Recently in Principles Category

This last weekend, Standard & Poors downgraded the credit rating of the United States of America from ‘AAA’ to ‘AA+’. This, of course, created an uproar in political circles. Wasn’t the raising of the debt ceiling passed by congress and signed into law by the president supposed to prevent something like this?

Many on the left are blaming the downgrade on the Tea Party, calling it the “Tea Party downgrade.” John Kerry and David Axelrod are both on record using that term.

Others are calling the Tea Party terrorists for holding up the legislative process and preventing proposed legislation from being passed because Tea Party-minded members of the House of Representatives wouldn’t compromise.

David Beers of S & P has come out and explained, specifically, why they downgraded the US’s rating.

“Entitlement reform is important because entitlements are the biggest component of spending, and the part of spending where the cost pressures are greatest,” Beers said according to a story posted by Fox News. He added that “political gridlock has prevented the U.S. from reaching a plausible solution to getting its financial house in order.”

Because the “poltiical gridlock” was caused, largely, by the Tea Party-minded members of Congress holding their ground, yeah, based on that reasoning, you could say they’re responsible for the downgrade. But, what if there were no Tea Party-minded members of Congress? What if the 2010 elections hadn’t given the Republicans a majority in the House (comprised of a number of freshmen Tea Party congressmen?) If the House was voting as it had prior to 2010, there probably would not have been much, if any, debate about raising the debt ceiling at all. Sure, some Republicans would have hollered about it, but more likely the Democrat majorities would have passed new legislation to raise the debt ceiling along with sweeping tax increases in the name of raising revenues accordingly.

We might have been downgraded all the way to “AA.”

While it’s true that Washington currently can’t act cohesively at the moment, I contend the Tea Party contingent in Congress prevented a worse scenario.

The only way our government could have prevented any downgrade at all would have been if congress passed legislation including sweeping entitlement reforms and cuts, across the board cuts of discretionary spending, and some sort of commitment to a balanced budget. Under Obama and Reid, this never would have happened! The credit rating downgrade was completely unavoidable.

This last week, one of the big items in the news was the GOP proposal in the U.S. House of Representatives to defund Planned Parenthood as part of federal spending cuts in budget negotiations.

It should be clearly obvious at this point that across the board cuts are needed to improve the fiscal crisis the federal government is currently faced with. Planned Parenthood, however, is a darling for those on the left.

You could tell how much of a darling by the hysterics reported in the news:

• Nancy Pelosi calls GOP budget a “War on Women”
• Sen. Chuck Schumer chants “Never, Never, Never” in response to cutting Planned Parenthood
• Sen. Patrick Leahy blasts GOP budget saying “You’re hurting women. You’re hurting poor people, you’re hurting teenagers.”

Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood itself is breaking out the heavy weapons. Hollywood starlet Scarlett Johansson starred in a promotional video for Planned Parenthood in which she says the U.S. House passed a bill to “eliminate our country’s family-planning program.”

(I find it a little amusing Planned Parenthood chose Ms. Johansson as a spokesperson for this campaign spot. I wrote about her before when she was quoted in the media as saying “[Monogamy] is an overrated virtue, because, let’s face it, we’re f*ing animals.” There’s your spokesperson for responsibility.)

Planned Parenthood is in a tough spot. Many only know them as providers of abortion services, but that’s an unfair characterization. They also provide invaluable other services such as dispensing birth control, screenings for cancer and sexually-transmitted diseases, and educational materials on sexual issues.

While some die-hard extreme folks on the right might celebrate the demise of Planned Parenthood, don’t count me as one of them. Many Americans, particularly those who are poor and/or young, may depend on Planned Parenthood for valuable, maybe even life-saving, services and information.

With that being said, the only way we’re going to solve any of the fiscal problems in the federal government is by eliminating all pet projects and funding to special interest organizations. This doesn’t mean they will instantly cease to exist! Planned Parenthood has done a commendable job in the past marketing itself and you would think they’d have little problems replacing — by way of fundraising — money lost by a cut in federal funding.

Another pet project of those on the left is public broadcasting. I ran across this article that ran yesterday which explains that local public radio stations have had “enormously successful” fundraising drives this year, partially because of the news that federal funding may go away.

