During the past week, we have witnessed two notable events which have swelled the hearts of Americans in patriotic pride and reminded us of our days of national resolve.

The first event happened in New York.

Last week, I watched with pride as the USS New York arrived in New York City for her commissioning ceremony.  One couldn’t help but be moved as this massive ship pulled into the Port of New York.  For this was a ship like no other.  This one used steel recovered from the World Trade Centers in its bow.

The steel that was taken away from Ground Zero was as broken as the spirit on the American people that clear day in September.  But, like her people, she rose from the hollowed ground and was reborn, remade.

The people who worked on this new ship talked about the honor it was, the place in history it held.  Some talked of how they were proud to bring her home, to New York.

I couldn’t help but think of President Bush’s speech on the smoldering grounds of the World Trade Center [video].  To this day, I cannot hear that speech without tears welling up in my eyes and remembering the anguish, fear, and rage I felt that day.

As I watched FOX News’ coverage of the arrival in of the ship in New York,  I will admit that my eyes got a little misty.  This time I felt a sense of justice had returned to this great city.  They may have aimed to cripple us on 9/11, but we produced a proud memorial to all who lost their lives that day and a beacon of hope to all who may one day need our help.

The Spirit of America was, indeed, rebuilt into this ship that will go forth and help us defend our nation, our friends and our very honor.

The other event happened in Berlin.

Today, people from around the world paused to observe what happened twenty years ago, on November 9, 1989.  On that day, the Berlin Wall came down with a resounding thud.  I remember watching the news that night and being mesmerized by history unfolding before my eyes.

Looking back on the videos (specifically this one) from that miraculous night, one thing was forefront in my mind: They’re all running the same way. Toward the west. Toward freedom.

Man’s soul does, indeed, yearn for freedom. President Reagan understood that.  I can’t help to think of his inspiring speech at the wall [video] just a few years earlier.  He dared to dream great things for the people held in captivity around the world.  He did not back down and, with resolve, he forced the Soviet Empire to blink.

What amazing events to look back upon today.  The American spirit of freedom and liberty were so closely melded together in each of these events.  Both 9/11 and the fall of the Berlin Wall were so important in history that countless hours of coverage have been devoted to them over the years and ceremonies were held in their honor this week.

Most of us have only watched these events and these ceremonies on television.  But, in our living rooms, we felt the connection through our hopes, fears, joy, vindication. I know how special they have been for me, personally.

I can only imagine the thrill that must come from being the sole representative of this great land at those historic moments.  The Office of the President of the United States has its headaches, to be sure.  But the honor of embodying the hopes and dreams of the great people of this country at such a remembrance?  No words can describe what I would feel.

I wrote of President Bush’s rallying cry for action against the people that had attacked us.

I wrote of President Reagan’s demanding challenge which eviscerated the Iron Curtain.

But I said “three Presidents” in the title, didn’t I?

And, now I write of President Obama: He didn’t think either ceremony warranted his time.

As I participated in a local observance of the National Day of Prayer on Thursday morning, I noticed on the program that this year’s theme was “Prayer: America’s Hope.”  

Great.  That word.  That word that every marketer and politician has adopted for their own slogan. 

Is it just me?  Since the 2008 presidential campaign, every time I see the word “hope” slapped on a litany of products, it makes me sad.  Candidate Obama’s challenge that we cling to “Hope and Change” over “Guns and Religion” has, in a sense, bastardized the words for me.  

Over the past year, I’ve watched Candidate-to-President Obama and his public exercise of religion.  As he ran the gauntlet to show us that he was worthy of being our President, the issue of his personal religion has always bothered me.

From the YouTube videos of Rev. Wright to Father Pflager, I was alarmed.  To me, the choice of a church says something important.  Not in the sense of where you go on Sunday mornings and who you are seen with at lunch after the service, but the heart of the issues on which your own personal foundations are built.

Church to me is a place where I go to be with people who share my beliefs, where we can strengthen each other in our daily walk and in our faith. 

Having the right person fill the pulpit on a weekly basis is important because that person will take our shared doctrines and flesh them out during his weekly sermon.  The foundation he brings to it matters.  

