I’m going to make another comparison between the current tea party movement and the Founding of this nation. We all know about Valley Forge, and the trials and tribulations George Washington and the Continental Army faced during that brutal winter with the cold, sickness, and lack of food.

What is not as well known is the role of Baron von Steuben that winter. Washington knew that for the colonies to be victorious, the Continental Army had to become better trained and more proficient. For lack for lack of a better term, the Continentals had to become a professional fighting force. While in the early days there had been some success with the state militias, Washington knew that if the men fighting were just purely volunteers, the British army would continue to beat them.

So that winter at Valley Forge, Baron von Steuben began training and drilling the Continental Army, whipping it into a more proficient fighting machine. Von Steuben was an interesting character, who actually couldn’t speak English (he would swear at the men in French and Prussian, and then have his translator swear at the men in English), but he knew how to train and drill men. At Valley Forge, he actually took a small group of men, trained them, and then had them turned into trainers so they could accelerate the process. The first signs of success were played out at in 1778 as the Continental Army became a much better fighting machine.

Now I’m not saying it was all smooth sailing after that for Washington and the Continental Army. They were still ill-equipped and fed, and were facing the finest army in the world at the time. But it did allow them to go toe-to-toe with the British, beat them at times, but approach the conflict with more discipline.  And three years later, we of course know that the Continental Army, with the help of the French, beat Cornwallis at Yorktown and effectively ended the Revolutionary War.

The point I want to make is that in 2009, many of the people coming out to the tea parties and 9.12 events were doing so for the first time. I was just at an event in Dallas for organizers and asked, “For how many of you was 2009 the first time you really did anything?” I would venture to say 80% of the people in the room raised their hands. So you have people who are very passionate, but very new, to the process. If the tea party movement is going to be successful, and make the impact it can, and should have, the people in the movement need to become even better at what they do, from organizing, to messaging, to leading. What if the millions that showed up last year all became better at engaging online, building effective grassroots coalitions, became proficient at enforcing accountability on their elected officials, and even identifying and training new leadership from the movement to run for office? Can you imagine the impact the movement can have, not just in 2010, but beyond?

My hope is that in 2010, the tea party movement does take the time to get trained and even better educated, because quite frankly, the left knows the movement is coming, and if the tea partiers are going to beat the left in this country, the time to get better is right now.

I think it’s clear that what we’re seeing is something new in politics with the tea party movement, and especially with what took place last night in Massachusetts. It’s not about people choosing this party or that party, nor is it just about the anger of independents. It’s people looking for leadership that will actually do what it says, and that will look out for their interests, not the interests of the politicians or big business. They want government that is responsible, not invasive. People don’t like the fact that the absurd spending and bailouts are all taking place on their backs, out of their pockets. As a friend said, “People know the fix is in with big government and big business and they’re not going to take it anymore.”

But after last night, I want to throw something out as a topic of conversation: does the tea party movement need a central leader/and or leadership? I have been quoted as saying I believe local tea party and 9.12 organizers should stay independent, while remaining on the same page with like-minded leaders from across the country. Quite frankly, I’m not convinced about some of these so-called “national” tea party organizations. I either question the leaders’ motives, or their strategy (which is to suppose they even have a long term strategy beyond the next protest). If those reading find those words provocative, so be it. Regardless, the question remains: is leadership needed for the movement to be sustainable in the long term? And I’m not talking about an election cycle or two, but fifteen, twenty, even thirty years or more. 

The tea party movement began as an organic movement, literally exploding from the grassroots and taking the political stage by storm in 2009. However, the problem with organic movements is that they are highly de-centralized. There are positives to be gleaned thus far from the movement. For example, demonstrating the true grassroots nature, thousands of tea parties and 9.12 groups are in existence today, with many flourishing despite having existed for only a year’s time (stop and think about the amazing nature of that: January, 2009. No tea parties. No 9.12 groups. January, 2010. Thousands of local tea party and 9.12 groups). And  despite being de-centralized, the local tea parties are working well together, for the time being. In Massachusetts, tea parties from New Hampshire, Connecticut, and New York City were working jointly with the Massachusetts’ tea parties to get grassroots workers to help Brown.

