By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 05/17/2009

While Thanksgiving is a time to pause and give thanks to God for the things that we have, Memorial Day is a time to pause and give thanks to God for the people who have fought for the things we have, the most important of which are intangible. That was the way my parents inculcated into me the important role of Memorial Day in our holiday observance. The picnics, family weekend getaways, and outdoor excursions are fine, but the reason for the day should never be lost to us.

Having just finished perusing “House to House: A Soldier’s Memoir,” by David Bellavia, my immense gratitude and respect for those who wear the nation’s military uniforms is reaffirmed. Bellavia was in an infantry unit involved in the battle for Fallujah in 2005. Not for the squeamish or the fainthearted, the account is riveting, poignant, and awe-inspiring for the heroism, gallantry, and humanity of our service personnel.

His perspective on his job there was clear. Regardless of the reasons that brought them to Iraq, there are “bad guys” (the way he describes the enemy to his young son back home in New York) trying to kill innocent people and his fellow soldiers. His job, which he and the others volunteered for, was to eradicate the threat to the innocents, which by default was mitigating the threat to America. As he says it, with his brothers in uniform, his rifle, and the American flag on his sleeve, there’s nothing he can’t do.

Undoubtedly many of our returning champions of freedom wonder why they made it back and some of their fellow soldiers did not. Bellavia writes, “I know that there are families out there right now, mourning the empty chair. I am guilty for having lived when my brothers did not. I mourn them, and do not feel worthy to live on without them.”

Bellavia describes a sobering experience after his two tours in Iraq. He returned to Fallujah as a civilian, walking the streets, observing the normal daily routines of those who had returned to their homes. He was on another type of mission on this trip, however. He was going to the streets, fields, and houses where he had lost some of his closest brothers. On one street he placed a carnation for his fallen captain whom he had held in such high regard. He muttered a prayer, and then was startled by an Iraqi woman watching him. He started to leave, and after several steps stopped, and turned back to watch the woman. In his words, “She was kneeling in front of my flower. Tenderly she placed her own weeds alongside my cheap carnation. She touched her heart, then the ground, and uttered a prayer. She kissed her hand and touched her heart again. My mouth fell open. She looked over at me, and as our eyes met again, my heart broke. All the emotions suddenly broke free. Tears rushed down my cheeks and I began to sob uncontrollably. She regarded me sadly, then left without knowing the gift she’d given me.

“She wasn’t the reason I came to fight in Iraq. But she reminded me of the importance of why we fight. The soil in Fallujah and all of Iraq has been consecrated with the blood of our dead. And her reverence reminded me of that. This old woman showed me that my time in Fallujah was a life-altering privilege. It was here that we fought for hope. It was here that we fought to end the reign of terror that had descended on the innocents of a city.

“Through it all, I witnessed the best of human condition – the loyalty, the self-sacrifice, the love that the brotherhood of arms evokes. I realized then that I am complete for having experienced that. Those who died gave their lives for their brothers. They gave their lives for a noble ideal: that freedom from tyranny and oppression is a basic human right. We were the force to do that, and my brothers paid the price.

Regardless of the reasons for entering the Iraq conflict, and the Bush administration offered several, those who objected to it have focused on the most questionable of them, the purported presence of weapons of mass destruction. The weakness of that one argument does not negate the others, and most importantly, does nothing to diminish the immense contributions of Bellavia, his brothers in arms, and our own local heroes who have served there, including Blake Stephens and Nick Gummersall, who consecrated that barren Iraqi soil for freedom, with their own blood.

There is nothing glorious in war. Would to God that it would never be necessary. However, as long as there are evil men in the world who tyrannically seek unrighteous dominion over others, war will necessarily be a part of the human experience. Regrettably, contrary to the naïveté expressed in bumper stickers, sometimes war is the answer. And we should be ever grateful for those who through the years, whether willingly or unwillingly, sacrificed for us. America and all who love freedom thank you and your families for your sacrifices in our behalf.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 05/17/2009

It has been entertaining to witness the unsolicited counsel pontificated from the left telling the Republican Party what’s wrong with it. Not just nationally, but locally, with a liberal high school teacher and a liberal physics instructor lecturing Republicans on what they’re doing wrong. Since many liberals don’t view Republicans as different-minded Americans, but as enemies to be vanquished, isn’t that a bit like the U.S. accepting counsel from Iran or North Korea on what we’re doing wrong? Theirs is the last counsel I would give credence to on the issue.

How about a little counsel to the Republican Party from one who considers himself a conservative? After all, I have a vested interest in its success, unlike the querulous ones barking from the left’s sidelines who cheer the current transformation of America, and would just as soon see an American uni-party system continue control in perpetuity.

