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

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

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

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

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

Why celebrate Constitution Day?

On September 17, 1787, our founders, the members of the Constitutional Convention, adopted our Constitution as the governing document for our brand new country.  Faced with overwhelming odds against this country they fought for succeeding and thriving, they outlined a blueprint to “enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself” (Alexander Hamilton, 1788).

Where are we today?  We see videos of members of Congress forthrightly admitting that they don’t know what the Constitution says, or care about how it applies to legislation they are voting on, while we listen to a recorded voicemail of a member of Congress asking a lobbyist for money based upon her position and perceived clout.  Meanwhile, the Speaker of the House responds to the question of where in the Constitution the government is given the right to mandate health care with “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

It’s easy to think that our Constitution doesn’t matter; indeed, it is what those in power would have you believe.  Here is why our Constitution still matters-

For the first time in history, power was granted on the basis of the consent of the governed.  Not based upon your family name, your noble title, or your aristocratic bloodline.

For the first time in history, allowances were made for government to be altered and changed by the people, through the process of amending the Constitution.

For the first time in history, a country was founded on the premise that government has a purpose, and it is founded by “We the People.”

Now more than ever, it is important to recognize the significance of our Constitution, and to realize how readily and importantly it applies to our daily lives.  Take a moment today and read through our Constitution.  Listen to our national president Ned Ryun’s podcast series on the constitutional convention and the process through which our Constitution was written, signed and finally ratified.  Because now, perhaps more than ever before, our Constitution matters.

Special thanks to Austin James for bringing this to my attention, and Raz Shafer for contributing key material. Regarding this piece from the Huffington Post:

We see here the fight that grassroots constitutionalists are up against, and the new medium that it is expanding to. There has been a fair amount of talk in political circles and elsewhere about the vast network of information, people, and resources that the government-expansion crowd uses to make their message palatable and marketable to the very voters that will be exploited by such statism. (For a more in-depth case study, see The Blueprint by Schrager and Whitwer, recommended by AM president Ned Ryun here).

This post by Ariana Huffington, written with a touch of hopeful anticipation, outlines a plan for the federal government to “open” (note the buzzword, falsely implying transparency) itself to outside innovation that will only further empower it. President Obama, in the parlance of media guru Tim O’Reilly, champions an overhaul of government that will allow more participation in public affairs by citizens via technology and new media. Sounds great, right? I mean, who wouldn’t want to have more involvement in the affairs of their government? That’s what democracy is all about, right?

The problem here is the goal of a Government 2.0-type program. Uncle Sam wants your ideas to help widen and streamline the way the federal government operates. We should not be surprised in the least by the tendency of the big-government establishment to employ new media and social networks to expand the influence of the bureaucracy. What’s more, those who support such an agenda make no effort to hide their expansionist goals. The Mayor of Newark, as quoted in the Huffington article, seeks to use new technology to build “a larger democracy that is learning how to master media and drive social change.” And why should such visionaries make any effort to hide their big-government tendencies? After all, the majority of voters in 2008 cast their ballots for “a larger democracy” and a government that “drives social change.” There can be no doubt that those behind this government-driven change will use any and all means to do so, including new technology. Would a technological Government 2.0 be more transparent? Maybe, but actions speak louder than words, and we have seen government transparency in practice over the past few weeks, months, and years, and you can draw your own conclusions from there. Would a “larger democracy” be good for the free market and individual liberty? Almost certainly not.

For the entirety of American history, the American population has been at odds with the power of the federal government. To channel a popular radio host, the American political tradition has always come down to an ongoing struggle between liberty and tyranny. When the proponents of government-driven wealth redistribution and social change by sometimes constitutionally questionable means advocate the use of new technology to involve more people in that agenda, their vision smacks of a relationship between governors and governed that Americans should instinctively perceive as too close for comfort.