The negative, however, is that history tells us that highly de-centralized movements do not succeed in the long run unless they give way to some sort of unified, and dare I say, centralized leadership. Before you write the idea off, think about the newly independent United States in the 1780s. Every one of the 13 states thought and acted like a sovereign nation. They’d all played nice with each other during the war with Great Britain (well, sort of). But once the threat of Great Britain was gone, and they were independent, things started to sour with the United States. Within a matter of years following the Treaty of Paris, the United States actually stood on the brink of total collapse, with fierce internal dissension and bickering, from thirteen different currencies to repressive trade policies between the states. And we shouldn’t forget, the states were also dealing with continuous external threats from the European superpowers: Britain, Spain and France, each circling like wolves, waiting to strike.

The miracle in Philadelphia saved the United States from disaster. The Constitutional Convention took the thirteen states, each like a thin reed, and bound them together, increasing the strength and stability of all. There was give and take, with compromises struck, deals reached, with ultimately a new national government put in place. Each of course remained its own independent state, but they were now in union with the others. It is my opinion that without this, the states would never have survived, ultimately falling prey to petty in-fighting and greed, and eventually to one of the European powers. 

Now, in 2010, we are again faced with a pivotal moment to ‘Unite or Die.’ What if the thousands of tea parties and 9.12 groups around the country decided to come together? What if they really formed a legitimate, national structure, not something arbitrarily attempted by those seeking personal glory, and certainly not by one individual, but rather a circle of principled leadership. I’m becoming more and more convinced that if we do not begin working together strategically, the movement will melt away; people will not continue to protest ad nauseam.

What the election in Massachusetts last night showed is that if the tea party movement works together, amazing things can happen. But the serious problems facing this country will not be solved, and the country fundamentally, changed unless the tea party movement becomes better organized and more long term in its vision.

I’m not entirely sure what that would look like, but that is why I am asking the question. It seems that I am constantly seeing new “characters” emerge as self-proclaimed leaders of an organic, de-centralized movement – which I find odd. Each appears more inclined to profit from the movement than the one before. Now is the time we invest in the movement, instead of profiting from it. 

My hope is that this year, and in the years to come, the tea party movement evolves into a legitimate, sustainable political force; not a party, but a force, that dictates the direction this country takes. How this happens or what this will look like remains to be determined and so I ask again: Is it time to start thinking about leadership within the movement?

By now, most of you know the news: Scott Brown has won Massachusetts’s special election for Ted Kennedy’s seat. Although his platform was one of transcendence and accountability, the fact still remains that Brown is a Republican. A Republican in a seat that had been a liberal shade of blue for over three decades. One can also argue that Massachusetts remains one of the most liberal states in the Union. So what does this all mean?

I would argue that Washington has a lot to fear. Not just Democrats, but Republicans alike. Remember that Brown’s campaign was built largely around an anti-establishment platform. Like him or hate him, Brown represents the “every man.” As we saw in Sarah Palin, and will continue to see in 2010, the people have seen the path taken by liberal elitism, choosing to support the honest, relatable candidate instead. The American majority has discovered that the power does indeed lie with them and they have only just begun to exercise it.

Given the recent elections and the growing fear among the Left, it appears that history does indeed repeat itself. The contemporary tea party movement was sparked by the same government reach and growing bureaucratic policy that initiated the original act on December 16 of 1773. Originating in the harbors of Boston, the American people once again stand defiantly in the belief that the individual deserves the freedom to choose what is best for their family, unobstructed from a disconnected government. The tea party movement has returned home, to its roots, to secure a powerful electoral victory in Massachusetts. If there was any doubt on that cold December day about what the colonists were fighting for, they have now been laid to rest on this cold January morning…

The tea party’s rallying cry is clear, “We will support principle over party. We will support candidates that stand for fiscal discipline, Constitutional restraint, and a government accountable to the American people. If you do not stand for these things, you better stand aside.”

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.

