With Christmas a few weeks away, and all of us gathering as proud Americans … at this San
Antonio Tea Party event … honoring our military today. It’s very appropriate to talk about of gifts.

Well, the dictionary’s definitions are:

1. A notable capacity, talent or endowment
2. Something voluntarily transferred from one person to another person without compensation
3. The act, power of giving

Our forefathers like Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, a special man George Washington and many others … presented all Americans at that time, and future Americans a gift. And that gift was a “country,” the United States of America. This country was like no other before in the history of the world. This “gift” was based on the right to individual Liberty, Freedom where our rights, and the source of our “gift” was our “Creator” and everyone could pursue their own vision of happiness.

Any gift it is meant to be used responsibly, and respectfully. So we show honor and appreciation to the person who gave the gift. These gift givers are not only our forefathers but especially our parents and grandparents, and all Americans who were given and treasure this “Gift”. Every new generation’s responsibility should be, to listen, be curious, and ask questions to understand the “Gift” we’ve been given. As grateful children we should place a high value on our liberty, enjoy our freedom and pursue our happiness in a manner that honors the “Gift” and all the gift givers. So we can pass on to the next generation of Americans.

This gift has to be protected and sometimes fought to defend it. We cannot forget how “special” the man George Washington was. He was not only a forefather but he was our first general, and our first Commander In Chief of our military. He saw the vision of the “gift” before it was created. He saw how precious the “Gift” was. He also saw the value of the “gift” becoming very, very high … because of the price that was paid to achieve it. Many of his fellow patriots, men and women, paid the ultimate price then and continued with our military past and present. Our military people and their families stand between the “gift” and all those who want to destroy it. We honor our military and their sacrifices’ today.

We must teach the next generation of kids about America and its history so that they will have the opportunities we had, and also so they can try to stay informed, and to teach their kids.

God Bless the Military … God Bless Texas … God Bless the Patriots … God Bless the gift of “America.”
*****

The Tea Party movement in general—and the San Antonio Tea Party in particular—has attempted to create a tent big enough to unite unnatural allies on a common set of core issues. Libertarians and social conservatives, for example, who comprise the bulk of Tea Partiers across the Nation, have agreed to disagree on a host of issues (from regulations on abortion and illegal drug use, to defense of traditional marriage, to name several). While neither group is likely to embrace the other’s thinking any time soon, they have agreed to subordinate those issues to the Tea Party’s unifying issue of fiscal conservatism.

Social conservatives (often evangelical Christians) make up a strong constituency, perhaps even two-thirds of the movement. While they may put social concerns on the backburner when working on a Tea Party team, their desire for fundamental reform of the status quo burns on high heat, and they are passionately driven by a worldview shaped by more than economic concerns.

In the 1970s they answered the age-old question “Should Christians be involved in politics?” with a resounding “YES!” and have played a decisive role—either by their action or inaction—in every election since 1976. Today the question is “What role should Christians play in the Tea Party movement?” A panel of three knowledgeable and thoughtful Christians recently answered that question in a Christianity Today feature (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/october/32.55.html?start=1#related). The answers were “on the outside,” “on the inside,” and “in the front.” (Let me remind the reader who is unfamiliar with social conservatives, they are as diverse of a group as are Tea Partiers!)

David P. Gushee is Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics and Director of the Center for Theology and Public Life at Mercer University. He sees the movement as “most interesting” in its opposition to expanded government power and spending which has been led by both major political parties. But his stance that Christians belong “outside the tea party” is based on “ugly weaknesses” such as “visceral opposition to President Obama,” “birthers,” and “racially tinged incidents and comments” (the latter of which he does not detail and we still await evidence). Granted fervent political opposition can often turn ugly—even unchristian—in tone. Yet, can Christians avoid “ugliness” by maintaining their Christian witness in the political arena? Can they join in opposition to what they perceive as unscriptural, but do so in a scriptural way? Can they join the fight as Christian soldiers without succumbing to “the weaknesses of … libertarianism in terms of Christian social ethics”? Many believe they can.