Some projects and organizations currently funded in part by the federal government would simply disappear if the faucet delivering those funds were shut off. In a time of crisis, that’s what needs to happen.

Glenn Beck has recently spoken about the problem of “normalcy bias” and I think it applies perfectly here. Many Democrats in Congress would agree the federal government is in bad financial shape, but they protect funding going to things that should only be funded if the government had a surplus or, at the very least, a balanced budget. These representatives are experiencing normalcy bias just like a person who goes back into a burning building to get their purse or jacket or to make sure the lights are turned off.

I think the situation in Wisconsin is pretty simple: The government has a major budget problem. The teachers are not willing to sacrifice and are raising a stink, whining, and throwing a hissy fit. Maybe it’s from being around kids all day.

Sorry if it seems like I’m being incredibly insensitive, but that’s how I see it. Here in Utah, our legislature and governor have done a far better job of managing the state fiscally than most other states in the US. As a result, we’re not laying off public employees or asking them to make significant concessions in order to prevent a major budgetary meltdown.

Personally, I think public employee unions should be banned. They’re public employees, after all. They already have mechanisms in place to petition their employer (the government and, by extension, the people) for requests be it wages, benefits, working conditions, etc. Unions add overhead costs to both the public employees and the government they work for and siphon government employee pay to political activities, as we can plainly see by the organized activities in the news.

The Wisconsin governor’s and legislature’s decision to cut wages and benefits of public employees makes perfect sense as a strategy to regain some fiscal sanity, but so does restricting union involvement in public employees’ contracts and so forth since that also costs money and could endanger the government’s solvency in the long run.

As for people living and working for the government in Wisconsin, it sucks to be you. If you’re not willing to do what it takes to keep your job, then consider moving somewhere else where people aren’t being asked to sacrifice. Maybe Utah, but I have to warn you, median teacher pay in Utah is about half what they’re making in Wisconsin. Oh, and test scores are much higher. Hmmm. Maybe there’s a connection buried in there.

This breakout session was hosted by Gary Wood and Ken Ivory of Heritage Training Center in Salt Lake City.

Ken Ivory, incidentally, is running for a seat in the Utah House of Representatives after having beaten Republican incumbent Steven Mascaro in the 2010 Primary Election. He’ll be going up against Democrat candidate John Rendell in November.

This session began with a simple question: “What is the greatest check and balance?”

The answer: “States’ rights” or Federalism.

There’s a lot of information here, I’m probably just going to include my notes verbatim with some added commentary.

Voices of influence

John Dickinson - “In short, the government of each state is, and is to be, sovereign and supreme in all matters to relate to each state only. It is to be subordinate barely in those matters that relate to the wholel and it ill be their own FAULTS, if the several states suffer the federal sovereignty to interfere in the things of their respective jurisdictions.”

Ivory added, “The states are CRITICAL constitutional actors.”

Thomas Jefferson: “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid of this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”

One person commented: “You hear ‘Commerce Clause’ and ‘Supremacy Clause’, except Clause is spelled C-L-A-W-S.”:-)

What is the federal government?

“Actually the federal government is a combination of the one centered in Washington and those located in States for it is this combination that constitutes the federal system.” — Felix Morley, Freedom and Federalism

Federal government or Federation; government of a unit of states in which sovereignty is divided between a central authority and component state authorities.

Changed meanings of words in 1787. Federal vs anti-federalists

“The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes.” — James Madison, Federalist 46

Double-security. Different governments will control each other.

Are we supporting federalism or are we supporting nationalism?

How is ‘separation of powers’ divided?

Horizontal separation consists of three distinct branches (legislative, executive, judicial)

Federalism - states are where experiments are done. Case in point: Massachusetts was the experiment of the 3 branches of government.

Vertical separation of powers: National and state governments

Who holds sovereignty under our federalist republic?

Is there sovereignty at the national level?

Where is sovereignty at the state level?

Stephen Pratt says this is absurd.

“You have a ‘just claim’ to your life but that doesn’t mean you’re invincible.”

What level of sovereignty do the people retain?

Was the 10th amendment issue settled after the Civil War?

A common assertion is the principles outlined in the 10th Amendment no longer hold true due to the victory of the North over the South.

