An “open letter”, filed under “personal gripes”.

Dear Republicans

Please stop wasting your resources and my time with pointless mailings that ask whether I think Nancy Pelosi should be replaced, or whether I believe Barack Obama is a militant Marxist, or …

I receive more than one bulk mailing a week from some Republican sponsor, National Referendum, candidate, or advocacy group who want to know my opinion about people or events where no such inquiry is necessary.

This is a constitutional republic, not a social democracy, or a TV game show.  The foundation documents clearly support individual liberty, limited government and free markets.  This is what I expect you to acknowledge and defend.

You don’t need to poll the opinion of anybody to know how to behave and what actions are necessary to obtain the support of constitutional conservatives at the ballot.  If you need a refresher regarding “first principles”, I suggest you read Article III on the About page of NCFreedom.

If you believe there are not enough constitutional conservatives among your constituents to win an election, then I suggest you focus your treasure and energy on education to communicate the benefits of “laissez faire” to those who oppose.

In parody of a famous line from SouthPark:  “uhhh, collectivism’s bad, mmmkay?”

Glenn Beck “yodles” and the aliens self destruct, just like in the movie “Mars Attacks”:

Keep up the good work, Glenn !!

Exposing Glenn Beck as a Dangerous Fraud

Bob Cesca

Political Writer, Blogger, and New Media Producer

So here goes. Beginning with this post, I intend to expose Glenn Beck as a fraud. A dangerous faker who deliberately manipulates his audience by appealing to their basest instincts. As a man who only embraces conservatism and the tea party movement as a means to furthering his significant personal wealth and career as a successful TV goon.

My theory is as follows. Glenn Beck is engaged in a carefully orchestrated performance that, if taken to its logical end, can only end up in tragedy — a tragedy, not in the name of some great political or social or religious cause, as too many of his viewers might believe, but rather in the name of pure careerism and greed. A tragedy in the name of Glenn Beck’s personal drive for fame and fortune, not to mention the similar motivations of Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch.

Right. I get it. I should probably ignore him. Why should I waste time writing about Glenn Beck again? As hard as it is to believe, most days I intentionally ignore Glenn Beck posts and videos on the blogs. My recurring reaction is generally twofold. One: he’s exhausting to watch because just as I’m wrapping my head around one line of googly-eyed horseshit, he belts out another ridiculous, melodramatic or dangerous line, and before I know it, I’m faced with a log-jam of crazy, forcing me to scramble for either an oxygen mask or a stiff drink. And, two: why pay attention to the television equivalent of an escaped mental patient screaming gibberish on the median strip at a busy intersection?

But to underestimate Glenn Beck as just some sort of random extra from Cuckoo’s Nest, as I admittedly have done, is a mistake as it barely scratches the surface of what his scam is all about. A schizoid raving street loon tends to command attention purely for the freak show curiosity of passers by, yet the nonsense is rarely taken seriously.

This isn’t the case with Glenn Beck. Several million people every day take his word for it. They’re suckered into buying the ruse. And it’s bad for America.

What his regular viewers haven’t grasped yet is that he’s putting on a show. He’s playing a role. He’s tricking his audience. Unlike a left-leaning audience, Beck’s audience is mostly composed of white conservative Christians who pride themselves on taking certain things on faith, and who often act against their own financial interests for the sake of patriotic cheerleading. It’s an audience that embraces gun ownership and tends to be more reactionary and militaristic. (Incidentally, there’s no equivalent to this on the “other side” simply because it’s not in the nature of liberals to be, you know, conservative.)

But it’s hard to blame Beck’s audience for being fished in. There’s no wink and nod, so he’s clearly not attempting some sort of obviously satirical character like Stephen Colbert or even a more bizarre character like Andy Kaufman’s Tony Clifton. He performs this role as seamlessly as any decent character actor, but he never tips his hand (we’re generally told when an actor is acting). Just an occasional mention of himself as a “rodeo clown.” There’s no crawl at the end listing “Glenn Beck as ‘Glenn Beck.’” It’s not a fiction program.