Among those is Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization. She argues Christians must be inside the Tea Party because Tea Party issues have their roots in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Tea Party principles—rule of law, equality of people, representative government, separation of power—are Biblical principles, either introduced directly in Scripture or as logical outgrowths of Biblical concepts. When government and society founded on Biblical standards stray from their roots, who better than Biblical people to guide them back? Christian women in particular with direct experience in balancing family budgets, managing family healthcare needs, and educating their young—and adversely impacted by government’s feeble attempts at all three—are natural activists in the movement.

David Brody, White House correspondent for the Christian Broadcasting Network, goes further in arguing that conservative Christians must not only participate in, but lead the movement. He notes Ralph Reed, political strategist and former leader of the Christian Coalition, wisely observed that even if social conservatives were to win the battle to protect life and marriage, yet lose the battle against a climbing national debt, they ultimately lose the war. Traditional hot-button issues (such as abortion) will be fought on non-traditional battlefields (such as healthcare reform), common turf for all Tea Partiers. Thus, if the issues are of Biblical or social import and if the Tea Party is a forum in which to engage for moral change, then Christians must be not only “present for duty,” but among the first ranks!

While there is no clear consensus from the Christian community on a Christian’s role in government, much less within the Tea Party movement, there is striking common ground. First in the conclusion that America is hemorrhaging—culturally, socially, fiscally. Second in agreement that Christians must act—to be that proverbial “salt” and “light” of Scripture. But third that Christians must never surrender the moral high ground by abandoning their Christian witness, through word and action, even in a godly cause.

If nothing else, the Christianity Today discussion exemplifies a model for civil discourse and civility in disagreement. Perhaps that is the greatest lesson that Christians entering the political fray might share by example with others in the movement, who often too quickly lose focus on the real opposition and critically wound each other in the uncivil wars before the main battle begins.

The San Antonio Tea Party for one welcomes those whose faith and social concerns call them to engage from within. Respecting diversity for the strengths it brings, may we co-labor stronger, more wisely, and always pure in heart.

Over the past few years, buried behind headlines about more exciting problems like global recessions, debt ceilings, and occupations of American urban centers, a debate from half the world away has been gaining steam. In China, sex-selective abortion—in which parents hoping for baby boys selectively abort baby girls—has slowly effected a seismic shift in the gender demographics of the most populous country on Earth. Worldwide, male births slightly outnumber female births by a ratio of about 105:100 (an imbalance rectified by the fact that men tend to get themselves killed more readily than women). But in China, the disparity is far greater: in some areas, boys outnumber girls upwards of 130 to 100. The reasons for this are myriad: China’s one-child policy, introduced in 1978 as a means of population control, bans many parents from having more than one child. Because culture and practical considerations—such as China’s patriarchalism and the expense of marrying off daughters—deincentivize having girls, many parents with only one shot at offspring opt to hold out for a boy, nixing the girls who happen to come along first.

As the phenomenon has gained traction, normally upstanding Western media have reacted strangely, achieving something between guarded concern and outright condemnation. The New York Times wrote in 2005 that the one-child policy has been “a human and public health disaster, with the large-scale abortion of female fetuses.” MSNBC reported that “millions of families [resort] to abortion” due to “China’s draconian one-child policy.” In 2009, the Economist, a decidedly sophisticated London-based global affairs journal, wrote about the “war on baby girls,” opining that “the cumulative consequence for societies of such individual actions is catastrophic” and that China needs “to stop the carnage.” The outrage has been so hot that journalists coined the term “gendercide.” (You know something’s important when new words are invented to describe it.)