To put it another way, here’s a quote from Barry Goldwater, the late U.S. senator and 1964 presidential candidate:

“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents ‘interests,’ I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”

The government-as-platform structure mentioned in the Huffington article is exactly the wrong application of new technological resources. Those who wish to pursue individual liberty and a smaller government should pursue the use of new technology and social networking to organize efforts aimed at resisting governmental expansion, not facilitating it. Here at American Majority, we are working to build a network of constitutionally minded grassroots activists that will bring about social change from the ground up, not imposed top-down by the government. Networks such as Twitter, Facebook, blogs, news websites, podcasts, and other media make possible the sharing of a vast wealth of information intended for the use of limiting government influence, rather than expanding it. They connect people with like-minded people of skill, means, and ambition, and the relationships formed through these networks grow into the movements whose influence we see in the congressional primaries even now. By training grassroots activists and candidates, we do not seek to build a “larger democracy” as the establishment does, but rather a new nation of responsible, conscious citizens who will be educated and equipped to defend liberty for this generation and the next.

The tools are out there for everyone to use. The big government crowd has already begun. When do we get started?

There was nothing particularly odd about this post from the Philadelphia Libertarian Examiner. Nothing, that is, until the last line. Every day a new column, blog, or news story comes out telling us that the GOP is in a fight for its life against the Tea Party, which threatens to destroy it from within. It’s always “Tea Party vs. the Establishment” or “GOP Shakeup Imminent,” or some such thing, and this is exciting stuff. But what caught my eye about this Examiner piece was the subtle injection of that little phrase everybody is thinking about, but only a few people are saying.

As primary season continues, candidates come out of the woodwork, congressmen are sent packing by “anti-incumbent fever,” scandals torpedo credibility, and change is on the rise (again), we are revisited by the specter of an old idea long since thought to have passed on, but that lives once again. You have heard whispers of it on the right and the left, shouts of it at tea parties, mention of it at your dinner table. It’s the phrase that we bury every few decades, but that rises from the dead every time we finally drop the shovel and dust off our hands. You know the two little words I’m talking about.

Third party.

Ned Ryun, the president of American Majority, wrote a piece about the third party temptation a few months ago, and I couldn’t have said it better myself. However, now that primary season has begun, Rand Paul has become the Tea Party’s prom queen, and moderate incumbents are dropping like flies, it appears that some hard line anti-establishment types need a reminder of why the Tea Party movement would help itself by remaining exactly that: a movement, rather than a party. I point you first to Ned’s blog on the subject. Also see Laurie Masterson’s piece from yesterday at AmericanMajority.org: “Vote Them All Out?”

Third, consider the historical example of the 1848 presidential election, in which Martin Van Buren, the presidential candidate from the Free Soil Party, took ten percent of the vote on a purely anti-slavery platform, and probably sealed the defeat of anti-slavery New Hampshire Democrat Lewis Cass at the hands of the pro-slavery Virginia Whig Zachary Taylor. In more recent memory, recall the effect of Ross Perot on the 1992 presidential election.

The bottom line is this: now is the time for candidates from the grassroots to throw their hats into the ring. Primary season is meant for all ideologies and candidates to be presented to the people for their approval. To the candidates and activists out there, I encourage you to promote your platform, run your campaign to win, and stand up to the old vanguard. To the voters, I cannot stress how important it is to make your voice heard in the primaries. As Ned Ryun writes, “Those who win primaries and attend party conventions decide what a party is.”

Now, a word of caution. Once primaries finish and we head for the general elections, the third party temptation will take hold. Mark my words. Anywhere it tries to act as a third way, the Tea Party will split the vote formerly monopolized by the GOP, handing victory to liberal democrats every time. Candidates like Steve Levy, the recently defeated candidate for the New York Republican gubernatorial nomination, who are “contemplating” third party forays have far more at stake than their own victory. If Levy and his kin run in a general election against a Republican and a Democrat, there is no reason to expect any outcome other than a democratic win.

The case of Rand Paul is an excellent example of how the primary system should work. A true conservative-ah, what the heck, a libertarian- was nominated to represent the party that traditionally represents conservatives. Kentucky conservatives did what Ned Ryun calls making a party “a creature of their own creation.” Martin Avila at UnitedLiberty.org cautions anti-establishment Tea Partiers in a similar fashion not to turn their backs on the GOP, which so many have forgotten is not set in stone, but in fact malleable. His advice is important for independent-minded conservatives to remember.