Glenn Beck is playing a character with a personality and a style that is laser focused at the souls of an intended audience. It doesn’t take many minutes of viewing his television show to see that he’s mashing up the most effective and successful aspects of Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones and ’60s Bircher author Cleon Skousen, and filtering it all through the performance techniques of a televangelist. Listen to any random monologue by Glenn Beck and then watch some clips of televangelist Jack Van Impe. Both are master manipulators and (crazy aside) riveting speakers. They each nail their audiences with rapid-fire barrages of nonsense presented as dramatic fact — so twisted and obscured that it begins to seem real and anything that might not seem entirely plausible, just have faith. After all, there are complicated drawings on a blackboard! Oh, and he cries. So he must be serious. (We learned last year that the crying is fake.)

This is all stuff that’s been proven to resonate with (and utterly manipulate) certain American audiences who also willingly hand over their cash to obvious flimflam artists claiming to provide salvation. Glenn Beck is just pooling these techniques and applying them to American politics.

Instead of asking for donations, by the way, Beck just markets all varieties of crap-on-a-stick to his people. Beck has released seven books since 2007. Seven books in three years! Add to the mix three DVD releases and 26 compact disc releases. There’s his subscription-only “Insider Extreme” website which charges $75 per year. There’s a print magazine called “Fusion” (20 issues for $66). There are the obligatory t-shirts, mugs and other forms of cheap swag. All of this is heaped on top of a multimillion dollar Fox News contract and a syndicated radio deal worth $50 million over five years. Capitalism is one thing, but Beck is manipulating his audience to hand over their cash in exchange for swag that can’t possibly be worth the price, considering the volume of his output (seven books in three years!). As the saying goes: how hard he prays depends on how much you pay.

One of the reasons why the network news media was generally, in decades past, kept separate from the ratings and profit-motive of entertainment divisions was that to cross these streams, so to speak, would lead to the corruption of the news, forcing it to be driven by what sells, not necessarily by what’s true. And, it goes without saying that such a corruption of the news is inherently damaging to democracy.

To that point, Glenn Beck likes to say that he’s the new Howard Beale, the tragic and suicidal anchor from the movie Network. He’s not. In fact, Paddy Chayefsky’s screenplay was a prescient warning about the rise of charlatans like Glenn Beck infiltrating the news media — regardless of whether or not they’re presented as “opinion journalists.” Actually, Beck goes far beyond the scope of opinion journalism as well, and has settled in a danger zone where he incites easily-manipulated, often militaristic audiences based on theories and claims that don’t hold up to even the most cursory fact-checking, say nothing of empirical reality.

In terms of his impact, Beck isn’t Howard Beale at all. He’s closer to Lee Atwater.

In the riveting, must-see documentary, Boogie Man, about the rise and fall of the infamous Republican political operative, it’s revealed that Atwater once considered politics to be nothing more than a game. Professional wrestling. Atwater, we learn, would have been perfectly happy doing what he did for either political party. Republican or Democrat. It didn’t matter to him. After all, it was just a game. A show. And he was really good at producing a hell of a show — no matter how many lives he left in his wake.

Yet at the end of his life, Atwater realized that treating politics like a wrestling match was a mistake. In politics, unlike wrestling, the societal damage is real. The lives are real.

Bloated and crippled from his cancer treatment, Atwater regretted using the Southern Strategy — exploiting race as a wedge. He regretted making so many enemies, one of which being Ed Rollins who he had double-crossed during the waning years of the Reagan administration. He regretted the creation of his own reality at the expense of empirical reality.

While he was very successful in treating national affairs like a cornball burlesque show and throwing all professional ethics aside in the name of winning, the lesson of Lee Atwater is that such behavior is ultimately destructive.

The Glenn Beck Show might seem like the political equivalent of professional wrestling, but it’s not even that sincere. At least with wrestling, we’re all most aware that wrestling follows a script even though some of the moves require a high caliber of strength and athleticism (and occasionally resulting in real injuries to the performers). The difference between Beck and wrestling is that with Beck the fakery isn’t common knowledge and the consequences of what he talks about on his show are very real.

This week, Beck attacked the president’s deceased mother and grandparents as being Marxists. Which other innocent bystanders will turn up on your commie hit list, Glenn? Who will you attack next with McCarthy-style abandon in the name of bilking your audience, Glenn? And do you honestly expect that your audience will remain passive observers of all of this?

And so I intend to expose Beck as the dangerous grifter he really is. He’s committing a nationally televised fraud and, given the sorts of people who are the most susceptible to his trickery, it’s only a matter of time before Beck’s deception takes a tragic turn.