One of the best bits of advice I got when I was younger was that, “Readers are leaders, and leaders are readers.” I send the AM staff a book a quarter that I feel will help them become better at what they do.

1. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism by Robert Murphy. A quick and easy read, but with some nice “sound bites” on the free market system. Murphy’s book is good for those that aren’t going to dig into Hayek, Mises, etc., but still want to have a better idea of what the free market is all about. Took me maybe a few days to read thru it.

2. The Myth of the Robber Barons by Burton Fulsom. Not a long book, but an interesting look into the misconceptions about the Vanderbilts and Rockefellers of this world. Fulsom really lays out the difference between political entrepreneurs, or crony capitalists, and the real market entrepreneurs. The book really does give a better appreciation for what the real free market entrepreneurs accomplished, and how they made people’s lives better.

3. The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. I read Atlas Shrugged in 2008, and of the two, Atlas is my favorite. While I dismiss Rand’s objectivism, I think both are worthwhile reads.

4. Free to Choose by Milton and Rose Friedman. A classic that everyone interested in knowing more about the free market should read. Took me awhile to get into it, but once I did, flew through it.

There were others I read, like Founding Characters, which explores the lives of some of the key Founders, that I would also recommend.

This year, American Majority will be launching its Patriot 2.0 training program, Gulp…..

As we trained around the country last year, the same questions and comments were being made, “Can the government track me through Facebook?” (“Ma’am, your life is not that interesting.”) and “I don’t use social media because it’s for Liberals!” (“Sir, with that reasoning, I could be a liberal, and you should leave now before brainwashing begins.”) There was even a few, “How does the CIA’s facial recognition software work?” (“Once I get my top secret clearance, I’ll let you know.”) Needless to say, these statements left most of us bewildered and shaking our heads wearily. This also got me thinking – why are Conservatives so far behind the technology curve? Why did we not embrace social media sooner?

After months of talking about it with trainees and asking others in the field, here is what I have come up with…

Politically, Liberals Believe Social Platforms Can Affect National Change
At the core of liberal philosophy…or progressivism, or whatever the title is they give themselves to avoid the inevitable term of ‘Socialist,’ is the belief that freedom did not come from nature or God, but instead is a product of the state. Essentially, the state is a reflection of the people and the people a reflection of the state. So when a communication platform comes along that embraces the many-to-many model, it would seem a natural fit for groups looking to mold society by either influencing enough people to mimic national support or coordinating mass pressure on public officials to influence the people. For these reasons, the Left was an early adopter of such technology.

Politically, Conservatives Will Not Embrace Social Platforms for Individual Decisions
My mother and father are good examples of why new media has not been adopted readily by the conservative base. As my father has said many times before, “If I know someone, they are in my cell phone.” As he would argue, “I have so much to do locally, why do I need to talk to someone half way around the world?” and to some extent, he would be right. Conservatives tend to believe that individuals are capable of making personal decisions best suited for themselves and their families. Creating a massive, online movement via Facebook to change the local sewer standards in one’s town doesn’t make much sense under conservative philosophy. As the mindset goes, “If conservative politics is local, where is the political advantage in starting a Facebook Page?” For these reasons, the Right is a late adopter to such technology.

Now What?
But, where does this leave us? I would argue that the time for excuses and debating over the issue has passed. The decision has been made for us. Understandably, emerging technology and dramatic change can be scary, but with increased communication comes increased influence; over 80% of those under 30 find the majority of their information online. Don’t you want to engage the next generation of leaders on issues? I equate conservative involvement in national politics to the old saying, “If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around, does it make a sound?” I am here to tell you that yes, yes it does make a sound, a very loud, crashing ‘boom.’ The same goes for bloated, over-reaching government. Because you do not participate does not mean it will not grow and it will not find you; you either do politics, or politics will do you. And if you are doing the politicking, you’re on the offense. If politics is doing you, you’re on the defensive, and you can only play defense for so long before losing.

It is time to understand what the Left is doing and rise to the occasion, if not for you, then for your children. Conservatives maintain the majority status in America and unless our voices are echoed online, we will fail to influence, mobilize and win in coming years. To me, this is unacceptable. It is time to leave our comfort zones and take our Sunday conversations online, helping win the battle for hearts and minds in communities unknown and with allies yet to be realized.