Now, don’t go calling me an old-school party-clinging hack just yet. (Come on, I’m a college student.) At my @EricJ_AMajority twitter page, I recently tweeted an interesting column in the Washington Post in which we are told that the GOP should fear the loss of party discipline if Tea Party candidates are elected. As for me, I am willing to sacrifice party discipline for the assurance that my representative will vote according to my best interest. You have all seen the bumper sticker (and many of you probably have it): “Gun control is being able to hit your target.” Now, I propose another redefinition: “Party discipline is being able to vote out your defunct representative in a primary.” Try that on for size.

All of this is to say that change (the good kind) is in the air once again. Primaries are the perfect time for grassroots candidates to enter the race and make their voices heard. When these few months of primaries are over and the race for November begins, we will see what constituents truly want out of their representatives, and inevitably, we will see a few third party races. I cannot, nor will I, tell you how to vote in November, but what I will say is this: we are not in Europe, where elections are contests between ten parties. In the United States, votes for third parties do not simply materialize; they have to come from somewhere. Let us not hand over elections because we are too blinded by ideology to know what is politically prudent. Voting for the lesser of two evils may seem like politics-as-usual, but sometimes it is all we can do. If the worst should happen, the next primary is only a few years away. And that, my friends, is the beauty of the American system.

My friend in the Texas office of American Majority, Andrew Kerr, wrote a great blog post about the importance of running to win- after all, those good ideas you have as a candidate will never be implemented if you do not first get elected.

He’s right- you do need to raise money, walk door to door and use traditional tactics such as yard signs to increase name identification in your district.  Here’s another thing some candidates- particularly first-time candidates- make mistakes with: asking for help.

As a candidate, you should realize that you need three things to win: people, money and time.  You can always find more people, you can always raise more money, but you can never find more time.  It’s the one thing Congress hasn’t figured out how to legislate yet.  You will not have enough time to meet every voter, make every debate, contact every donor, or knock on every door.  This means that you need help.

The two places I find many candidates shy away from asking for help are volunteers and funds.  I have personally walked many blocks and worked many parades in hot Kansas July weather for people I believed in.  Often, they were friends.  Each candidate should look to their own networks of friends, family, co-workers, neighbors, church and community group members.  In these networks, locate the individuals who have either the expertise or the time to help your campaign.  Maybe there is an individual who organizes the Vacation Bible School every year.  I guarantee you, if that person can wrangle a bunch of kids with sugary drinks, that person can coordinate your volunteers.  Perhaps there is an individual who’s never done anything political before, but you trust them and they have time to help.  That’s your ideal person for phone banks, organizing walk lists (once you teach them how) and driving a vehicle while you walk door-to-door.

I know it can seem as though you’re burdening people by asking them to give up their time to help your campaign- or to donate to your campaign. To some, it seems unimportant- I’ve recently had a candidate tell me that he was thinking of bankrolling his own campaign so that he wouldn’t have to “waste time” on fundraising.  But look at it this way: getting a candidate elected who believes in individual liberty and limited government will make our country better.  You’re asking your friends and neighbors to invest in their country through your campaign.  I look ahead to my future, where I want to own a home with my husband, raise a family on streets that are safe, in schools that are solid and in a nation that is free- because of that, I’m willing to invest in candidates who will help make that possible.  View your requests for help in this manner- let’s face it: you will not have time to run an effective campaign if you’re the only person involved in your race.  And your fundraising is the same- you are asking individuals to support your campaign because it is an investment in their own futures and in our country.  By engaging them in funding your campaign, you are shoring up a base of support and winning the trust of the individuals who will influence how others in the community perceive you.

Asking for help can be difficult.  But if you’re serious about running a campaign for office, you need to realize that you simply cannot be everywhere and do everything, and engage people you can trust and turn to when you need them.  For more on engaging volunteers in your campaign, check out Ned Ryun’s Running for Office podcasts episode 7 and 8.