Original text: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/exposing-glenn-beck-as-a_b_528966.html

We will have guests at our Tax Day events. 

Please be prepared to accommodate these people and deal with them appropriately.

The following messages are from the “crash the tea party” site:

HOW WE WILL SUCCEED: By infiltrating the Tea Party itself!  In an effort to propogate their pre-existing propensity for paranoia and suspicion…We have already sat quietly in their meetings, and observed their rallies.

Whenever possible we will act on behalf of the Tea Party in ways that exaggerate their least appealing qualities (misspelled protest signs, wild claims in TV interviews, etc.) to further distance them from mainstream America and damage the publics opinion of them.  We will also use the inside information that we have gained to disrupt and derail their plans.

After all the right wing zealots bombed the board, I was contacted directly by so many of you who wanted to join our little group that at first we weren’t sure what to do.

While at Duke University to protest the presence and message of Al Gore, the following arrived for my reading pleasure.

I’m sure you will be thrilled to read this statement of support for policy and direction from our CongressCritter, D. Price.  His clear goal is to tax fossil based energy production to subsidize government directed investment in new energy technology.  

Did I mention the net result of his support for Gore’s energy policy will be higher taxes ? 

I hope you will accept the CongressCritters’ invitation and give him your comments.

(bold and maroon highlights are my addition to original text)

From: Congressman David Price [mailto:nc04ima@mail.house.gov]
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 4:29 PM
To: hans@ncfreedom.us
Subject: Reply from Congressman Price April 8, 2010

Mr. John Mentha
xxx yyyyy
Raleigh, NC    

Dear Mr. Mentha: 

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) role in regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.  I appreciate knowing of your concerns. 

With respect to global warming, I will continue to support additional scientific research in this area, but I believe that the scientific process has already resulted in an understanding of climate change that is increasingly robust and has withstood a number of challenges. In light of the evidence, I believe Congress and the Administration must act to address climate change and move our country towards a green energy economy.  There is progress being made on both fronts. 

In April 2009, Administrator Lisa Jackson issued a proposed finding that GHG emissions endanger public health and welfare and that vehicles contribute to the concentration of GHG in our air.  Development of the proposed finding was in response to the directive of a 2007 Supreme Court ruling (Massachusetts v. EPA), which is the only time the Court has ruled on the Clean Air Act (CAA).  The Court found that GHG are air pollutants covered under the CAA, and that the agency does have the authority to regulate them.  The Court held that the EPA Administrator must make a scientific determination as to whether or not GHG pollutants from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that endangers public health and welfare.  

In April 2008, the EPA proposed an endangerment finding for GHG emissions from new motor vehicles, which underwent a 60 day public comment period, during which the EPA held two public hearings.  The determination by EPA that GHG emissions do endanger Americans’ health and welfare was made final on December 15, 2009, triggering a CAA requirement that EPA promulgate emission standards for new motor vehicles.  However, it may interest you to know that industry groups, conservative think tanks, lawmakers, and three states filed 16 court challenges to EPA’s endangerment finding. 

In addition to its finding that GHG from new motor vehicles endanger public health and welfare, the agency has proposed a separate draft rule, called the tailoring rule, which would require permits from large industrial stationary sources that emit more than 25,000 tons per year of GHG emissions.  This draft rule is not yet finalized, and EPA Administrator Jackson indicated in a recent letter to some Members of Congress that the agency intends to phase-in CAA permit requirements over several years, and will initially raise the threshold for large facilities to 75,000 tons, a substantial increase from the 25,000-ton limit in the draft rule.  In her letter, she also stated that “EPA does not intend to subject the smallest sources to Clean Air Act permitting for greenhouse gas emissions any sooner than 2016.”  As you may know, both industry and environmental groups question whether the tailoring rule will stand up to legal scrutiny over the GHG thresholds and the timetable adopted by EPA.  

I also understand many are concerned that EPA’s proposal could impose costs on American businesses and consumers.  I am pleased that the agency has indicated that it will consider any economic impacts when crafting its regulations, and is “committed to fashioning any Clean Air Act rules in a manner that minimizes any job losses and enhances the U.S. economy’s potential for job growth to the maximum extent allowed by law.” 