10th amendment is still on the books, still keystone.

Is secession the issue of the 10th amendment?

“We don’t want to secede. We want our country back. We want our general government operating appropriately.”

Madison “If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may establish teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the union, they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads; in short, every thing from the highest object of state legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.”

Do states, as sovereign partners in United States, still hold the power to interpose between the people and the general government?

Is the general government supreme based on supremacy clause?

The constitution, and the Laws and the laws of the US which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made… — Article VI, Sect 2

What is the Doctrine of Interposition?

Official action of the state government on the part of the state govt to question the constitutionality of a policy established by the central govt.

A resolution of Interposition, like that of Kentucky and Virginia of 1799, can result in the nullification of legislation deemed unconstitutional by the States or States.

Using interposition or nullification is like putting a proverbial ‘finger in the dam’ while the cause of the breach requires further investigation and solutions. It is a useful tool yet not the ultimate solution usurpation.

Nullification — Thomas Woods “Not a silver bullet.”

If I don’t take it, someone else will

One of the presenters illustrated a concept with this story: A little girl sees a bicycle she wants in a store window. To raise money to buy the bicycle, she does bake sales, lemonade stands, babysitting, anything she can do to earn the money. When she finally has enough money, she puts her piggy bank in her wagon and pulls it to the store. Along the way, the wagon hits a bump and the girl’s bank falls out of the wagon. The girl, excited to buy her bicycle, fails to notice the bank is no longer in the wagon, and continues on.

A bystander says to himself, “If I don’t take it, someone else will.”

This is often the rationalization for accepting money from the federal government.

We’re bringing in $200B, we’re spending $300B.

We must commit, in our own homes, to resist govt handouts and to be self-reliant.

The first breakout session I went to, after lunch, was the grassroots session.

Bill Barton

The first speaker was Mr. Bill Barton — my father — on Utah Grass Roots.

The Utah Grass Roots organization rates state legislators and the governor each legislative session based on their votes on various bills.

Lowell Nelson

Lowell Nelson, from the Campaign For Liberty was the second speaker in the breakout session and, following up on Bill Barton’s presentation, said, “A recorded vote on a controversial issue is the most sincere political expression.”

Nelson pointed out some of the differences between a Statesman and a Politician and then discussed ways activist organizations can make a difference: by dealing “political pleasure” and “political pain.”

For an elected official, political pain is defined as the following:

• Acute pain - Losing an election
• Sub-acute - Being challenged in an election
• Chronic pain - Angry voters, angry delegate

During the legislative season, activists can inflict political pain by making personal visits, sending postcards or e-mail. etc. One important point is to be specific and direct. Politics is a number game. 100 postcards is more impact than one hand-written letter.

Nelson discussed the value of getting involved at the party level as a delegate, precinct officer, or party officer, and having a hand in state party constitution.

Nelson recommended reading and learning Robert’s Rules of Order and state bylaws.

Finally, Nelson left us with this gem: “Silence is consent.”

Independent Caucus

The final presentation of this breakout was by the Independence Caucus. This organization’s claim to fame was ousting former Utah congressman Chris Cannon in the 2008 primary and ushering in wildly-popular Jason Chaffetz to represent Utah.

The presentation given at this meeting discussed how the Independence Caucus has gone national, helping candidates in both major parties strategically win races. It hasn’t all been successes, but most have been.

I had meant to get this out a lot sooner, but then our neighborhood nearly burned down. That set me back a couple of days.

I had the fortune of attending the first ever Utah Freedom Conference on Saturday, 18 September held at the Radisson Hotel in downtown Salt Lake City. Things outside and around the hotel were made more interesting by the fact The Dew Tour was going on across the street.

There was a prayer breakfast held beginning at 7:30, but I didn’t attend that. I showed up in time for the main 8:30 meeting in the Ballroom. Rod Arquette, the new “live and local” guy from KNRS welcomed everyone. I was really looking forward to hearing more from Rod as I’ve become quite enamored with his show since they started running it in the afternoons (4-7pm), but that was pretty much the last we heard from Rod.

The Freedom Conference was being financed, apparently, by Bert and Kathy Smith (of Smith & Edwards fame, my dad told me).