If my pastor or any visiting teacher got in the pulpit and said, “God damn America,” I wouldn’t hesitate to get up and walk out of the building.  Someone who gets to the point of saying “God damn America” from a pulpit didn’t just arrive at that point one Sunday, out of the blue. Those words don’t just happen to come out of your mouth. It can only be the result of a deeply held, carefully planned statement. 

When I see the press anoint Barack Obama as the “Messiah,” my heart breaks.  That word means something to me.  It is a word that connotes meaning - pointing to accomplished work and promised glory.  Those words, attributed to a mere political figure, insult me to the core.

But, more importantly, they insult the true Messiah.  Mr. President, God will not be mocked.

I cannot stop thinking about President Obama’s statement that America is not a Christian nation.  I am sure that made all of his statist friends happy, but the truth of the matter is that nothing he can say or do in his role as President will remove the faith that we hold in our hearts.  In fact, much of what he is doing is strengthening it.  

As I sat and prayed that morning with my fellow citizens, all of these thoughts were going through my head - at lightning speed.  

During these crazy 100+ days, I have often felt overwhelmed and, at times, a bit depressed.  Depressed in the sense that I am mourning the absolute destruction of America as we have come to know her.  Depressed because I see that few of my fellow citizens actually understand what is happening.  And depressed because even fewer are willing to stand up athwart history and yell, “Stop!”

Suddenly, there was stillness.

And then I felt that familiar voice say, “Be still and know that I am God.”

As I sat there and looked at the printed words once again, “Prayer: America’s Hope,” I felt a renewed trust in that word.  

Obama is not the Messiah and he has no claim to the word “hope.” 

It must be taken back from him.  We must not allow him to steal the joy that we have in the hope only given by  our Creator God.  

My faith is a personal one.  My relationship with Jesus Christ is the most important in my life.  During the toughest of days, I know that He is walking beside me or carrying me.  I know that through it all - He is working it out.  His plans are in progress; He knows where we are going.  So why should I fret?

My hope is in Him.

Continuing in my Challenge from Rush, I am reading through “The Conscience of A Conservative.”  Here are my notes:

The next chapter of the book is about States’ Rights.  With talk of successions and bailouts, it could not be much timelier.  Goldwater builds the case that the Conservatives SHOULD make regarding bailout money for the states. 

Goldwater starts out by citing a story about Franklin Roosevelt.  As the Governor of New York in 1930, he eschewed government interference with banks, insurance, businesses, etc. and he said that “Washington must not be encouraged to interfere” in those areas.

But, as we know, he eventually abandoned these principles.

To Goldwater, FDR’s eventual “doctrine of unlimited government” was to be expected from a Democrat, but it was not from Republicans.  Regardless, both parties in Goldwater’s time were seeking unlimited government. As a result, no one in the political arena was committed to the principles of States’ Rights.  No one was making that argument.

“Thus the cornerstone of the Republic, our chief bulwark against the encroachment of individual freedom by Big Government, is fast disappearing under the piling sands of absolutism.”

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?  Even now, in 2009, the Republican Party “gives lip-service to States’ Rights” during election season, but fails to understand the concept once sworn-in.  Unfortunately in times of distress, both parties run to the government as the sole way to fix any ill. 

If you have never read this book, hold on!  This is getting very interesting.

Goldwater focuses on “grants in aid” as one example of how the federal government encroaches on the states.  These are federal programs that are created in order to do something they don’t think the states are adequately providing.  Oh, and they’re done to help stimulate some aspect of the economy.  Imagine that.

Pardon the long quote, but I think it is worthwhile to the discussion:

“There are two things to note about these programs.  The first is that they are federal programs - they are conceived by the federal government both as to purpose and to extent.  The second is that the “stimulative” grants are, in effect, a mixture of blackmail and bribery.  The States are told to go along with the program “or else.” Once the federal government has offered matching funds, it is unlikely, as a practical matter, that a member of a State Legislature will turn down his State’s fair share of revenue collected from all of the States.  Understandably, many legislators feel that to refuse aid would be political suicide.  This is an indirect form of coercion, but it is effective, nonetheless.” 

While the author of “A Republican Looks at His Party” argues that if the States do not do something that the federal government deems necessary, the federal government has the authority to force the States to act or step in on the behalf of citizens living in that state to ensure the federal governments’ wishes are accomplished.