At the same time, both houses of Congress are working on legislation to address climate change.  The House version of this legislation, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454), would establish a market-based incentive system to reduce carbon emissions.  The bill would enable the U.S. to achieve the 80 percent reduction that scientists say we must reach by mid-century to avoid a dangerous climate tipping point. H.R. 2454 would help us open the door to a clean energy economy by providing incentives for the production of energy that is clean, domestically-produced and affordable by investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy, carbon capture and sequestration, electric and other advanced technology vehicles, and basic scientific research and development. 

Many have expressed concerns about the potential cost to taxpayers of a “cap-and-trade” system, but less attention has been paid to the numerous provisions of this legislation designed to ease the burden of energy costs on consumers and businesses through incentives, rebates, and other measures.  In fact, over the long run, the bill would reduce U.S. energy use by about 10 percent and save the average household nearly $4,000 per year.  

In assessing the costs of the bill, it is also critical that we consider both the costs of inaction and the economic benefits of clean energy.   Already, our failure to shift to a clean energy economy has been expensive, threatening our public health, our infrastructure, food and water supplies, and our national security.  In the last year, Americans have felt that most acutely at the gas pumps, where they’ve paid over $4 per gallon to fill up.  That is like a tax Americans are paying directly to the oil companies, and it is not money well-spent.  Instead, we should make investments in clean energy, which can spur economic growth and create entirely new industries, with millions of new American-based jobs.  I see indications every day that the Research Triangle area of North Carolina is poised to be a major winner in this new economy. 

As you know, legislation has been introduced in Congress which would limit EPA’s ability to regulate GHG.  It is likely that EPA’s actions will be the subject of additional Congressional action, and litigation has been threatened by interested parties.  I will continue to monitor this situation closely, and welcome your comments as this process moves forward. 

Sincerely, 

DAVID PRICE 

Member of Congress

April 2, 2010  -  posted on MoonBattery.com

Doctors Begin to Rebel

Posted by Van Helsing at April 2, 2010 9:04 AM

Will ObamaCare destroy the medical profession, driving the capable away from the field and leaving us with a handful of foreign-trained Third-World immigrants given to car-bombing airports, as socialized medicine has done to Britain? Or will the State be turned back? At least some are showing signs of resistance:

 

“I’m not turning anybody away — that would be unethical,” Dr. Jack Cassell, 56, a Mount Dora [Florida] urologist and a registered Republican opposed to the health plan, told the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday. “But if they read the sign and turn the other way, so be it.”

But of course, even if Cassell did refuse to see Obamunists, our liberal lawyer rulers could just override his wishes and force him to do whatever they demand:

Cassell may be walking a thin line between his right to free speech and his professional obligation, said William Allen, professor of bioethics, law and medical professionalism at the University of Florida’s College of Medicine.

Allen said doctors cannot refuse patients on the basis of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or disability, but political preference is not one of the legally protected categories specified in civil-rights law. By insisting he does not quiz his patients about their politics and has not turned away patients based on their vote, the doctor is “trying to hold onto the nub of his ethical obligation,” Allen said.

“But this is pushing the limit,” he said.

That is, physicians are advised not to get uppity.

The next challenge for our rulers is how to force the intelligent and industrious to become doctors in the first place, after the profession has been reduced to slave status.

Cassell’s patients are reportedly “overwhelmingly supportive” of his position. But ObamaCare isn’t about doctors or patients. It’s about bureaucratic rodents grinding their loafers into our faces.

The story comes with a poll. Check out the results:

On tips from Wiggins and Henry.

Poll: OK for doctor to protest health-care bill by shunning Obama voters?

Lake County urologist Dr. Jack Cassell has put up a sign on his office door reading, “If you voted for Obama seek urologic care elsewhere.” What do you think?

What is your reaction to Dr. Jack Cassell’s actions?

• Good for him. Obamacare will be a disaster, and we should keep fighting it. (42848 responses)

  82%

• Get over it, Doc. Health-care reform was badly needed, and this is just more sour grapes from the GOP. (2995 responses)

  6%

• Prescription for trouble. No matter what you think of the health-care overhaul, doctors should not impose their political views on patients. (6116 responses)

  12%

51959 total responses

Over the past weeks I’ve sent several emails to David Price regarding the health care bill.  This past Friday I received a response. 