Bert Smith spoke after Rod Arquette, mentioning the talk that Stephen Pratt gave at the breakfast, which I did not attend. He garnered some applause after simply stating “We want our local lands back.”

Kathy Smith, Bert’s wife, then recognized the host committee.

There was mention of “Milestones of Freedom,” which describes what immigrants experienced going through Ellis Island. I’m afraid my notes don’t mention what exactly this is, a book, a video, or what. Maybe someone can help me identify this.

Carl Wimmer, the official Master of Ceremonies for the event, talked about being prepared to defend the Constitution. Carl was followed by an invocation.

Christina Lowe, Miss Utah 2010, sang an amazing version of the national anthem without any musical accompaniment at all.

Jason Chaffetz

Our amazing congressman, Jason Chaffetz, spoke next. He spoke of the reverence he has about serving as congressman. He mentioned he was able to lead discussion in congress for the Republican leadership the previous Thursday about the Constitution

“People like to talk about separation of church and state,” Chaffetz said, but went on to point out that without God, we fail to be the great country we’ve been. We are “United under God.”

Jason quoted Abraham Lincoln and said our founders were rooted in an understanding our liberties are God-given.

Some metrics Congressman Chaffetz shared:

• We are $13T in debt, not counting unfunded liabilities.
• This is $5-600M dollars/day in interest.
• In comparison, the state budget of Utah is $10-11B
• Since Obama took office, more than 130,000 new federal workers have been added to the payroll.

Jason also expressed his admiration for George Washington and mentioned that at the height of power, he could have done whatever he wanted. He chose to walk away. He understood power was not vested in him, but “We The People.” The nation didn’t need one particular person to lead them.

Chaffetz also said he is very encouraged that support for Freedom is brewing, even in congress. To illustrate this, he mentioned that a fellow congressman wants to pass a resolution to support of the tenth amendment.

In conclusion, Jason read a couple excerpts from George Washington’s Farewell Address citing separation of power and the Constitution’s amendment process.

Bill Howell

State representative Chris Herrod introduced Bill Howell.

Bill Howell started by recounting an experience he had listening to a liberal talk-radio host who couldn’t understand why people say “We want our country back.” Perhaps people who feel we are losing our country aren’t expressing their beliefs with sufficient clarity, he suggested.

Howell explained that the federal government should obey the Constitution, but this demand is too general. We need to be more specific and detailed.

He added that it’s even difficult to single out a specific Constitutional principle, that the Constitution is a “fabric” or akin to a mathematical formula. If you change one thing, lots of things change.

His example was the 17th amendment which changed how US senators were elected. This affected the states’ voice on judicial appointments, treaty ratification, and more, not just the composition of the Senate chamber.

Howell spotlighted one principle he feels should be given more attention: State territorial sovereignty. He talked about some historic court cases to illustrate how state territorial sovereignty has changed over the history of the country.

Some key points made by Howell:

• Federal govt is not defined by territory
• Founders valued state sovereignty. Point: D.C. limited to 10 square miles
• Constitution opposed to unlimited power in any hand.

“Who understands constitutional principles in detail sufficiently well enough to defend them?” Howell asks. Good point. We should all become more familiar with the Constitution and the principles behind it to the point we can defend it.

Chris Herrod

I don’t know much about Chris Herrod, but I did videotape a townhall meeting he participated in about a year ago where he spoke about the dangers of socialized medicine. His wife is a legal immigrant from Russia and they’ve had some experiences first hand with state-run medicine.

In his address to the Utah Freedom Conference crowd, Herrod spoke of the Patrick Henry Caucus, the 77 oil leases that were pulled by the federal government right after Obama became president.

“People of Utah are actually not free,” he said. “There is undue influence of the federal government on the state.”

Stephen Sandstrom

Stephen Sandstrom is best known right now for introducing a new bill that go before the Utah Legislature in 2011 regarding illegal immigration. Some priceless quotes he delivered included:

• “We should only welcome the immigrant who will assimilate.”
• “Illegal immigration is a brick in the melting pot that will never melt.”

Karen Budd-Falen

Karen Budd-Falen is apparently a long-time friend of Bert and Kathy Smith and an attorney who has lots of experience dealing with property rights issues.