If you’re not running for office, now is the time to find a local or state campaign to volunteer your time for.  It is an incredibly rewarding experience where you’ll learn new skills, meet new people, and have a hand in shaping the immediate future of your community, state and nation.  To learn how to be an effective campaign volunteer, attend an activist or candidate training coming up in your area soon.

Between the years of 1760 and 1776, over 400 pamphlets were written, published and distributed throughout the American colonies. Many of the pamphlets were written by laymen and dealt with inherent rights, the role of government, freedom, liberty, and even the right for the colonists to be an independent people.

Those pamphleteers sowed the seeds of freedom in the minds of the American people. In 1815, John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson about those pamphleteers:

What do we mean by Revolution? The war? That was no part of the Revolution; it was only an effect and consequence of it. The Revolution was in the minds of the people. The pamphlets, newspapers in all the colonies, ought to be consulted during that period to ascertain the steps by which the public opinion was enlightened and informed . . .

In a nod to those pamphleteers of the 1760s and 1770s, American Majority has released its first pamphlet in a monthly series entitled, “Why America is Great.” The first volume deals with America’s rich heritage and the transcendent principles of our Founding.

You can read a digital version of the pamphlets here: http://americanmajority.org/pamphlets/

If you are interested in obtaining hard copies of the pamphlets (they are big,  broadsheets), they are $1 plus S&H (there are bulk rates as well). Please contact us at team@americanmajority.org or call us at 540-338-1251 if you would like to order copies.

We are very excited to announce the Post Party Summits. These regional trainings have been put together to provide the grassroots with the tools and strategies needed to win both locally and nationally. Teaming up with some great organizations, American Majority will be working with The John Hancock Committee for the States, RedState.com and SmartGirl Politics to bring you these events this April and May.

I’ve been saying for some time that the moment has come to move from protesting to implementing, from talking to purposeful, meaningful action. I’m excited that these trainings will give people real tools to make the change this country needs, that they will be empowered to become even more effective:

• If someone is interested in becoming more effective online, they will learn how.
• If they want to learn how to hardwire their precincts, they can learn that too.
• If anyone is interested in running for office, there will be multiple sessions on handling media, campaign strategy, fundraising, and GOTV.

We are working with local 9.12 and Tea Party groups to establish a curriculum that is beneficial. We are going to pack a lot of information into each regional training in our hope that each attendee will leave feeling empowered and wanting to educate other activists in the community.

While the website is still under construction, we encourage you to learn more about the upcoming Post Party Summits. Registration is now open and we hope you will consider attending a summit near you.

We thank you for all you do and look forward to training and empowering the grassroots in 2010.

I first met Debra Kohl at an activist training I conducted last Friday near St Louis.  Nothing about Debra stood out at first- she was quiet during the political training sessions, attentively taking notes.  But when I sat down next to her during lunch, she told me a story:

In September, our national president Ned Ryun and director of new media Austin James conducted a similar activist training in St Louis, which Debra also attended.  During the training, Ned discussed how few Americans are registered voters, and how even fewer show up to vote on Election Day.  Later in the political training, Ned encouraged each attendee to think about one thing they could do, one specific way to implement liberty.

Debra chose voter registration.

Since September, Debra has convinced more than 100 other individuals to lead voter registration drives in their own communities, is compiling informational packets and voter guides, and just today, held her first Voter Registration Training.  At the training, she taught attendees to register voters, become poll watchers, serve as election judges, and to understand how important the voting process really is.  Twenty-one people attended her training today, and she has several more trainings already set up during the remainder of the month.  She just told me over the phone that while most of the people have been in the St Louis area, she was contacted today by a woman from Hannibal and asked to provide help to that region of the state as well.

At American Majority, we believe that national change begins at the state and local level.  Debra is a perfect example of the difference that one patriot can make, and how that difference on the local level can spread to impact the state.