Yet it’s curious, this outpouring of revulsion from the West’s brightest beacons for women’s choice, and it begs an important question: what’s all the fuss about? At these venerable institutions, on-demand abortion is thankfully a sacred right, up there with life, liberty, and the progressive tax system. The Times has long supported unfettered choice in terminating a pregnancy, recently expressing concern over a spate of pesky anti-abortion bills at the state level and optimism that President Obama “will nominate a warrior to the [Supreme Court],” meaning one who will uphold Roe v. Wade given the opportunity. Following Texas’s passage of a bill requiring abortion seekers to view a sonogram of the fetus first, MSNBC profiled a doctor in Round Rock, Texas, who chided Austin that “the last thing I need to be told from a Texas senator whose background is in, you know, talk radio, is how to perform my sonogram.” And the Economist has echoed the sentiments of former President Clinton, promoting abortion that is “safe, legal, and rare”—though when push comes to shove, as is sometimes the case, we understand that emphasis on the “legal” must trump the “rare.”

So enough of the griping. Truthfully, the criticism of China’s abortion practices by Westerners who champion our own is melodramatic. Proponents of free choice grasp that the primary concern in abortion is the rights of the mother. “Being pro-choice is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family,” Hillary Clinton explained as a Senate candidate in 1999. Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards echoed the view in a recent Huffington Post article, reminding us that abortion is a vehicle to help “women determine their own future.” But don’t we know that enforcing a different ethic for our culture than for another is not only hypocritical, but supremely ethnocentric? You’d think these writers were conservatives. We recognize that women in the West who consider abortion often face a frightening alternative should they choose to have the child: financial hardship, unsupportive partners, embarrassment, family alienation. Yet few Westerners can grasp the plight of Chinese women, where girls are a dead weight around a family’s neck, often unable to go to college or earn an income, likely targets for domestic violence or sex traffickers, and where the inevitable dowry payment often sets parents back years if not decades. Who’s looking out for these women? Surely we wouldn’t deny them such a basic human right as abortion?

The problem is one with unwritten yet deeply held rules some marginal pro-choicers hold. In America, you’re allowed to have an abortion if the pregnancy is inconvenient or if you’re not ready for a child. But to abort because the baby is not what you hoped for is often considered eugenics, akin to the Nazis’ ethnic cleansing during the Holocaust. In July 2011, Psychology Today spotlighted an Asian doctor quietly protesting the practice. “He performs abortions himself,” the article reads. “For sex-selective abortions, however, he reserves a contempt bordering on fury. ‘You can choose whether to be a parent,’” the doctor is quoted as saying. “‘But once you choose to be a parent, you cannot choose whether it’s a boy or girl, black or white, tall or short.’” Even observing abortion-related realities is to risk being called a bigot. This winter, a pro-life group sparked an outrage in New York City by posting a billboard claiming blacks have a disproportionately high rate of abortion. Yes, the group was right: CDC stats indicate about half of black babies are aborted, far more than in any other racial group; and yes, the group was labeled insensitive and racist and the billboard taken down. But so what if it’s true? Maybe as a result, black women are happier than non-blacks. Was this backlash a primitive tinge guilt left over from less enlightened days, when women were denied the reproductive rights they deserved?

And why shouldn’t we be able to choose? After all, nobody’s disputing that women should be able to terminate their pregnancies. Certainly inconvenience, financial problems, and a perception of unreadiness to be a parent are legitimate reasons to dispatch a kid. And should you actually want to keep one, the scope of your decision-making is wide open. You can choose its name and to some extent its birthdate. You can smoke, drink, or run marathons while pregnant, all of which will dramatically shape the child’s health. You can test for and treat birth defects and diseases—or, if you prefer, create them, like a deaf lesbian couple tried to do back in 2002. And now, thanks to the miracle of genetic technology, cash-flush moms can fully design their own offspring, from gender to hair color and eye color. If we can engineer the kind of baby we have, or we can choose not to keep one in the first place, what’s wrong with opting for the latter if the prospective tot isn’t up to snuff?