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.

No matter which side you are on, it’s pretty easy to see that the White
House’s message of transparency has been, somewhat, well, hard to
decipher. Matt Kibbe wrote about a few of the back door deals and the
behind the scenes nature of the health care debate.

Despite the transparency rhetoric, promises of an open conversation and a
ban on lobbyists in the White House, there have been murky-at-best
explanations for documented White House visitors. President Obama pledged
not to work with lobbyists. So, naturally, lobbyists just delist, and
voila! No more lobbyists in the White House. Which unfortunately, doesn’t
make them any less of a lobbyist… just a lot more illegal.

Lobbyists are nothing new. The issue is that for a campaign that ran so
vehemently on not working with lobbyists and special interests, they seem
to be more than happy to blur the lines when it benefits their cause. But
what makes a lobbyist a lobbyist?

The Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) defines a lobbyist as a person who spends
more than 20% of their time on “lobbying activities” and has had more
then one “lobbying contact”. Pretty simple. What constitutes a
“lobbying activity”? Time spent on lobbying contacts, as well as any
planning, prep time, research, coordination, and dirt digging. A
“lobbying contact” is any communication, oral or written, with federal
officials regarding policy modification, formulation and adoption. That
goes for legislation, government officials, government contracts, and
nominations subject to Senate consent.

Andy Stern, a known lobbyist who delisted in 2007, has taken his share of
heat. He appeared on the White House visitor log 22 times last year for
meetings with President Obama, Joe Biden, Rahm Emanuel, and Peter Orzag.
News articles also report meetings with House members and Senators.

Apparently not the brightest bulb, Stern also reported his meetings on
Twitter. The Alliance for Worker Freedom and Americans for Tax Reform
collected tweets from February to June that mention White House meetings,
visits with Congressmen, and lobbying with Mayor Bloomberg.

Click here to view a clip from an interview with Stern.

“I don’t care if I went there once, or if I went there every single
day, they would say it’s too much. That’s because they have a different
vision of America than the people I work with every day.”

The assumed access to the White House is an incredible display of
arrogance. They never thought they would be denied access. This is what
happens when everything is negotiable and promises mean nothing. Washington
is doing what it wants, and the less we know the better.

Transparency redefined: We’ll actually show you nothing, and then say
that the reason nothing is working is because of the Republicans. Those
Republicans and their silly “Constitution” and “procedures”. That
is all that stands between you and utopia, people.

America knows tragedy, but for most of us, probably not to this extent.  Imagine today 20% of your Facebook friends died, were feared dead or injured by a disaster, natural or otherwise.  That’s the reality (or, at least, a poor attempt at capturing the reality) that the people of Haiti are grappling with as they wake up this morning as the AP estimates that up to 500,000 may be dead out of a country of 9.8 million.

American citizens have given more to the world than any nation in the history of civilization in terms of financial support, medical supplies, food and other goods and services.  The majority of the support comes from private citizens, religious assemblies and reputable non-profit organizations.  Nearly 66% of citizens donated to help the 9/11 relief efforts while 63% donated to help victims of the 2005 hurricanes, of which Katrina was most prominent.

Now America has the opportunity to step up once again and show that the reason our nation’s greatness is because our citizens care.  This is a real opportunity to “spread the wealth” to those who need the most.  I encourage patriots out there that if they have so already, to give to the relief efforts going on in Haiti.  The Red Cross always does a superb job in these circumstances.  If you’re looking for a faith-based charity, I would recommend Convoy of Hope.  Both organizations are on the ground working around-the-clock.

Please continue to pray for the victims of this horrible tragedy.

People will sometimes ask what I read. Here are some of the books I read in 2009, and would recommend.

1. Economics in One Lesson  by Henry Hazlitt. A really concise read on free market economics in layman terms. Couple hundred pages long, so not a heavy read.