But Goldwater asserts that the federal government does not have the authority even to determine if the States’ are fulfilling their duties!

“The trouble with this argument is that it treats the Constitution of the United States as a kind of handbook in political theory, to be heeded or ignored depending on how it fits the plans of contemporary federal officials.  The Tenth Amendment is not a “general assumption,” but a prohibitory rule of law.  The Tenth Amendment recognizes the States’ jurisdiction in certain areas.  States’ Rights means that the States have a right to act or not to act, as they see fit, in the areas reserved to them.  The States may have duties corresponding to these rights, but the duties are owed to the people of the States, not to the federal government.  Therefore, the recourse lies not with the federal government, which is not sovereign, but with the people who are, and who have full power to take disciplinary action.”

The Constitution is clear on the jurisdictional lines of federal and States’ roles.  “The federal government’s failure to recognize that line has been a crushing blow to the principle of limited government,” states Goldwater. And the Republican Party’s unwillingness to make the argument is what the Democrats need to succeed.

Goldwater states what we all know to be true: people living in the States know what their State needs better than a federal bureaucrat living in Washington.

At this point, he makes a statement that seems to be anachronistic with the book’s uncanny contemporary parallels.  He asserts that people know that government aid isn’t free.  “They know that the money comes out of their own pockets, and that it is returned to them minus a broker’s fee taken by the federal bureaucracy.”

Unfortunately, very few people in 2009 America seem to have grasped the concept that any money that government has to give was merely confiscated from taxpayers.  Simple concept really, but few grasp it. 

So what is the lesson to be learned, especially in these challenging times?  Goldwater states it best:

“Nothing could so far advance the cause of freedom as for state officials throughout the land to assert their rightful claims to lost state power; and for the federal government to withdraw promptly and totally from every jurisdiction which the Constitution reserved to the states.”

A worthy, albeit lofty, goal.

Erick, I can’t tell you how much I appreciate this post.  As I was listening to the podcast, I was actually yelling “Amen!”

I’ve been involved in local politics since 1990, aggressively since 1996. We are fortunate to have a strong conservative leader of the local Party.  I know the job is thankless so I called to see how I could help after the last election.  She was weary after the last election and about to throw in the towel. 

We now have a core group of conservative activists that are just there to help with anything that she needs done.  The County Chairman’s role, if done correctly, is full of headaches and abuse from the RINOs.  There is no reason we can’t be there to stand beside, lessen the blows and encourage in the fight.

One of the things we have noticed locally is that the same old people run over and over again.  “Conservative” politicians rarely talk about that philosophy once the campaign is over and the people who don’t pay attention don’t even realize it.  They just remember the campaign promises but don’t look at the record. 

Don’t get me wrong.  There are great people involved in the GOP, but that doesn’t mean I agree with all of them.  I have had issues with some regarding their stance on abortion, immigration, or taxes.  But, one of the things I’ve noticed in this Obama Era is that we all seem to agree that we can rally around the cause of Liberty and Freedom.  (God bless Mark Levin)  

So, what do we do?  We are looking for the new Conservative candidates to build a “bench.”  That’s not all that easy, but we’re having fun trying.

The problem with recruitment is that we know all the people who are currently interested in running.  Some are worthy of support, others are just running for the next office on their long political resume.

We realized we need to go beyond our circle and meet new people.  One of the things we’re discussing is starting a group under The 9-12 Project banner.  People are so enraged (and that is not an understatement), but they need to focus that energy to actually making a difference in this country.  The point of the group would be to gather people together to discuss Founding principles.  I know so many people that are talking about this when they get together anyway!  Why not start a community of like-minded people?

As a result of this interaction, we are hoping to attract new people to the Conservative cause.  We can get to know where they stand on the important issues and then we want to encourage some to run for public office.  Not everyone will run — and those who don’t may be great campaign workers!

As you’ve said before, step away from the keyboard and pick up the phone.  Call Conservative candidates/elected officials and offer your time, talent, and/or treasure.  If you actually have a good, Conservative representative, call and thank them for their votes.