In any case, it will be intriguing to watch the fallout unfold from China’s systematic culling of its unborn ranks, but one thing is certain: the trend doesn’t show many signs of slowing. And that’s for the better. If we are to truly become a world where women are rulers of their own bodies free from the intrusive hand of government, mothers-to-be must be free to abort for all reasons: race, ethnic makeup, nationality, birth defects both real and potential, inconvenience, financial distress, embarrassment, a general distaste for the process of childbirth, and certainly gender. After all, it’s not really baby girls that China’s aborting. They’re only fetuses.

Thank you for allowing me to respond to your editorial in which you referred to me as a conservative ‘zealot” on the State Board of Education (SBOE).   

True, I will not always agree 100% with academic “experts” who come before the SBOE. True, there is a “culture war” of political ideology and philosophy, especially in the area of new standards for American History, Government, and Economics. 

It might interest members of the Chamber of Commerce to know that “experts” had deleted every reference to the free enterprise and free market system in the K through Grade 12 draft version of the Social Studies standards.    

Because I certainly could not agree with these “experts,” I successfully brought forward and passed the amendment, complying with Texas law, to restore the teaching of the positive benefits of the free market for creating jobs and opportunities. 

Another example: A panel of university “experts,” led by a professor from the University of Texas at El Paso, voted 8-1 against American Exceptionalism.  

When I questioned that action at a public SBOE hearing, the “expert” immediately launched into a lecture about how wonderful Socialism is in a “good democracy.” 

When I asked the UTEP professor for his example of a good democracy, he replied “Venezuela.” I reminded him that the President of Venezuela has made sure that the state has control of every newspaper, radio, and television station in that country. 

One Ph.D. “expert” testified that “high school students are unqualified to ask questions.” I countered that if our children are no longer allowed to raise their hands in class and ask honest questions, then we are no longer living in a place called the United States of America. 

A professor from the University of Texas at Austin shared a survey that included 51 professors from the History Department. Fifty answered “Democrat” when asked their political affiliation. 

While we SBOE members were searching for examples of good role models for our minority students, one “expert” pushed for a current board member of the Democrat Socialist Party of America.  

My amendment deleted the Socialist and added Navy Seaman Philip Bazaar, the first Hispanic recipient of the Medal of Honor, and Army Sgt. William Carney, the first African-American recipient of the Medal of Honor. 

Finally, “experts” deleted Veteran’s Day, Independence Day, and the Liberty Bell from the Grades 3-4 Social Studies standards. “Experts” also raised a concern about the use of the word “patriot” in the new standards. 

My fellow Conservatives and I carried the amendments to restore the coverage of Veteran’s Day, Independence Day, and the Liberty Bell along with many other essential historical elements of America’s history, such as including the word “patriot.”  

I also voted to ensure that from K-12, as age appropriate, our students will actually read and study the authorship and purpose of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. Our Texas school students will also study the impact those documents had on such historical milestones as the Emancipation Proclamation and women’s suffrage. 

I am sad to report that too many university “experts” range from being America bashers to America haters. Unfortunately this editorial board blindly sides only with those types of “experts.” 

I often state, “The Far Left is scared to death of a place called Texas.” Why? Texas has an elected SBOE, not a politically appointed board. 

I am a representative of 1.8 million constituents in a very conservative district, and I am not a rubber stamp for the agenda being directed at our public school students by the “Far Left zealots.”

With the economy tanking and joblessness rising, you’d think the Obama administration would put their creative powers into jumpstarting the economy or at least figuring out how to stop choking it. Instead the President’s team is pouring their energy and our resources into redecorating the nation in rainbow colors. Considering misplaced priorities of this White House, every month feels like “gay pride month.” But this year, President Obama is taking its social activism to new heights–as in, above the Federal Reserve. Apparently, the administration’s proclamation in support of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender pride triggered a series of parties and other events at taxpayer expense. America’s central bank interpreted the President’s declaration as an excuse to fly the rainbow flag above its building in Richmond, Virginia. On the same pole as Old Glory, the Feds are celebrating a behavior that Delegate Bob Marshall (R-Va.) says is “still a class six felony in Virginia.”