Price’s email reply contains no fewer than four “untruths”.  Three of these are straight forward examples of  misinformation.  The remaining untruth is far more serious.  It is a blatant misrepresentation of the text and meaning of our Constitution. 

The complete text of David Price’s email is appended below the horizontal rule.  I have inserted paragraph numbers [#] to enable easy reference.

Let’s deal with the simple lies first:

[4] “For the first time, individuals will control their own health care – not insurance companies.”

This is an attempt at illusion.  Under this new law, National government controls the terms and conditions of health care.  Individuals who “choose” options that do not comply with government regulation will be subject to punitive “excise taxes” and / or incarceration.

[9] “Health insurance is much like automobile insurance.”

Not at all.  Requirements for auto liability insurance were established to provide compensation for damage to other persons or property.  Additional auto insurance coverage is optional.

[10] “…reconciliation was not used to enact…but to pass a more limited measure to correct several controversial Senate provisions.” 

The process of “reconciliation” was designed to adjust financial discrepancies between similar versions of legislation passed in the House and Senate.  The process was never intended to bypass established protocol in Congress.

Now lets examine the really BIG, really IMPORTANT lie.  This is a lie of “omission”, intended to distort the meaning of the passage quoted.  Notice the ellipsis (…) in the following statement from David Price’s email.  Something (important) was removed:

[8] “Thus, Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power ‘to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution … [the] Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States’.”

The unaltered passage from our Constitution reads:

“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

So what was missing from David Prices’ quote?  A clear reference to the limitation of Government authority to only those Powers enumerated earlier in Article I Section 8. 

Our National government was never given the authority to enact this law.

The struggle between expansion vs limitation of the Powers of National government has been ongoing since the establishment of our Constitution.  Where should we look for guidance about the original meaning of this passage?  Let us consult the literary architect of our Independence, Thomas Jefferson:

 NECESSARY AND PROPER: “…the Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient’ for effecting the enumerated powers.  If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other…”

ASSUMED POWERS: “Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”   “Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.” – Kentucky Resolutions.

Jefferson anticipated the potential abuse of power through misrepresentation of several clauses in the Constitution.  The “Necessary and Proper” clause had specific meaning to the framers.  We should hold it just as dear.

Is there some wierd twisted irony that the paragraph number of Price’s BIG LIE matches the section number in the Constitution he seeks to pervert?

David Price distorted the meaning of our Constitution.  My legislator lied to me.  

John (Hans) Mentha

(References to passage from Article I Section 8 and Jefferson’s opinions are in this PDF)

Mr. John Mentha
xxxx yyyyyyyyyy
Raleigh, NC

Dear Mr. Mentha:

[1] Thank you for contacting me to convey your concerns about health insurance reform legislation.  I appreciate the opportunity to explain my views on this complex issue.

[2] The skyrocketing cost of health care represents one of the greatest threats to families, small business owners, state and federal budgets, and the overall economy.  Over the past ten years, Americans with employer-sponsored insurance benefits have seen their premiums more than double, and small businesses are being priced out of the market altogether.  This trend is projected to continue, and it simply is not sustainable. 

[3] The American people need a health care system that works for them – one that provides access to stable coverage, quality care, and affordable premiums and copayments.  That’s what health insurance reform is all about.  The reform legislation will correct the failures of the current system without compromising its many strengths – or adding to the deficit. 

[4] Under the new law, the existing system of employer-provided coverage, which works so well for millions of Americans, will be maintained and improved.  If you have insurance through your employer, you can keep it, but you will have the peace of mind of knowing that losing or changing jobs won’t mean losing access to affordable coverage.  For the first time, individuals will control their own health care – not insurance companies.  The new law prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage or care because of pre-existing conditions.  It bars them from imposing annual or lifetime caps on benefits.  And it requires them to cover children on their parents’ plan until age 26. 

[5] For those who don’t have insurance at work, the new law will allow small business owners, the self-insured, and the uninsured to purchase coverage through state-based insurance exchanges at the same low group rates that big businesses have always negotiated for their employees.  If even group rates are out of reach, the bill will provide tax credits to businesses and individuals to make coverage affordable. 

[6] I want to address several specific concerns about reform that I have heard frequently over the course of the last few months:  the potential impact on seniors, the constitutionality of both reform and the individual mandate, and the use of the so-called reconciliation process to make changes to the Senate version of the reform legislation.