The problem with the Republican Party is that it has allowed the liberal wing of the Democrat Party to dictate the discussion. Rather than leading on Constitutional and founding principles upon which this nation was based, those seeking to transform the country into something it was never intended to be have set the political dialogue. As a result, the discussion is not whether we should have a deficit at all, it’s, “How much is too much of a deficit?” Rather than all human life is sacred and should be protected, it’s, “How many innocents’ lives are too many to abort?” And instead of government should not be bailing out any businesses, it’s, “How big is too big to fail?”

Democrats do an excellent job of making promises to niche political groups, and then not fulfilling them. But they’re judged not on results, but on their intent, and their expressed fealty to them. The “Great Society” has redistributed trillions of dollars over the past four decades, and poverty levels remain, as a percentage of the population, about what they were when the “war on poverty” was declared. Promises to political niches are no more than efforts to buy votes, with someone else’s money. If Republicans want to win elections again, commit to doing what’s best for the country, and all people, and don’t try to outbid for their votes, or dissect the electorate based on clichéd parsing of issues or catering to special interest groups.

Return to the basic Constitutional premise that government is to “promote” the general welfare of the nation, not “provide” it. In our republic, government was intentionally created to maintain law and order, ensure our national security, protect life, facilitate interstate commerce, and preserve freedom. Our republic was never intended to be a panacea or balm for all the ills and travails of society. It was intended to provide a legal structure for the protection of liberty and rights that would allow individuals to get out of life what they were willing to invest personally into it. If you want to succeed as a party, distinguish yourselves from the other one, don’t be content to be “Democrat Lite.”

A great barometer by which to gauge the potential efficacy of a national leader who espouses basic conservative principles, is observing the ferocity with which the whiners from the left and the mainstream media attack them. Even today, long after the 2008 election, mainstream media are doing all they can to not just demean and belittle, but destroy Sarah Palin. Since conservatives were not energized behind McCain until after Palin came on the national political stage, and the media continue to attack her, it’s a safe bet that they fear her, or someone like her. There’s your political barometer at work.

Moving to the left will not save the Republican Party, moving to the right will. Republicans had arguably the most liberal presidential candidate ever this last cycle as he tried to stake out the moderate ground, and he lost. He was also the mainstream media’s darling since he frequently bashed conservatives, until they had their own horse in the race, their own “anointed one.”

Question D3 on the bipartisan Battleground Poll provides the evidence. It reads, “When thinking about politics and government, do you consider yourself to be… Very conservative, somewhat conservative, moderate, somewhat liberal, very liberal, unsure/refused.” In the August 2008 results, 20% of Americans considered themselves to be very conservative; 40% somewhat conservative; 2% moderate; 27% somewhat liberal, and 9% very liberal; and 3% didn’t know for sure. Those results have varied only slightly over the past 10 years. Do the math, and 60% of the American electorate considers itself to be at least somewhat conservative. Maybe the reason you Republicans are losing elections is because you’re abandoning the core conservative principles that the Republican Party was founded on.

Does that mean that the Republican Party must be a monolithic entity that only accepts for membership those who completely agree? Of course not. Ronald Reagan, our last truly conservative national leader, once said that someone who agrees with him 80% of the time is not his enemy.

Reagan won two landslides based on fundamental conservatism, or classical liberalism, if you will. You Republican leaders should not listen to the pundits who continually harp that the “era of Reagan is dead,” while to them the era of FDR will never expire. Return to your roots, genuinely, steadfastly, and faithfully, and you may be able to come out of the political wasteland you now find yourselves in.

By Richard Larsen

Part of Obama’s transformation of America seems to be conversion of the Executive Branch of government from a law enforcer into a Machiavellian mafia. Notorious for extending “an offer you can’t refuse,” mafias infamously force people to do things they wouldn’t normally do to achieve their ends. This week the presidents’ team did just that to Chrysler creditors.

The President had arranged a salvific “marriage” between the struggling American car maker and Fiat by executive fiat, without so much as legislative authorization. Part of the deal was to give 55% ownership to the United Auto Workers. But to make it work, current Chrysler creditors had to agree to the deal.

Most of Chrysler’s creditors agreed to the President’s terms. They also were extended “an offer they can’t refuse,” as they were recipients of TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) funds from the government. But about 20 creditors, bond holders, were castigated by the President for holding out. In now customary Obama fashion, he demonized the investors, and those representing them, for trying to only lose 50% of their principal, rather than 75% of it.

Said Obama, “A group of investment firms and hedge funds decided to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout.” For being such a smart guy and a lawyer, he doesn’t seem to understand investing, creditor obligations, and the world of business very well. But apparently that doesn’t matter as he continues to transform the world of American business where contracts don’t matter. The bond (debt) holders and equity owners of Chrysler get literally pennies on the dollar, while the UAW, who had no ownership stake in the company, come out like bandits.

A group of Chrysler lenders said in a statement earlier this week that they’d been treated worse than junior creditors during the negotiation process with the White House, in violation of “long-recognized legal and business principles.” Well, folks, welcome to the transformative business world of the Obama administration, where legal contracts are subjugated to the “rights” of loyal political supporters who are “entitled” to paybacks.

