• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Ignited States of America

    Americans have lit a fire under Washington. At town-hall meetings, Tea Party events, and the ballot box, citizens are making their voices heard. On October 7–9, thousands from across the land will gather at the Values Voter Summit to speak out on the issues that matter and listen in as leaders address current events that impact our freedoms, families, national security, and traditional values.

    The Values Voter Summit always features high-caliber speakers, and this year’s lineup is no different. Already confirmed are several Members of Congress, including House Speaker John Boehner (R–OH) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R–VA); media personalities Mark Levin and RedState.com’s Erick Erickson; leading voices against Obamacare, including Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli; pro-family activist Bishop Harry Jackson; and many more. Sean Hannity calls it “the premier conservative event now in the country.”

    As a sponsor of the Values Voter Summit, The Heritage Foundation will be there in force this year. Robert Rector, whose recent study on poverty lit up national media from Fox News to the Huffington Post to the Drudge Report, will lead an interactive panel discussion on “How the Welfare State Erodes the Family.” Recently starring in the short film We Still Hold These Truths, Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., will host an informal breakfast on American renewal. And the policy experts behind “Saving the American Dream” will share the way forward to fix our national debt, cut spending, reform health care by empowering patients—not bureaucrats—and restore prosperity in America.

    To close the weekend, the Faith, Family and Freedom Gala Dinner will honor Heritage’s own Ed Meese, former Attorney General under President Reagan, with the Vision and Leadership Award. Notables including Levin, Phyllis Schlafly, and Heritage’s President Edwin Feulner, Ph.D., reveal behind-the-scenes stories and lessons from Meese’s revolutionary career.

    It’s a weekend not to miss—the Values Voter Summit on October 7–9 in Washington, D.C.

    Posted in Culture [slideshow_deploy]

    6 Responses to Ignited States of America

    1. 475Linebaugh says:

      If John Boehner and Eric Cantor are going to be speaking, just how conservative can it be? Might as well invite Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and President Obama.

      • LevinFan says:

        Rep. Jim Jordan of RSC, talk show host Mark Levin, Rick Santorum, Rep. Ron Paul, Ed Meese, Erick Erickson, probably Michele Bachmann if she comes as she usually does… doesn't get much more conservative than that. I plan on going!

    2. West Texan says:

      Although I'm not with the Tea Party, I've been blasted locally for believing in limited federal government. As a Texan-American and one who strongly supports our founders' dual sovereign design, I've been targeted by social progressives for lying about being an independent voter simply because I won't sing their mantra. Which is a hateful tune for anyone who is out of step with them. A local news editor stated recently that Tea Party members are uninformed, uneducated, hysterical fanatics. Why? Because they don't want a United Socialist Sates of America (USSA). I swore a military oath to defend our constitutional republic, not the social progressives' overreaching perverted feel good fantasy.

    3. jdowneybell says:

      It is time for the American People to make a stand. We The People can do this in each state by starting a balanced budget amendment petition to be on the ballot in Nov 2012. Just think if 20, 30 or 40 states did this. There would be a true discussion among the people not just politicians behind closed doors.

    4. Whitney Galbraith says:

      (page 1 of 2

      Re: Cato Policy Forum, July/August, 2011
      ”The Case for Marriage Equality: Perry v. Schwarzenegger