However, I don’t want to negate time at the keyboard.  As I’ve seen politics change over the last 18 years, I realize the need for online activists.  #TCOT, #SGP, and #RS are great places to talk with like-minded individuals.  However, these people who are fired up online could also use their energies posting to local newspaper blogs.  It is truly revolutionary locally.  A local, moderate Republican politician/media darling, who always gets favorable press, is finally being held to account in the comments section and it truly is a beautiful thing.

Another thing you can do is write a letter to the editor regarding an issue or a candidate.  People need to know there are others in their own community who are Conservative and not ashamed to admit it!  Local Conservative elected officials could really use our support on the editorial pages. 

The loudest AMEN you got from this house tonight was your simple advice:  “Show up!”  

I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve said that.  Most people just don’t show up.  Those who do, and do it regularly, can move right up the GOP ladder.  It’s there for the taking.  Take it! 

May I suggest a #showup tag on Twitter?  Keep everyone up to date on what you are personally doing to help your local party, candidates, exchange ideas, etc.  Use the force of that network to encourage involvement in a real world way.

Want to know an interesting thing?  County chairmen in two neighboring counties want to sit down and talk with me about what they can do to improve their operations.  In fact, I’m having lunch with a new-ish Conservative chairman tomorrow to talk with her about strengthening their push in the trenches and online.  Show up! 

I will never be the one to run for public office, God willing.  But I am more than willing to support those who share my Conservative principles and cheer them on from the trenches.

From DRUDGE:

NYT MONDAY: MOVE OVER RACHEL MADDOW, GLENN BECK THE NEW CABLENEWS FUSS… DEVELOPING…

(I know, I know…longer posts.)

Continuing in my Challenge from Rush, I am reading through “The Conscience of A Conservative.”  Here are my notes:

In Chapter 2, entitled “The Perils of Power,” Senator Goldwater* wrote about two books of the days.  In one, the A Democrat Looks at His Party, the New Deal was seen as all of the people working together to accomplish what needed to be done.  In the other, A Republican Looks at His Party, all the work is determined and whatever no one else can do, the government will.

Neither book represented an understanding of limited government nor looked at the role of the Constitution.  In both cases, the state determined what needed to be accomplished and the people were only the means by which to achieve it. 

The chapter very clearly is reminiscent of Mark Levin’s current thoughts in Liberty & Tyranny and the role of the Statist.  In fact, it’s difficult to talk about this present chapter because Levin’s thoughts are so completely in alignment, but I digress.

Goldwater points us back to the U.S. Constitution and why the Founding Fathers supported a limited government.  They knew that government is one of the biggest obstacles to liberty because it allows one man to control another.  Limited government, therefore, was the optimum form of government.

He does not think that all government is bad, however.  In fact, Goldwater makes the argument that proper use of government makes for a better society:

“The legitimate functions of government are actually conducive to freedom.  Maintaining internal order, keeping foreign foes at bay, administering justice, removing obstacles to the free interchange of goods - the exercise of these powers makes it possible for men to follow their chosen pursuits with maximum freedom.”  

Of course, once the people give that power to the government, they have unleashed the floodgates.  “…that government can, instead of extending freedom, restrict freedom.”  And as the leaders have some power, they always reach for more. 

Based on the Founding Father’s experiences that proved these beliefs, they designed a government around the Constitution which was:

“…a system of restraints against the natural tendency of government to expand in the direction of absolutism.”

Because of the Nature of Man, they knew that it was a tenuous form of government, this Republic, and it would only be maintained as long as the consent of the governed remained intact. The system called for active citizens, although they knew many would not participate; it called for honest leaders, although they knew most leaders only crave more power. 

Over time, the system has fallen into disrepair, Goldwater wrote.  Jurisdictional boundaries have been ignored or forsaken.  The executive acts to thwart the judiciary, while the judiciary seeks to overthrow the purpose of the legislature.  Normal politics today, but this is not the way of the Constitution. 

“The result is…a vast national authority out of touch with the people, and out of their control.  This monolith of power is bounded only by the will of those who sit in high places.”

How can we determine the size of the government?  Goldwater points to four ways:

1. The size of its financial operations.  (He bemoans the $100 billion a year budget.  Isn’t that more like one day in 2009?)
2. The scope of its activities.
3. The portion of money the government takes from the people in taxes.
4. The extent of government interference in daily lives. 