With the historic advances made by the American grassroots last year, it became clear that we have been faced with an opportunity that comes once in a generation, one in which we the people have the opportunity to fundamentally change government in this country. To do that, we quickly realized American Majority will need to step up its efforts in 2010. With hopes of training, organizing, and networking even more of the grassroots, American Majority is pleased to announce that we will be launching the American Majority Mechanics program. We are looking for activist trainers to go into local communities and train as many of the grassroots as possible in 2010. The name “Mechanic” comes from both the ability to fix the problems this country is facing and from its historic roots:

In the days before the Revolutionary War, Paul Revere organized the Mechanics, a group of determined patriots that grew out of the Sons of Liberty. The group established an intelligence network that monitored the actions of the British army in Boston, and then sent news of the movements to patriot leaders. It was the Mechanics who discovered that British troops were planning to march on Lexington and Concord on the evening of April 18, 1775, which led to Revere’s famous midnight ride to warn Samuel Adams, John Hancock and other colonists that the British were coming.

To be considered for the American Majority Mechanics program, there will be a screening and training process through which potential trainers will be selected. Those who are interested in becoming an authorized American Majority Mechanic must send a current resume, a one minute video clip of themselves speaking to the camera about who they are and why they would be a good trainer, and fill out the questionnaire below. Those who do make the selection process will be invited to a three day training session in the Washington, DC area, March 24-26th, 2010, with American Majority covering the cost of travel, hotel rooms and training. Only the top 35 applicants will be accepted. Those accepted will be trained to become well acquainted with American Majority, its principles and goals, proficient in new presentation software, communication skills, how to organize and run a training event, and how to maximize attendance.

Those who become authorized American Majority Mechanics will be compensated through registration fees and have access to a variety of new materials through American Majority and the John Hancock Committee for the States. Eventually, as American Majority expands into states will full time offices and staff, the best trainers will be strongly considered for full-time employment with American Majority.

A Brief Overview:

1. American Majority Mechanics will be trained to organize and lead American Majority’s four hour activist training program, which covers online activism and offline grassroots organizing, which the national American Majority staff will compile and put into our presentation software.

2. AM Mechanics will receive 75% of the net from their trainings.

3. Authorized trainers will also receive a certificate that authenticates them as American Majority Mechanics, a web banner that will identify them as such, American Majority logoed shirts, American Majority business cards, the ability to buy all eStore materials at cost (in which they may make any profit at resale), and access to the John Hancock Committee for the States online resources. Authorized trainers will also be able to show their training sessions on the American Majority training calendar on the website – and people who want to attend trainers’ sessions will be able to register and pay online through the website.

4. Authorized AM Mechanics will be expected to perform at least one training with a minimum of 30 trainees each month through the end of 2010.

The application deadline for the AM Mechanics’ program is the close of business, February 26th, and all submissions should be submitted to team@americanmajority.org. Those accepted into the program will be notified by March 5th.

Download the questionnaire here.

Thank you for all you do.

So tonight we get to hear the State of the Union, and it will no doubt follow the usual storyline of glossing over the bad, highlighting the good (if there is any?), but in the end not really providing us an honest evaluation of where we stand right now, January 27, 2010. With all that has happened in the past year, I sincerely hope the President will address the nation honestly and openly.

Since January of 2009, we have seen the growth of the government like almost no other period in history: the government takeover of General Motors, government takeover of financial institutions, the massive bailout (that was actually a goody bag for special interests and has done zero for increasing jobs), the explosion in government spending (can someone explain why federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% during the last 18 months? And here I thought there was a recession . . . ), and now government is 40% of GDP, which means since government is bigger, it can insert itself even more into our lives. And I haven’t even mentioned the healthcare bill of 2009, which was a crass grab by our political class to control 1/6th of the American economy.

So what I’d like to see done tonight is just an admission by the President:

“Yes, America, we think the state needs to grow. We think that the increased role of the government in your lives is obviously a great thing (i.e. statism). We think we know better than you.”

Although I do not agree, at least then he would be telling the truth about where the state of our union really lies.

What about you? What would you like to see discussed?

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?

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.

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.

Ned Ryun, President of American Majority, provides campaign tips on how to conduct a successful door-to-door campaign operation.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Ned Ryun, President of American Majority, delivers the twenty-second episode of the series entitled, “Running for Office.”

Podcast: Play in new window | Download