      Dear Cato: August 10, 2011

      To this non-scholar observer of the American scene, your defense of “gay” marriage is Constitutional overreach and reflects a jumble of contradictory constitutional theses and a tortuous confusion of political and sociological agendas with legal principles.
      Perhaps the most relevant constitutional starting point is one of simple definitions. Ignoring the euphemisms of “gay,” and “lesbian” and “sexual orientation,” we have created out of whole cloth a protected class status based on the peculiar sex habits of a select few citizens. And “homosex” is but the latest cutting edge of an “antidiscrimination” industry that has created any number of artificial legal identities. A case in point is a city ordinance in my city of residence, Colorado Springs, an ordinance which recognizes nineteen (!) personal identity factors that in the name of “antidiscrimination” are entitled to legal protections: “race, creed, economic condition, ethnicity, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, sexual orientation, gender identification, gender expression, marital or familial status, military or veteran status, political affiliation, socio-economic class, resident or public assistance status, organizational membership or physical or mental disability.”
      All if these definitions ignore and even render irrelevant the Constitution, which recognizes only our common American citizenship as the source of our rights, our civil liberties and our Constitutional protections. Were we to revert to that “original” understanding of the Constitution, we would have to agree that any citizen any of us cared to name today currently enjoys the same “right” to marriage that all of the rest of us do – right now, with no need government to redefine the institution.
      On the practical matter of the institution of marriage itself, it requires a great deal of “scholarly” hubris and intellectual presumption to suppose that Cato and its libertarian brethren in or out of government enjoy either the writ or the wisdom to overturn the single most important social institution to society – marriage – the institution which most citizens will agree, I’ll bet, is the one that allows for a man and woman to be everything that they were meant to be, a husband and wife to be everything that they were meant to be and a mother and father to be everything that they were meant to be. And this does not address the right of a child to have a mother and a father in his or her life.
      Somewhere in the frenzy to redefine marriage we all deserve to consider “natural law” – what nature intended the human being to be and what the human body was designed to do. Homosex is alien to this norm.
      If government in any of its guises arbitrarily refines “marriage” to any degree, it will redefine the institution out of existence. Marriage between ”any two” people will become marriage between any three people, or more. Polygamy, incest, minimum age, even of human marrying human will no longer have any Constitutional defense. Will Warren Jef's’ recent conviction for “polygamy” and “assault” one day be overturned in the name of Cato’s version of “equality” just as refreshingly, for Cato, as Loving v. Virginia?”
      So much of Cato’s argument rests on the notion of “equality.” Again, the Constitution addresses that notion solely on the basis of our common citizenship, not on any other identity or human attribute. When “equality” is invoked simply to coerce the very many into advancing the interest of the very few, the word acquires a sordid connotation that I suspect would be very alien to the authors and ratifiers of the Constitution. “Equality,” for many American citizens, has become a weapon of mass destruction that has reduced America to the lowest common denominator of human achievement and human behavior.

    5. Whitney Galbraith says:

      (page 2 0f 2)

      For Cato and its libertarian allies to insist that imposing “gay” marriage is the equivalent of ending slavery and segregation is to equate race, an inherent characteristic, with homosex, which enjoys no such publicly acknowledged identity. One would think there would be a number of “minority” Americans who would bridle at this analogy.
      When Cato and its libertarian cohorts claim a “minimalist” view of government involvement in American society while raucously championing what is arguably the greatest government imposition on that society since slavery, it rings more than a bit hypocritical.
      When judge Vaughan Walker, in his Proposition 8 ruling declares as “conclusions of law” the following, he is accomplishing only what he personally wants to accomplish:
      – “Genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed;
      – Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals;
      – Gays and lesbians experience discrimination based on unfounded stereotypes;
      – The state must have an interest apart from the fact of tradition;
      – Gender restriction …..is nothing more than an artifact of a foregone notion that men and women fulfill
      different roles in life;
      – Evidence (rebuts that homosex) is a sweeping social change;
      – Homosex has no adverse affects on society.”
      This is an effort by one judge to arbitrarily redesign human society itself. And Cato champions this decision on the basis of “equality?” By doing so, Cato would pit the judges in direct conflict with the legislative branch of government, that branch of government explicitly empowered by the Constitution to “redesign” anything.
      If we create a protected class status on the basis of homosex, what do libertarians believe the next “protected class” will be?
      Cato has a singular interpretation of “discrimination” in America. It sounds the Joshua-like clarion call for an “end to that terrible vestige of discrimination” – traditional marriage. There is a reciprocity in antidiscrimination dictat that burdens the whole of society for the benefit of the few. When government coerces 300,000,000 Americans into legally recognizing homosex, it automatically “discriminates” against everyone of those three hundred million who with justification question the practice, violating their fundamental rights of speech, their rights of conscience, their rights of association, even their moral sovereignty. All of this in the name of “equality?” And what of the Boy Scouts of America, who have been cynically denied equal access to public facilities simply for what they believe? And what of the myriads of college students who have been denied equal access to ROTC programs because of their universities’ discrimination on behalf of the favored few at the expense of the many?
      So, Cato, there appears to this Constitutional neophyte that your sponsorship of “gay” marriage is an overwhelming temptation professionally, ideologically and politically to be the ones that history will credit as the ones who helped redesign human society after all the millennia of an otherwise established “order of liberty.”
      In the end, Cato, the question of redefining marriage is one of what any of us want. It is as simple as that. This applies to the Supreme Court justices as well, where the predictability of 5 to 4 decisions based on purely political persuasions renders the court merely one of many of de Tocqeuville’s “factions.” Dressing the ogre of “gay marriage” up in constitutional garb is as cynical as it is grotesque.

      Whitney Galbraith
      Colorado Springs CO

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.