[7] First, the reform law maintains the promise of Medicare for seniors and improves benefits.  Seniors will see an end to the prescription drug “doughnut hole” and receive free preventive care and annual check-ups with their doctor.   Seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA) will still have access to these private plans as well.  The only change is that the private companies will have to deliver on the cost-effectiveness commitment they made when Medicare Advantage was created.  There will be no more taxpayer overpayments to subsidize these plans, which cost an average of 14% more than traditional fee-for-service Medicare.

[8] Secondly, some have claimed that the health insurance reform is unconstitutional because the Constitution does not expressly give Congress the authority to regulate health insurance or health care.  But the absence of such authority cannot be viewed as a deliberate omission; the health insurance and health care systems did not exist at the time the Constitution was written.  The Founding Fathers wrote a governing document that could withstand the test of time.  Thus, Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution . . . [the] Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States.”  The Supreme Court has interpreted these powers to include efforts to “insure domestic Tranquility . . . [and] promote the general Welfare,” which are referenced in the Preamble, and has found federal health care initiatives to be consistent with this authority.  There is no constitutional authority assumed or granted in this bill that goes beyond that assumed by Social Security, Medicare, or scores of other federal statutes.

[9] There have also been charges that the bill’s requirement that individuals take responsibility for their health care by maintaining health insurance violates the principle of individual liberty.  I believe it does just the opposite.  Health insurance is much like automobile insurance.  We need it because, when unforeseen things happen, it is unfair to force someone else to pick up the tab.  Under the current health care system, hospitals are providing billions of dollars annually in care to the uninsured, and everyone who has insurance is paying higher premiums as a result.  In my view, that constitutes a significant infringement on the individual liberty of the insured, which the bill would correct.  Whether to obtain insurance will still be a matter of choice, but one choosing not to cover himself will pay an excise tax to cover the costs to the insured should he have to utilize the system.

[10] Finally, some have objected to the use of the reconciliation process to make changes in the Senate legislation.  Reconciliation bills can only be used to enact changes that directly affect federal spending.  They are subject to limits on debate (20 hours in the Senate) and must be passed by majority support (51 aye votes in the Senate).  Reconciliation has been used a variety of times to alter not only the minutiae of budgetary provisions, but indeed significant policy decisions that have affected nearly every American, such as the creation of COBRA; the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP); Medicare Advantage; and the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003.  In the case of health care, reconciliation was not used to enact the bill itself (which passed with 60 votes in the Senate) but to pass a more limited measure to correct several controversial Senate provisions.  A separate controversy concerned the possible use of a “deem and pass” rule in the House to pass the Senate bill and reconciliation corrections concurrently.  In the end, this rule was not used and votes were taken on the two measures separately.

[11] If you would like more information about health care reform, please visit my website at http://price.house.gov/issues/health/health_insurance_reform.shtml.  Again, thank you for contacting me, and please continue to keep in touch on issues before the Congress.

Sincerely,

DAVID PRICE

Member of Congress

Last year I posted a suggestion that we examine ourselves in order to enhance our sense of purpose and expand our community.  I asked:

“What are the essential threads of philosophy that bind us in common cause?  What do we believe and how do we make our belief explicit?  Can we state our beliefs so clearly and concisely that they function as a beacon to attract and retain conservative patriots in our cause?”

I wanted us to understand what makes us more alike than different.  I shared my “beliefs” in the post Who Are We? What Holds Us Together? (Part 1, Nov 2009).

The discussion that followed incorporated those beliefs into a set of Principles which were adopted in Article III of our NCFreedom Charter.  As a group we “converge” on Principles.  Principles enable us to establish clarity with regard to contemporary issues.

During the development of the Charter, another important aspect of our human nature surfaced.  We as individuals hold certain Values.  These Values are measures of integrity, attributes of people that are inherently desirable or intrinsically good. 

We adopted the Values established by Benjamin Franklin to measure his own personal evolution.  However, we did not promote a broad dialog to examine how we embrace and rank Values in our lives and our decision processes.  Our failure to fully examine our Values may have been a serious oversight.

As we move from “issues based activism” to the selection and endorsement of candidates this election year, I observe growing discord among individuals and between confederate groups.  People who I deeply respect exhibit behaviors I struggle to understand. 

