take a moment to listen to a few podcasts and check out some presentations on running effective campaigns.  We’re all fans of good ideas, and we want to equip individuals within the community with every tool and resource available to help them implement those ideas in a strong campaign.

On March 25^th in Iowa City, Iowa, President Obama said the following: “On Tuesday, after a year of debate and a century of trying, after so many of you shared your stories and your heartaches and your hopes, that promise was finally fulfilled.  And today, health insurance reform is the law of the land.”

In taking his victory lap (and in innumerable remarks made over the past year) President Obama once again turned to a tried and true weapon in his rhetorical arsenal: the 100 year argument for healthcare reform.

Many questions arise out of what the President has been saying about the past 100 years in regards to this battle for healthcare reform.  If the press were doing their job, they would ask questions like “Why would he use this argument time and time again in pushing for healthcare reform in 2010?”, or “Who exactly has been trying to get healthcare reform done for 100 years?”, or even “Why have these folks been trying so hard for so long?” 

But the best question, and the one I would ask, could be “If healthcare reform is so great, why has it taken 100 years to finally pass it?”

There could be many answers to this very complex question, but the most obvious answer is that the people of the United States have never overwhelmingly desired or called healthcare reform.  Thus our elected officials have never taken the extreme steps to force it upon us.

If this is true, then this gives us insight to the basic identity and desires of the American public as a whole.  And this knowledge better explains what guides the people who have pushed the ideals that are opposite of what Americans have consistently desired. 

This understanding also sheds light on how the American public will undoubtedly respond and react when their collective will is trampled upon by those in the minority who fall outside of this basic identity.

To this end it could very easily be said that in the republic we in which we live the will of the people is designed to reign supreme.  In fact, Thomas Jefferson said, “The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.”

If this is the case, what relationship is there between a 100 year push for healthcare and the seemingly opposite will of the American public?

Well, according to this New York Times timeline, over those 100 years the following presidents have attempted to drastically overhaul of our healthcare system or have openly pushed for universal healthcare: Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, and Obama.

Take a look at that list – not exactly a conservative dream team.

Okay, that tells us who has led the push.  But what about our country?

Most conservatives would call our country a “center-right” nation.  When you look over the entirety of the country (past the population centers and even certain geographical anomalies) it certainly appears as if this is the case.  We are not overwhelmingly conservative nor are we overwhelmingly liberal.  However, our historical inclination to the free market system, capitalism, and a limited form of government lead many people believe that the country leans at least somewhat to the right.

Identification studies back this up.  In October, 2009, Gallup released a poll where 40% of Americans say they consider themselves “conservative”, 36% consider themselves “moderate”, and 22% consider themselves “liberal”.

Yet as a country we do elect presidents who lean left.  In fact, we have done this on many occasions over the past 100 years.  However, this could be because of the popularity of the parties at certain times, how well campaigns are run or not run, or the political circumstances that surround hotly contested elections.

What is also true is that the current President was not swept into office by a massive popular vote margin as some on the left would have you believe.  In fact, the popular vote was a difference of roughly 9.5 million votes out of just over 131 million cast – this translated into a difference of 7.25% of the total number of votes.  To put that into perspective, in 1984 Ronald Reagan beat Walter Mondale by 16.9 million votes or 18.2%.  Where we that much different in 1984 than we were in 2008?

No.  Just as Reagan’s victory was a product of its time, the same can be true for Obama’s victory.

Furthermore, what these figures certainly do not signify is that those of us on the right are all of the sudden overwhelmingly outnumbered by those on the left.  But that is what the left would like you to believe.

On his Twitter account, Roger Ebert said this before the healthcare vote: “Not ONE Republican will depart from the Party Line. Suicidal. Out of touch with America, which WANTS this bill.”  Subsequently after the vote his reaction was much the same: “I feel kinda like I did on Nov. 4, 2008. The American people have good hearts, and democracy works. Lies and fear do not prevail.”   

What are the clear lessons we can learn from this outspoken liberal?  That the American people who voted for Obama have good hearts.  Democracy works even though no one on the opposite side of the aisle would vote for the bill.  And because no Republicans would vote for the bill, it is suicide for them politically because America WANTS this bill. 

I don’t think so, Roger.  If we are to believe public polls, America very clearly did not want the bill and still does not want the bill even as it has been signed into law.  Certain segments obviously desire this type of government intervention within healthcare (and every other aspect of their lives), and they are very passionate about their support.  But to make an overarching statement such as the entire country wants something this clearly partisan is just not very intelligent.  To me these kinds of statements born out of Roger’s liberal isolationism sound just plain silly. 

Additionally, If Roger’s assertions were true about the bill’s massive popularity, then the bill would have been passed the House by an overwhelming margin by members of both parties.  Instead, it only passed by a meager 4 votes; all of which were from the same political party.

All of this takes us back to the original question: Why did it take 100 years to pass major health reform? 