2. The Essentials of Economics by Faustino Ballve. A little tougher read, though just over a hundred pages. But Ballve, a Spanish economist, has gems like this: “. . . the free market is the most obvious expression of the sovereignty of the people and the best guarantee of democracy. Individual guarantees stated in writing in the constitution are of no use to a nation if it is not the people, but a third party, whether government or trade-union, that fixes prices and wages . . . for in that case the people, in being deprived of their right to free choice in the market, i.e. their right to assign everything the rank and the value it suits them to give it, from being sovereign are reduced to the status of slaves.”

3. The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression by Amity Shlaes.  Shlaes does an excellent job of really taking another look at the history of the Depression, FDR’s policies, and some of the impacts, short term and long term, of those policies. Really good read. Little longer, but worth it.

4. The American Cause by Russell Kirk. Not a long book, but a must read for those wanting to better understand who we are as a nation, what the principles are that have made us great, and why they’re worth fighting for. 

More recommends tomorrow.

The Telegraph, a British newspaper, is running a series this week on the top 100 conservatives and liberals in America.  The paper ranks the individuals according to their accomplishments and present-day influence.  This is a follow-up article to their rankings in 2007.

The article defines conservatives and liberals in a more European style than many Americans would define them.  Conservatives are defined as “people identifiably – though not always self-described – as right of centre,” while liberals are “are those identifiably left of centre.”  The article also points out that the rankings are not based upon ideological purity, i.e. Jimmy Carter is not ranked above Jesse Jackson because the former President is more liberal.

The top 20 of each will be announced on Friday.  American Majority is asking if you did the rankings, who would be on your top five list of conservatives and liberals in America in terms of accomplishments and present-day influence?

There are a lot of groups out there these days trying to get off the ground purported doing the Lord’s work for the advancement of freedom. Not all of them make it. Some of them are questionable. I pray very hard these days for God to give me some sense of discernment between the groups worth standing on the bridge with and those not worth it.

I won’t always be right and sometimes will be had. That’s life.

But over the past year I have fallen in love with one new group that has yet to disappoint and that frequently excites me. It’s American Majority. Those of you who attended the RedState Gathering last August know them well. They helped sponsor the event and made a presentation.

Slowly and carefully, American Majority is raising up a new batch of conservative leaders at the local level. Their goal is not to find the next conservative for congress, but to find the next conservative for the school board, the town council, the county commission, etc. They intend to rebuild the conservative farm team.

And they do fine work. They are a solid group I’m pleased to promote and partner with whenever I can.

[UPDATE:] Cross posted at Redstate.com

So we’re launching a revamped site today. Looks pretty awesome (kudos to Austin, Doug, Jaoni, Allison, Michael the designer, et. al. on a job very well done). In 2009, American Majority took its work to the next level (or  I should say, multiple levels) conducting over 150 trainings in 26 states, with just under 5,000 people being trained to run for state and local office, or to become better candidates.

While those are solid numbers, we’re expecting more in 2010, but we’ll need your help to accomplish our goals. The great thing is, the new website has a lot of tools that will help you spread the word about AM, from our uniquely designed tools for activists found in the AM store, to our new social activism platform called the Patriotech Project, to making it easier for you to request an AM training in your community.

We’re making our resources easier to access, with our podcasts on Running for Office, Power to the People, the History of the Constitutional Convention, and other podcasts by AM staff.  We also plan on keeping the AM blog fresh and exciting, with multiple new posts every day from AM staff and guest bloggers.

People often ask me how they can be of help to AM. I tell them two things. First, as we are still relatively new, having just celebrated our second anniversary last week, help spread the word about AM, either thru word-of-mouth, or Facebook and Twitter. Second, AM can always use financial support, and with our secure donation page, it’s very easy to make a contribution that will help us train even more leaders and activists on how to be effective in implementing the great principles of free enterprise, limited government and individual freedom. So I hope you’ll help AM have a great year in 2010.  Enjoy the new site.

2010 promises to be a good year for conservative campaigns both in North Carolina and across the country. Whether you are running a campaign for town council or a statewide Senate campaign, Twitter can play an important role in helping you win.