In my attempt to find motivation behind behaviors, I was drawn to re-examine the Principles and Values in our Charter.  Our “convergence” on Principles does not seem to be at issue, so the Values may hold a clue:

• Industry (persistence, procure wealth)
• Frugality (secure virtue)
• Resolution (personal responsibility)
• Sincerity (reverence, honesty, gratitude)
• Justice (hope)
• Order (consistency)
• Tranquility (patience)
• Moderation
• Temperance
• Humility
• Silence
• Cleanliness
• Chastity
• Courage

Upon reflection, I offer an hypothesis: we each rank Values with different priority. 

I personally rank Resolution, Order and Sincerity very highly.  I will not support a candidate who shirks responsibility, is inconsistent, or appears to compromise integrity – regardless of strength in other areas.

When I look at candidate endorsements made by others, I infer their selection may be the result of differences in priority among the Values.  For example, I believe someone who ranks Industry, Justice and Tranquility among their primary Values would indeed select a different individual as their ideal candidate.

This may be an important insight in our journey of growth and self-knowledge.  While we have converged on Principles, we may never fully converge on Values.  Therefore we should expect strong differences of opinion on candidates.

We must not, however, fall into a trap of elevating Value generated differences to the point where divisiveness might fracture a remarkable coalition of those who have converged on Principles. 

Our Principles will encourage Liberty oriented candidates to present themselves.  Use the political primary process to expose the Values of those candidates to voters.  Candidates of good character will certainly demonstrate strength and balance among Values.  Voters will recognize their strengths, and the primaries will produce good candidates for the election.

Use the list of Values to understand our sometimes perplexing behaviors and coach our candidates during the primaries.  Remember the enemy is Progressivism, not other patriots or other patriot organizations.

Do your part to ensure we “hang together” throughout this important election year.

The following article is re-posted in its entirety from BigGovernment.com…

CNN, Huffington Post Urge Violence Against Republicans

by Kristinn Taylor

Two of the most popular liberal news sites are calling for violence against Republicans for obstructing the radical agenda of President Barack Obama.

CNN and Huffington Post have each published op-eds this past week by regular contributors with headlines that explicitly call for Obama to use violent gangland tactics against his political opponents.

CNN published a column by Roland Martin on February 11 with the headline, Time for Obama to go ‘gangsta’ on GOP.

Martin concluded the article with a plea for Obama to emulate the violent tactics of the Prohibition-era Chicago mob boss Al Capone.

Obama’s critics keep blasting him for Chicago-style politics. So, fine. Channel your inner Al Capone and go gangsta against your foes. Let ‘em know that if they aren’t with you, they are against you, and will pay the price.

The Huffington Post followed-up with their own call for gangland violence against Republicans with the publication on February 14 of a column by David Bourgeois with the title, Obama Better Start Breaking Kneecaps.

Bourgeois concludes his article with this call for gangland violence.

You’ve given it your best shot, you’ve tried numerous times to talk with the Republicans, to negotiate, to meet them halfway on every single matter before the American people. But they hate you for many reasons. It’s time you break kneecaps (bold in original). It’s time to destroy the Republican Party. They don’t deserve a seat at the table when all they want to do is score political points by being the Party of No.

HUFFINGTON: Well, Roger, it’s not a question of picking a fight. And aren’t you concerned about the language that Glenn Beck is using, which is, after all, inciting the American people? There is a lot of suffering out there, as you know, and when he talks about people being slaughtered, about who is going to be the next in the killing spree…

…It’s not about the word police. It’s about something deeper. It’s about the fact that there is a tradition as the historian Richard Hofstetter said, in American politics, of the paranoid style. And the paranoid style is dangerous when there is real pain out there.

Ailes defended Beck, saying he was accurately talking about the governments of Hitler and Stalin.

Violent rhetoric such as that espoused by CNN and the Huffington Post is usually found in the bowels of Internet discussion forums, not as sanctioned op-ed headlines on news sites with White House press passes.

CNN and Huffington Post would be well-advised to retract the calls to violence and issue apologies to Republicans before Obama supporters are incited by their violent rhetoric and start going gangsta and break kneecaps of Republicans.

That sound you hear is your money being poured into the bottomless pockets of National government…

…thanks, Al Gore.

Listen to the story or read the transcript at NPR:

 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123651132&ft=1&f=1007