Again, could the answer simply be that because we are a center/right country, as a whole we have never truly supported massive healthcare reform?

If this is true, then the converse is also true: Only a certain liberal segment of society has always wanted massive healthcare reform and relentlessly worked toward it for 100 years.

So what is different about 2010?  If the country did not dramatically change, then what made the difference now?

This difference is that this certain liberal segment of society that has been fighting this war for the past 100 years also happens to currently lead the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate.  And it also holds the office of President of the United States.

Simply put, it was a perfect storm of liberal leadership imposing their will on not only a center/right American public but also the numerous centrist Democrats currently serving in the United States Congress.  We know this is true by the amount of arm-twisting, deal making, and parlimentarian tricks it took to get to the necessary 216 votes in the House and 51 votes in the Senate. 

If we were to be honest, we could even go so far as to say that three people flexed their political muscle and overrode the will of the people of the United States of America.

And now they wonder why an overwhelming segment of the population is so angry?  Could it be that we are upset our collective will got trampled on?

So what do we do?  If we are a center/right country who is not pleased by their left leaning leadership both locally and in Washington, what is the plan?  How should we proceed from this point on?

The first thing we must do is unite under a center/right flag with those whom are willing to fight for a common purpose.  If we can humbly and effectively figure out the ideals and philosophies we share and focus on them, we can unite to build effective and long-term coalitions.

Secondly, we need to be trained as educated citizens how to re-take our country through information gathering and sharing, community changing elections, and through the persuasion of more sensible ideals.

And lastly, we need to identify and support solid candidates to run for office on the local level in preparation for national change.  Then we need to give these people the tools and resources to win.  This involves encouraging center/right folks to properly assist them and support them as campaign volunteers and voters on election day.

By following these few game-changing principles we can undo what’s been done.  But it will take time, patience, and the right people in office to do the job.  American Majority can help through our candidate and activist trainings, and other organizations can provide massive amounts of tools and resources to take us from an angry group of protesting citizens to a focused group of implementers of freedom.

It is up to us, folks.  We all need to help.  We must now flex our political muscles as free and proud Americans.

In the end, if we do it correctly, we will get back to where we have always been as a center/right nation – a nation dedicated to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans.

In the summer of 1996 I could not wait for the fall when I would be starting my college experience at the University of Oklahoma.  At that point the only major worry I had about my impending freedom was how I was going to pay for this adventure. 

Unfortunately my parents were not able to help me out, and though for the first year I had won a few scholarships and “fee waivers” because of my grades, there was still a pretty sizable financial void I would have to fill.

Thus, a few months before I headed off to school I went down to the local branch of the Bank of Western Oklahoma, sat down with a friend of mine’s mother who was a loan officer, and began the process of borrowing my life away to pay for college. 

This initial experience with getting those student loans was efficient, easy, and pretty painless.  All it took was a meeting with my friend’s mom, some paperwork, and a follow up meeting a week later to finish up the process.  With that, I was set for the next 5 years of college.

It really was that simple and that quick.

Fast-forward to 2010.  I am standing in the middle of a lecture hall on a university campus speaking to around 100 very quiet students about the importance of playing a role in the political process.  My initial question to them revolves around if they are aware of what happened the previous weekend in Washington.  Their collective answer is a sporadic grumble that resembles “healthcare reform passed”.

My follow up question is something along the lines of how this healthcare reform passage affects them.

Two brave souls speak up.  The first guy says something about higher taxes.  I laugh and say that is probably true.

Then a second guy says something completely unexpected: “The government is now going to be the ones issuing student loans.”

Wait, what?  Seriously, a 19 year old with unlaced sneakers and a t-shirt 3 sizes too big knew about that?  Very impressive.

But he is right.  Inside of the massive and expansive health reform bill was a student loan reform bill as well.  A reform bill that takes away the ability of private lenders (like my hometown bank) to initiate and issue student loans.

According to this editorial by the Newark Star-Ledger, now instead of going to privately owned financial institutions, “families will be able to apply for the government’s Direct Loan Program through college financial aid offices”. 

And yes, this editorial board considers this a good thing.

The editorial goes on to say, “The changes make sense for students, parents, colleges — for everyone except the loan companies losing their unnecessary role as middlemen. When the Senate passes the health care reconciliation bill, this will be another reason to cheer.”

Did you see that?  The underlying message from this editorial board is that banks and other private financial institutions are greedy and selfish because the federal government has used them to distribute and issue student loans.  And those privileged bankers have made money off of this?  Oh, the humanity!

What this editorial did was make me even more curious about the aspects of the student loan reform.  So I did some digging.

First, I wondered if banks and other financial institutions really made that much money off of student loans.  I posed this question to a banker friend of mine who works in lending, and he looked at me and laughed.  He explained that even when the bank does issue the loan at a higher interest rate, it is not enough to make then bank any money when you count the man hours and governmental fees associated with issuing the student loans.  If fact, he said, the bank loses money on them and simply employs them as a service to students.