“Daniel Webster didn’t create the first dictionary so y’all could spell better,” she said, indicating that the first Webster’s Dictionary was intended to help the masses understand the language of our nation’s founding documents.

“The Constitution doesn’t give you rights. God gives you rights,” she added.

Budd-Falen’s time was spent mostly highlighting her experience fighting Western Watershed, an environmental activist group that allegedly intimidates and litigates ranchers.

It’s interesting that the federal government does not track the money it gives to environmental groups to turn around and sue the federal government.

In 9 years, for 9 environment groups, the federal government gave 36 million dollars to fight the federal government. Not including settlements.

Using the legal system, Western Watershed extorted $22 million from El Paso Corporation, to specifically eliminate livestock grazing.

But there was no environmental change after the Ruby Pipeline coughed up the $22M.

“It’s really stressful when an environmental group sues to end your livelihood,” Budd-Falen added.

Dan Byfield

Dan Byfield is from Texas and spoke on Coordination, a strategy for local leaders to fight against federal encroachment and other issues. His claim to fame is stopping the “Trans Texas Corridor” project that would have built a huge international highway through the middle of the country.

Dr. Michael Coffman

Michael Coffman, author of “Rescuing a Broken America”, began his speech talking about two competing worldviews that have been prevalent for centuries:

• The Skowsen/Jefferson worldview, established on the philosophies of John Lock. Alsao known as “People’s law”
• The Feudal-Ruler model, established by Jean-Jacues Rosseau, father of modern European socialism and communism

“Arizona lawsuit is extremely important from this perspective,” Coffman said, in proving the Federal Government is sovereign over the states.

Coffman quoted Bastiat, which is nice to hear.

Finally, Coffman illustrated what Thomas Jefferson and others have been warning us against for hundreds of years: The more power the federal government has, the more people clamor to have their voice heard by government (lobbyists, special interests) and the more division there is as one group of people vies for power over another group of people.

Thomas Pratt

Thomas Pratt was the next speaker of the morning session. His presentation was polished and rehearsed and included a synchronized slideshow.

Thomas Pratt’s website is AmericanLibertyVideo.com.

Pratt asserts that state sovereignty and national sovereignty can not co-exist, that there is no such thing as “dual sovereignty” or “mixed sovereignty.”

Pratt’s presentation went by so fast (he was short on time), I only have nuggets of notes from it. Rather than expounding on each of them, I’ll include them verbatim as I typed them up.

• Albert Taylor Bledsoe - National Fed govt vs Sovereign states
• Unitary republic vs republic of republics
• Able Parker Upshur - ~1840
• Walter Neal - The Sovereignty of America
• Declaration Of Independence - 13 nations unitedly declared independence.
• Delegation vs Cede power from the states to the Fed. govt?
• Convention of States.
• The Republic of Republics - by Bernard Janin Sage
• Madison - Each state is a sovereign body, independent of others.
• Compact between the states, not between fed govt and the states.
• “This leads to the solecistic absurdity.”
• Dual sovereignty, etc.
• Think of sovereignty as pregnancy. You either are or you’re not.
• Jefferson - Maintain free, sovereign independent states.
• August 14, 1866 - Nationalists declare victory - Andrew Johnson
• The insurrection against the supreme authority of the nation has been suppressed.
• After that - states were just administrative agencies carrying out the work of federal govt.
• “By arrogation of power…”
• Tenth amendment is the foundation of the nation.
• Either the Constitution means something or it means nothing.
• Nullification by Thomas E. Woods
• View of the Constitution of the United States - St. George Tucker
• Necessary that every man knows his own rights.
• Washington added to oath: “So help me God.”
• Roy Moore - “So help me God.”
• There is indeed a cause, and God is waiting for His people to stand in faith — to let the light shine in on the darkness.

Congressman Rob Bishop

Rob Bishop began by teaching a little history. Progressive era politicians, he said, didn’t like the Constitution because it prevents them from doing “great and marvelous things.”

Bishop pointed out that the federal government has grown under both Republican and Democrat control. Why is the federal government always going to grow? he asks. “Because it’s rigged in their favor.”

The solution is “individual liberties.” Not many people in public schools know what “individual liberties” means.