I’ve compiled ten tips and observations to help conservative campaigns engage conservative voters in 2010. These important (and perhaps obvious) Twitter tips are based on what I’ve seen campaigns do and not do with their Twitter strategies in the past year.

Take a look, remember that followers are potential voters, and get tweeting!

1. Realize Successful Twitter Accounts Do Not Come Overnight.

Campaigns need to be prepared to invest in this new media tool. Twitter accounts, like all other aspects of your campaign, will require staff time and resources. Start by creating a long term Twitter strategy that focuses on reaching and educating your potential voters. As you continue, remember that successful Twitter accounts are not measured by the amount of followers you have, but the impact your message has on those you are trying to target.

2. Customize Your Twitter Account

Fill in any possible information on the Twitter Profile (name, website, and bio at minimum), including dates for primary or general elections. Create a custom background that corresponds to the branding on your website and Facebook Page or use the background space to list url information for your other social media accounts. There are multiple options for customization, but the point here is to create a Twitter profile that is engaging and informative.
3. Remember You Have a Twitter Account

This seems obvious, but I can’t tell you how many campaigns I have seen start accounts on social networks and then fail to follow through. Twitter should be your second new media priority (after Facebook), but if your campaign hasn’t developed a strategy for using Twitter, don’t launch an account yet. It does you no favors for potential voters to see a campaign Twitter account that hasn’t been updated in months. (Of course, if you are itching to start using Twitter and just can’t seem to come up with a strategy, let’s talk).

4. Know Who Is Tweeting

For most organizations, parties, groups, and online grassroots movements, I recommend keeping personal and business accounts completely separate. However, for campaigns it’s effective for candidates to show a personal side. The trick here is to make sure it’s clear who is tweeting. If campaign staff will tweet sometimes and the candidate others, create an easy way for followers to distinguish the tweets.

5. Hashtags. Use them.

Hashtags are my favorite part of Twitter because they allow you to reach new people and categorize your tweets.  I am continually amazed that there are candidates running for any office, especially Congress or Senate, who are still not using hashtags. Look around and find out which hashtags your potential followers are using and use them constantly. You could also create your own hashtag and feed it to your campaign website (warning: don’t forget that anyone can tweet anything with any hashtag). Either way, encourage your supporters to retweet or tweet about you using the hashtags your campaign is using.

6. Stop Expecting People to Come to You.

Many savvy political tweeters will seek out your Twitter account, but many, many more potential supporters will not. The best way to increase your base is to follow the people you hope will follow you. My tip for finding your followers is to pick influential tweeters in your district and follow the tweeters who are following them. You might even ask those same influential tweeters to recommend people for you to follow.

7. See Follower, Think Voter

When you see the word follower, think “potential voter” and engage tweeters in every way possible. For example, thank followers for retweeting important links and encourage them to do so in the future. Consider encouraging followers to ask questions and use the Twitter account to respond to those questions. However you go about engaging your followers, remember that followers are potential voters and you need them come Election Day.

8. Use Twitter Lists

Engage and recognize your supporters by grouping them in specific Twitter lists. Consider sending the people on these lists your press releases and links to your latest blogs first. It’s likely they will appreciate the recognition and start spreading your content. Twitter lists are an easy and quick way to see what your supporters are tweeting about.

9. Know What People Are Tweeting About Your Campaign

Don’t rely on Google alerts and the Twitter @ reply function (which is unreliable at best) for Twitter reputation management. It’s important to take time to use the Twitter search function to search for your name, district, your opponent’s name, and other relevant keywords. Follow the people who are supporting you and address any questions that have been raised by other Tweeters.

10.  Don’t Stop Tweeting Once You Win

Change your account name from @nameforcongress to @RepName and tweet more than ever. You will be glad you did when the next election cycle rolls around.

(Note: This blog has also been posted at majorityconnections.com and runsmart2win.com.  Comments or suggestions? Connect with me on Twitter @jessicanwood.)

I do not pretend to be a lawyer.  While many of my friends in undergrad chose to enter the legal arena, I chose the second least honorable field: politics.  If you think about it, law and politics are inseparably woven together.  Many lawyers become politicians and many politicians need lawyers.  I promise I’ll end the sarcasm here (maybe).