As Richmond’s paper points out, the flag isn’t the only thing that’s been raised–so have objections. But despite the flood of complaints, bank managers refuse to bend. A spokesman for the bank said, “The flag is an example of our bank’s commitment to diversity.” The colors were reportedly flown at the request of an LGBT employee. I guess we’ll see how supportive of diversity the bank really is when Christian Heritage Week rolls around next March in Virginia. Can we expect to see the Christian flag flying at the Fed? Here in D.C., the Obama administration isn’t just pledging its allegiance to the rainbow flag, it’s pledging countless taxpayer dollars too. This is just a snapshot of the indoctrination taking place in the halls of power.

- Earlier this month, the White House unveiled the first-ever webpage, www.whitehouse.gov/lgbt, devoted exclusively to the LGBT community. Complete with federally-funded videos, a special blog, and political resources, it’s one-stop pandering for liberals.

- In partnership with Dan Savage (a bitter homosexual, who built a career on vile hatred toward Christians), President Obama, the First Lady, Vice President, and dozens of White House staffers also posted “It Gets Better” videos on the new site, which should give Americans a glimpse of just how many homosexual activists are entrenched on the Obama team. The campaign, which has been labeled an anti-bullying initiative, is actually a cultural assault on free speech.

- Yesterday, Health and Human Services (HHS), which should know the risks of homosexual behavior better than anyone, announced a “Cultural Competency Training” (read: indoctrination) about the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender “identity” for federal workers.

- Also in HHS, David Hansell, who runs the Administration for Children and Families, admitted at Tuesday’s Youth Summit that the Obama administration is now actively “recruiting LGBT parents” to adopt children. (CNSNews.com uncovered the speech, which was so secretive that the Department of Education barred reporters from attending.)

- In spite of the Defense of Marriage Act, HHS is ordering state Medicaid agencies to give homosexual partners the same financial protections and privileges as married couples. This “flexibility” applies to everything from estate assets to nursing home care.

- In partnership with the Department of Education, HHS has decided to host a gay film festival for federal workers during regular office hours. (This is in addition to the Bulgarian gay film festivalhosted by the Department of State.)

- Obama’s congressional allies are also getting in on the act, introducing a measure that would make same-sex partner benefits tax free (link requires subscription) in health plans. The plan was cosponsored by “Republican” Sen. Susan Collins (Maine).

With all the talk about the tea party eclipsing social conservatives as the most important grassroots base in conservative politics, mainstream news outlets are finally picking up on the continued strength of the religious right. As the NY Times reported this weekend from Iowa, “a resurgent social conservative movement is shaping the first stage of the presidential nominating contest.” If you are planning on closely following the 2012 race, keep an eye on new organizations like Ralph Reed’s Faith & Freedom Coalition.

I never saw a real disconnect between the tea party and the social conservative movement. Folks like Rep. Michele Bachmann and Sen. Jim DeMint, both national tea party leaders, have been influential voices in our movement for a long time and have not waivered on values issues while embracing the Tea Party’s message. The tea party is packed with veterans of Christian conservative activism.

Social conservatives have always been anti-tax, fiscal conservatives and it is natural for us to join up and even lead the tea party. The Public Religion Research Institute reported that, “nearly half of tea party movement supporters also identify with the Christian conservative movement.” Further substantiating my claim, the survey found that those who identify with the Tea Party “are mostly social conservatives, not libertarians on social issues. Nearly two-thirds (63 percent) say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.”

The same presidential candidates who receive strong tea party support will undoubtedly be socially conservative. Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, Haley Barbour, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney, along with a popular New Jersey governor who continues to say he will not run although he tops many polls, are pro-life. Bachmann, who has the potential to be a leading GOP presidential contender, rightly proclaimed to a crowd of social conservatives in Iowa that, “We’ve been told that we need a truce on social issues. I highly disagree with that. Social conservatism is fiscal conservatism.”

Question our influence all you want. The social conservative movement is stronger and more mainstream than ever before.