We’re talking about BALANCING power between states and the federal govt.

Maybe under federalism, you don’t have fewer programs, but you have power with the people and you have choices.

Rob Bishop was a far more dynamic speaker than I remember him being. I probably shouldn’t be surprised, though, considering he was a school teacher for many years. He clearly knows how to command an audience.

This last Saturday was 28 August, 8/28, the day of Glenn Beck’s Restoring Honor event in Washington D.C.

I didn’t attend the event in person, but I did donate some money to the Special Operations Warriors Foundation which was the beneficiary of the event. It’s not the same as actually sacrificing to be there, but I hope it’s something.

The rally was carried live on C-SPAN Saturday morning, so I recorded it on my DVR and watched it later. The actual rally was about three and a half hours long.

True to Glenn’s word, the rally was not political. Sure, there were a couple comments made during the rally that could have been perceived as political, but by and large, it was not political. Instead, it was religious, spiritual, and pious. It was also patriotic and reverent. There was lots of tribute during the first hour or so to those who serve, and who have served, in the branches of the U.S. military. That portion of the program could have been held in late May as part of a Memorial Day program.

If you’ve listened or watched Glenn Beck much over the last, say, three or four years, you may have caught him talking to, or about, Jon Huntsman Sr., a prominent businessman from Salt Lake City, Utah. I remember hearing about the Huntsmans when I was growing up and my dad was in the state legislature. I also remember the Christmas cards we’d get from the Huntsman family. There was always a picture of a HUGE family that always seemed so much bigger than it was the year before.

To say Glenn Beck admires Jon Huntsman would be a terrible understatement. I would say Glenn is in awe of Jon’s philanthropic work, his integrity, and his character. So, it was no surprise that Huntsman received the first Badge of Merit for Charity at the Restoring Honor rally. Unfortunately, he was unable to attend to receive the award (He was attending the marriage of one of his grandchildren- something he probably does a couple times a week these days… Remember the family photo? Yeah.)

The last half of the rally was about turning to God.

It’s been quite a journey for those of us who have followed Glenn Beck over the years. Since 2007 and especially since the 2008 election, Glenn has been spending most of his time presenting to his listeners, viewers, and readers the threats of Progressive, Marxist, and socialist movements to the republic our Founding Fathers designed.

He has demonstrated. over and over, how we have allowed our country to be taken over by progressives, from both major parties, He also introduced a long lost revolutionary idea to the masses, that voting for a candidate because they have an “R” or a “D” next to their name was stupid; We should be voting the candidates that share our values and principles, that have character and integrity.

Is it any surprise we have seen candidates like Doug Hoffman in New York’s 23rd congressional district come out of nowhere and make a spectacular showing in a race. People are waking up and looking at elected officials in a way they haven’t in a long, long time.

Glenn’s also reminded us and taught us how religion played such an important role in the early days of this country. Our founders never meant for our government to be free of all religious influence.

The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that the federal government and the states shall not ESTABLISH any official state religion or interfere with the free practice of religious worship. Somehow, over the years, the Progressives and other well-meaning interpreters of the Constitution, have misconstrued the intent of this law to mean that religious observance has no place in the public sphere. But, in fact, our founders insisted, on several occasions, that our public officials, and the people at large, should be a “moral and religious people” in order for the American experiment to survive.

The first sessions of congress after the new federal government was instituted under the U.S. Constitution included hours of prayer and bible study. These men elected to represent their constituents believed the best way they could possibly serve was to be sure they were in prayer with God.

Benjamin Franklin believed it was only through God and through the various representatives to the Constitutional Congress humbling themselves and turning their hearts to God that agreements could be made to bring about the U.S. Constitution.

So, in the end, Glenn was surrounded by 240 religious leaders, each pledging that their organizations would be teaching their congregations it is time to turn to God, to rally behind God, and to recognize the importance of equal justice and individual liberty.

By doing this, Glenn has reinstituted the “black-robed regiment” to fight for the soul of the country. Pretty heavy stuff.