How did we get here?  We’ve either elected people who promised limited government and then went astray once in office or we elected people who actually promised increased intervention to solve problems.  Either way, we come to the same result. 

How can we go back to the founding principles of this great nation?  Goldwater urged the support and election of people who would turn their back on the power once they had it. 

“It will come when Americans, in hundreds of communities throughout the nation, decide to put the man in office who is pledged to enforce the Constitution and restore the Republic.”

These leaders must first look to see if legislation is Constitutional, rather than just needed.  Goldwater pledged to do this. 

“And, if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ ‘interests,’ I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”

*Ghostwritten by Brent Bozell (h/t Erick Brockway)

From the diaries by Erick.

Apparently, there really is nothing new under the sun. 

Reading this book, “Conscience of A Conservative,” which was published in 1960 is like reading something published in 2009.  The problems in the political arena are the same. The only difference is that we seem to be further behind in learning some crucial lessons. 

George W. Bush wasn’t the first political leader to embarrassingly try to put a new, shiny face on Conservatism when he called for “Compassionate Conservatism.”  In Chapter One of the book, Senator Goldwater cited similar chastisements from Nixon and Eisenhower.  Goldwater wrote:

Read More →

Jim Geraghty has an interesting post on Campaign Spot today, “What We Know About the Palace Intrigue Within The RNC.”

While reading it, I can’t help but think about the similiarities betweem Bush/Iraq and Steele/RNC. 

Bush disbanded the Iraqi military upon control of Iraq.  Steele fired the RNC staff upon control of the Party.

Both men intended to start over and rebuild; they didn’t want the old loyalists hanging around HQ.

As they attempted to rebuild the country, Bush and our military were forced to deal with some former Iraqi military members who reappeared as insurgents.

Currently, Steele appears to be under attack by former staff members, as he attempts to rebuild the Party. 

The only difference is:  I knew who I wanted to win in Iraq. 

Larry owned the book before me.  I know this because inside the front cover, it has the inscription of ”Larry…” (Last name redacted.)  My deductive reasoning is sharp tonight. 

Because “Conscience of  A Conservative” is no longer in publication, I bought the book when I happened to find it several years ago.  Larry’s notes are written throughout the book and light a path to how his own philosophies developed with the book. 

Before we move on to the first chapter, I wanted to revisit the Foreward to the book.  The good Senator made one more point that I’d like to highlight.  He said he was writing the book:

…in the hope of doing what one is often unable to do in the course of a harried day’s work on the Senate floor: to show the connection between Conservative principles so widely espoused, and Conservative action, so generally neglected.

Amazing how far we’ve come since 1960, isn’t it? Oh wait.  Yeah, nevermind.

I understand people, Senators, elected officials being so busy with the minutae of the day to day that the overall Conservative movement may not be on ther minds as they are trying to get finished by the weekend.  But, in reality, that is where it is most desperately needed.  And that is where the battle will be won or lost.

How do you change that?  When we hear candidates on the campaign trail, they easily seem to regale us with Reagan quotes and talk of limited government.  But, how deeply held are these beliefs?  If that is the limit of their knowledge, no wonder it doesn’t show up in the day to day legislative process.  I propose that we need to challenge them to go beyond “Reagan Quotes for Dummies” and explain why limited government is best, why liberty is worth fighting for and why freedom is in every man’s yearning soul.  If they can’t do that, maybe they should read this book, too!

At the end of the Foreward, Larry wrote in the margins, “Does it maximize freedom?  Is it Constitutional?”

Good questions, Larry.

Friday afternoon, I was listening to Rush Limbaugh at my office.  He commented on a Wall Street Journal article by Daniel Henninger, “Has Obama Buried Reagan?”  (3/5/09).  Taken from his online transcript, I’ll step back and allow him to make his point, as only he can:

Anyway, what Henninger said was, “[W]hat Rush Limbaugh was trying to tell that conservative audience in so many words was, don’t be embarrassed, don’t be embarrassed about embracing the world of free markets, competition, entrepreneurship, and profit.  If you don’t know how to talk about it, reread the apostles and the evangelists the private economic growth.”  But see, where are you gonna find them? Those are philosophers, along with people that implemented great policies and so forth. But politics is about ideas and language, and the conservative movement is not at a loss for proven ideas.  They just don’t know how to express ‘em! “The Democrats don’t want the private economy anymore and conservatives have forgotten how to talk about it.”