But I thought the banks were greedy and were using the students’ desperate situations for private jets and parties for their Wall St cronies!?!?

Secondly, in looking at this editorial, I wondered why anyone would want the government to take over an industry that is doing something well.  Sure, there have been “scandals” associated with the student loan process, but are government run bureaucracies any different?  No, and in fact they are worse (see Freddie and Fannie). 

What this editorial blatantly and unapologetically shows is the philosophy of the left that the government can always do something better than private business.  But we know from a hundred years worth of examples that his is simply not the case.  In the instance of student loans, overnight our country goes from having literally millions of banks to handle millions of student loans to one government agency handling the millions of student loans.

Yeah, I bet that is efficient. 

So efficient that surely other questions will not arise about where you actually go to get your loan or how much of your personal information will the government have or who will ultimately approve or decline your loan.  Plus, I am sure that there is a plan in place for the massive structure for which this program will undoubtedly need.  At least we know they will have to hire thousands of new governmental employees to work there. 

Oh good, more government expansion. 

Lastly, like many other ways in which the government is operating now, the underlying problem is that the government is overstepping its bounds and trying to create a solution where there is no major problem.  But who cares if there is no problem – the banks are making way too much money on poor college students, and this must be stopped.  Where does the solution lie then?  With the government of course!

In reality, what we have is the United States government taking over yet another private industry because it feels like it can operate it better.  What the result will be is longer lines and more red tape, more confusion and frustration about the process and the hoops families will have to jump through to get their student loans, and the government having more of our personal information to use as it sees fit. 

The entire scenario is a nightmare for parents and student alike.  And that is what our government has created through this terrible piece of legislation.

We will never control our government until we control the federal tax system.

It is corrupted and unfair and feeds unchecked government growth with our money. It has made the federal government far more powerful than what was supposed to be its equal—our state governments. The income tax hides the cost of the government from plain sight and provides endless amounts of our money for the advancement of politician’s personal ambitions. It is very good for those in Washington and very destructive for the rest of us.

We’re being treated as if our only value as citizens is how much more money we can be made to give up out of our paychecks. When it comes to more and more spending and more and more taxes, it is a one-way conversation. I’m ready to talk back and I don’t think I’m alone. That’s why I’m calling on every patriot to join me in a tax revolt march on Washington , D.C.

I’m leading a Tea Party Patriot team in a growing on-line tax revolt which arrives in Washington , D.C. on April 15th to merge with huge physical rallies. It’s a new technology that allows people to choose a graphic “avatar” to digitally march on-line to Washington with hundreds of thousands of other Americans. Even the homebound, recovering veterans and the elderly can add their voice to this new American chorus.

I’m seeing a lot of people remembering that politicians are supposed to follow the will of the people—not trample it. Like Boston Harbor , this is where we again make our stand.

First you choose an avatar at: www.onlinetaxrevolt.com. Then you choose a team. Michael Reagan has a team, Neal Boortz has a team, Ken Hoagland of FairTax.org has a team and I have a team, among a growing number of others. Every day after you join the march, you can check your progress toward Washington , D.C. on a Google Earth map of the United States . You can see other marchers from your hometown, read blogs from the leaders and count the growing number of citizens willing to make a stand.

The on-line tax revolt is open to all whether they favor the Flat Tax, the FairTax or the kind of simplification that President Reagan won. What this march is really about is shifting public policy back to favor the public instead of the political elite. Right now, the on-line revolt has 100,000 marchers and is growing by 1,000 people per hour. It’s wake up call to those in the halls of power.

This nation began in a tax protest against the rule of royalty, indifference to what were once loyal citizens of the crown and the arrogance of power. A brand new form of government began here that held that government power could only be granted with the consent of the governed. Well guess what? The aristocrats are back, the arrogance of power is back and even taxation without representation is back as our government pledges the earnings of future, unborn, generations of American citizens to secure mind-numbing levels of national debt today. It will ruin the country if we don’t stop it.

This is not the government we learned about in our civics class and not the liberty for which our forefathers shed blood. It’s time for the next great American tax revolt and I hope you join me.

(This article was also cross-posted at BigGovernment.com)

————————————————————————————-

Joe “The Plumber” Wurzelbacher was thrust into the national spotlight when he asked Barrack Obama why it was fair to take his earnings and give it to others. Joe has kept asking hard questions of government leaders ever since. Joe leads the Tea Party Patriot Team at www.onlinetaxrevolt.com.

Chris Faulkner, Vice-President of Faulkner Strategies (and direct-mail guru), provides campaign tips on best practices concerning campaign mail.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Chris Faulkner, Vice-President of Faulkner Strategies, provides campaign tips on running a successful voter contact program.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Chris Faulkner, Vice-President of Faulkner Strategies, provides campaign tips on best practices of campaign yard sign usage.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download