Among the myriad of legal issues in the United States today, there are few as politically charged as the subject of eminent domain.  In layman’s terms, eminent domain is the act of government seizing private property when efforts to purchase the property from the owner have failed.  There can be many reasons for eminent domain, usually for the purpose of public use (utilities, roads, national defense, “economic development,” etc.), often loosely defined.  This article gives a good overview of the process.

The issue of eminent domain made headlines in 2005 when the Supreme Court decided in the 5-4 Kelo v. City of New London that it was acceptable for the city to seize private property (after negotiations to purchase the properties failed) for the purpose of selling that property to developers to redevelop an blighted (in the city’s eyes) part of town.

The case is particularly important to me because New London, CT is my hometown.  I remember as a teenager reading and watching the debates between private citizens and the unelected New London Development Corporation (a quasi-public entity who received the funds from the sale) and how the City of New London ignored the rights of property owners in favor of a dream of becoming “the next Baltimore.”  In case you were wondering, Pfizer, the pharmaceutical giant who benefited the most from the eminent domain recently decided to vacate their New London complex after a merger with Wyeth.

This was not the only time New London ran after dollar signs.  In the mid 1990s, the New London Zoning Board told my parents who had founded a small Assemblies of God church in the downtown that they could not buy any property in the city because “there were enough churches in New London.”  Never mind that such a decision violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and probably the then recently passed Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993).  The city was in desperate need of tax revenues for its pet projects and they despised the fact that churches were tax-exempt (as they should be).  Today the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 specifically protects churches against the abuses of activist zoning boards and where there is still abuse, organizations like The Beckett Fund, Alliance Defense Fund and American Center for Law and Justice continue to win case after case in favor of religious assemblies.

Despite 43 states passing laws attempting to limit the effects of Kelo, local governments seem emboldened by the Supreme Court case.  In a January 4 column, George Will in the Washington Post wrote an op-ed about ongoing abuses in New York.  In one case, developers are trying to define condos worth close to $600,000 as blighted in effort to pave the way for a multi-billion dollar development project (including a new home for the New Jersey Nets – do not get me started on taxpayer subsidies for private stadiums).  The New York Supreme Court sided with the developers in a 6-1 decision.

Will also talks about a Columbia University attempt to expand, but was resisted by local businesses that did not want to close their doors.  The university tried to have to properties seized by the city of Manhattan by defining the properties as blighted.  Thankfully a state court held in favor of the taxpayers in this one.

The abuse isn’t just limited to New York.

• In Washington, property owners are fighting against Sea Tac who wants their land as part of a light rail line.  The owners paid over $10 million for the property, but are being offered only $8.6 million.  Now the city wants to claim the land via eminent domain.
• In Florida, a man is charging the government with deliberately lowering the value of his property in order to offer less to homeowners when the government wanted to expand the size of Everglades National Park.
• In St. Louis, the city is letting private developers clear out traditional African-American communities in order to redevelop the part of the city in the developer’s vision.
• In Corona, California the city has extended their eminent domain authority by twelve years in a move that could affect businesses across the city.

What does this mean for ordinary citizens like us?  Politicians that do not respect the Constitution rule of law and natural rights are going to be more likely to abuse the practice of eminent domain, if they decide to use it at all.  Conservatives and libertarians can hash out if there is such thing as a need for eminent domain.  My purpose is not to solve that debate.  What is clear, however, is that eminent domain abuses are on the rise and it is an issue that every voter should consider when electing local officials.

The need is great for public officials that do err on the side of the people and not special interests or bloated bureaucracies.  The stakes are high when you consider the kind of authority local governments exercise when it comes to eminent domain, but they become all the more high when you consider that many of these abusers of the public trust become candidates for higher office.  The same attitudes in Congress today are reflected in many City Councils and Town and County Commissions: the politician knows best and there’s nothing you can do to stop me.  Thankfully neither is true, particularly the latter.  All it takes is a few voters that care and a few good candidates to run.