Now, I understand many people these days are bound to feel uncomfortable about what Glenn Beck is doing. Even if you do not believe in God or are not that religious, this is a good thing. Glenn made it very clear on his radio show today that when he approached these religious leaders about including them in his rally that he wasn’t creating a political force like the Christian Coalition or the Moral Majority. He told them, if this is political, it won’t last. It seems like most of them agreed with him.

I listened to Glenn’s radio program today. I don’t usually have time to do that, but today I had some driving to do and had time to listen. I wasn’t sure what to expect the first day back on the air after the rally. There was some time spent talking about the number of people that came and re-iterating some of the messages that were delivered, but what really struck me… What really stood out were the callers that called into Glenn’s show today. Did they call and say, “Oh man, Glenn, you were the most awesome guy on Saturday!?” Did they call and tell him he was right, that they felt in their heart he did the right thing? No, not exactly.

Most of the callers that had been to the rally called to tell stories of exceptional, extraordinary experiences they had while attending the rally. One caller, a disabled black woman from the northeast, spoke about how she and her daughter decided to rent an electric scooter so she could be mobile enough to attend the rally. When they had difficulty using the subway and navigating through the crowds going to and from the rally, a man and his family befriended them and treated them as one of his own family and helped them for the entire event.

Another caller spoke of her husband losing his wallet containing the money they had to live on while they were visiting Washington D.C. A man nearby heard their distress and handed over four $100 bills.

Another woman spoke of pushing a stroller and pulling a cooler through the National Mall to meet up with her husband who was saving them a spot to listen to/watch the rally. She said the crowd was more than helpful in helping her and her children move through the sea of people to her husband, even cheering when they finally made it.

These stories of people helping people are incredibly uplifting and, in a way, demonstrate exactly what the rally was about.

If you want to read a political message into it all, it’s probably this: Looking to government for guidance out of darkness is hopeless. The best path out of the mess our country is in right now is for us to serve each other; Find ways to help one another. The best place to start is in supporting our churches.

I caught the tail-end of Glenn Beck’s radio program today and was impressed to write about it. Here is my transcript:

May I read this to you?

“What no one seemed to notice was the ever widening gap… between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with… And it became always wider. You know, it doesn’t make people close to their government to be told that this is a people’s government, a true democracy, or to have a civilian defense force, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing, to do with knowing one is governing.

“What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with [a leader], their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

“This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.”

That is from a chapter “Then It Was Too Late” from the book “They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45” ( See here ).

That could have been written today!

That doesn’t mean we are headed for that… Let me rephrase that. Let me be more clear.

It doesn’t mean that this president or this congress will take us there, but it does mean that the more power we give this government, the more we allow them to become more and more remote to us, indifferent to us; The more power we give them to decide our fate and decide who should be listened to and who shouldn’t be, who should live and who should die, who is politically correct and who is not, who should succeed and who should fail; The more we let them decide those things… It may not be this president. It may not be this congress. But will be in our future because all we have to do is elect the wrong person… once… and they have all the structure they need. Let’s not finish the job Germany started in 1898.

We’re headed down the same pathways and both parties have been involved.

I’ve had a few conversations recently with people who think Glenn is a “nutjob,” a “kook,” and a “loon.” Or… perhaps the most amusing characterization is that he’s a shill for the Republican party and an apologist for George W. Bush.

It’s obvious to me that these people have never really listened to the man.

Another excerpt from This Nation Shall Endure by the late Ezra Taft Benson, former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture and President of the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

The principles behind our American free market philosophy can be reduced to a rather simple formula. Here it is:

1. Economic security for all is impossible without widespread abundance.

2. Abundance is impossible without industrious and efficient production.

3. Such production is impossible without energetic, willing, and eager labor.

4. Such labor is not possible without incentive.

5. Of all forms of incentive, the freedom to attain a reward for one’s labors if the most sustaining for most people. Sometimes called the profit motive, it is simply the rights to plan and to earn and to enjoy the fruits of one’s labor.

6. This profit motive diminishes as government controls, regulations, and taxes increase to deny the fruits of success to those who produce.

7. Therefore, any attempt through government intervention to redistribute the material rewards of labor can only result in the eventual destruction of the productive base of society, without which real abundance and security for more than the ruling elite are quite impossible.

“… with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens—a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits or industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”

— Thomas Jefferson, in his first inaugural address, 1801