Exactly my point, Mr. Henninger! Conservatives have forgotten how to talk about it.  Conservatives are now more preoccupied with talking about the economy using the language and the terms put forth by Democrats, and that’s what’s got everybody so frustrated.  That’s why when you say, “These guys come into our neighborhoods and our states and they campaign as conservatives and they get to Washington and they govern as moderates!” They don’t have the guts to stand up for what it is that wins elections for Republicans.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Folks, I’m sitting here fighting fatigue, desperately, single-handedly — I don’t mind saying this — as The Last Man Standing, trying to save this country, and I expect to get shot at from all sides with arrows.  Politically shot at, I expect this.  No, it doesn’t hurt my feelings, Snerdley.  It frustrates me.  It’s like Daniel Henninger.  Why is there such reluctance to stand up for what we believe?  Why is there such reluctance to contrast our own blueprint for success with what this is? 

I consider this a challenge. 

On Thursday afternoon, Rush thanked the people who stood by his side throughout the post-CPAC week of media onslaught.  And I thought, “This is it.  This is the time to choose. What side are you going to be on in this fight?”  It’s not a question of being with the left or the right for me.  It’s more of a question of ‘will I be with the right…or will I remain silent?’

Perhaps I was overly patriotic this week, if there is such a thing.  (For the record, there is not.) After a quick Sunday morning trip to Mt. Vernon last week, I haven’t been able to get that Revolutionary fight for liberty out of my head.  Those people stood up for freedom & liberty, in the face of the greatest challenges against their families, their wealth and their very lives. 

So, I’m asked to stand up and use the very freedoms they secured for me and I’m intimidated?  That is not who I want to be!

Driving down the interstate this week, I saw the most astounding image.  Traffic was slowing for no apparent reason.  As I got to the place in the road that seemed to be the glitch, I saw the most moving thing I have seen in awhile.  An American flag, most likely missing from its mini-van, was caught up in a gusty wind.  Weathered, tattered, and almost ripped in half, it was twirling across the lanes of traffic with the garbage and dirt.

If ever there was a time to grab the camera and catch a video that was it.  I missed the opportunity, but the image is still haunting me.  So are the questions.

Where will I stand? 

“Conservatives have forgotten how to talk about it,” according to Henninger.  He’s right.  I feel extremely ill-equipped.  But I am determined to learn.

Over the course of several weeks, I have heard many sources reference “The Conscience of a Conservative” by Senator Barry Goldwater.  I own it, but I’ve never read it.  It is a worn, old book that I found at a used book store years ago. 

I went in search of it.  There, behind the other books, on the bookshelf in the corner, I found it.  And I opened it.  And I read this:

“This book is not written with the idea of adding to or improving on the Conservative philosophy.  Or of “bringing it up to date.”  The ancient and tested truths that guided our Republic through its early days will do equally well for us.  The challenge to Conservatives today is quite simply to demonstrate the bearing of a proven philosophy on the problems of our own time.”

With the premise that America is fundamentally a Conservative nation, he writes,

“And so the question arises: Why have American people been unable to translate their view into appropriate action?  … I do not blame my brethren in government… I blame Conservatives – ourselves – myself.  Our failure, as one Conservative writer put it, is the failure of the Conservative demonstration.  Though we Conservatives are deeply persuaded that our society is ailing, and know that Conservatism holds the key to national salvation – and feel sure the country agrees with us – we seem unable to demonstrate the practical relevance of Conservative principles to the needs of the day.  We sit by impotently while Congress seeks to improvise solutions to problems that are not the real problems facing the country, while the government attempts to assuage imagined concerns and ignores the real concerns and real needs of the people.”

I think the Senator and I will be great friends. 

This is my first online diary post.  I plan to continue to document my first read through this book.  (But I promise the posts will be shorter!)

While it is an attempt to prepare myself to meet Rush’s challenge, it’s also a challenge I present myself: “Are you willing to fight for the beloved country you say you love?”