The other aspect of this tragedy that is so troubling is the threats made by the White House against those Chrysler lenders who were exercising their legal rights to recover more of their principle. According to Thomas Lauria, legal counsel for the non-TARP participant lenders, he and his clients were “directly threatened by the White House and compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight.” Lauria made the statements in a live radio interview on a Detroit radio show, and I saw him recount the experience again on CNBC on Wednesday.

Lauria told ABC News that his clients “are mainly fiduciaries for pension plans, college endowments, retirement plans and credit unions who invested in low yield supposedly very secure first lien debt” with Chrysler. He’s also referred to as a “big time Democratic contributor,” who would ostensibly have no other reason to make such a claim.

This shatters the notion of the press being an objective, independent reporting entity with no agenda. That the White House could threaten investors by promising that “the White House press corps would destroy [their] reputation if [they] continued to fight,” is not only shocking, but reprehensible! Has the mainstream media become such a puppet that they will simply do his bidding in destroying the reputations of anyone he asks them to? And is the White House so convinced of their control of the media that they can really make such a promise? Apparently so. If you’ve never felt you had sufficient cause to be wary of media “objectivity,” your security blanket has just been yanked away. The naked truth is laid bare for all to see.

Jim Carney of Business Insider validated Lauria’s recapitulation of the threat with testimony from two other participants. They refused to let Carney identify them, however, for they feared political repercussions as well. Gee, I wonder why? By the way, both of the participants were reported by Carney as being Obama supporters.

These mafia-like strong-arm tactics of the White House bode ill for GM investors. The precedent has been set, and the President will get his way, regardless of who he has to demonize or destroy in the process, and more political favors will be doled out at tax-payer expense. And Ford, who has been able to survive without government meddling thus far, may well become a target of the President will who will likely use any means possible to give them to the UAW as well. Welcome to the transformational business world of Obama.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 05/03/2009

The inimitable Mark Twain once quipped, “No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the congress is in session.” In few areas is that more self-evident than in the attempt to criminalize what is in one’s heart. For some in congress, it’s not enough to put someone in jail for harming another, but if they have “hate” or a prejudice in their heart they should be incarcerated even longer and prosecuted by federal prosecutors. Not only does this tread dangerously on the ground of law enforcement essentially serving as “thought police” but it is also unconstitutional.

This week the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 was passed by the House and will undoubtedly be signed by the President. It identifies crimes which may have been perpetrated due to potential prejudice as federal criminal offenses, with the possibility of life imprisonment. According to the legislation, crimes motivated by the “actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person” will be prosecuted at the federal level.

Legally, legislation like this is unnecessary. Under the 14th Amendment all citizens are treated equally under the law. If one is assaulted, it legally makes no difference whether the perpetrator was motivated by animosity, prejudice, or abject hatred. And ideally it makes no difference what color, sex, or sexual orientation the victim is. Most states already have hate crime legislation on the books, but by federalizing it, it takes us dangerously one step closer to “hate speech” regulation like Canada has.

Since this legislation is not legally necessary, the most likely motive behind it is the enforcement of political correctness or PC. PC is perhaps the greatest culprit leading to a degeneration of our culture and diluting our freedom of speech. Initially intended to make us more sensitive to issues of ethnicity and sexual orientation, which in and of itself is not only desirable but necessary in a society such as ours, it has advanced to an illogical extreme and elevates those protected by PC protocol to a level disallowed for the population at large. Such extremism can lead to the restriction of pastors from preaching publicly against homosexuality using verses from the Bible, as has occurred in Canada. It is one more example of the fact that those claiming to be “tolerant” are the most intolerant of all.

The Family Research Council has said of the legislation, that “…it would be used against individuals and churches who speak out on issues such as defending marriage and religious liberty.” That would mean that in any future efforts to legalize same-sex marriage as California experienced last year, any individual or organization, including churches, supporting traditional marriage, could be prosecuted under broad interpretation of the statute, even though verbiage in the bill ostensibly disallows it.

Anyone with a semblance of intellectual integrity should see this as one more step in enforcing PC. It’s just one more step toward stifling dissent and curtailing freedom of speech. Radical leftists already presuppose that the reason many of us support traditional marriage is because of “hate,” even though our reasons have nothing to do with it. This type of legislation affords statutory cover for officials to quell dissent and silence traditionalists. With everything else that is being done to “transform” America, nothing strikes so fatally at the heart of America’s freedoms then enforced political correctness does.

It is increasingly obvious that officials in the federal government have no idea what the Constitution says. And as a dear friend of mine, a high school history teacher reminded me recently, Niemoller said of the Nazis, “First they came for the Communists…” Then they came for everyone else. It appears the tactic is now being employed right here in America.