By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 01/24/10

Ralph Waldo Emerson penned the “Concord Hymn” in 1837, citing a “shot heard round the world.” The shot he so eloquently referred to was the opening salvo fired in 1775 in the Massachusetts townships of Lexington and Concord. Those shots marked the fiery inception of the American Civil War as American colonialists began their revolt against financial and political oppression imposed by the English Crown.

More than 230 years later, a similarly astonishing “shot” has been heard, if not round the world, at least across the land and hopefully echoing loudly in the halls of Congress. This shot was fired collectively by the bluest of blue electorate of that same commonwealth, and catapulted a relatively unknown state senator, Scott Brown, into the U.S. Senate seat held by John Kennedy, and then Edward Kennedy, since 1953.

The “shot” metaphor may not fully capture the significance of the election of a Republican Senator from a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans 3 to 1. Throughout his campaign, Brown consistently and convincingly articulated a conservative message of returning to common sense and true fiscal responsibility. In short, he ran against Obama’s agenda in the bluest state in the union. And won.

Exit polling conducted by Fabrizio, McLaughlin and Associates, an independent polling firm, was precise in its conclusions that “Obamacare” and the way the congress was ramming it down the nations’ throat was the reason for Brown’s victory. Their data indicated that “fully 48% of voters say that health care was the issue deciding their vote. When combined with their second choice issue, health care mentions reached 62%. Brown's health care position/opposition to Obama health care plan was the top reason for voting for him by wide margin. A plurality of voters said their vote was a vote to stop the President's health care plan - more than those saying it was a vote against his policies in general. A majority of these voters oppose the President's health care plan and disapprove of the job he's doing on health care.”

These conclusions echo the sentiments expressed in an email forwarded to me by dear friend in California. It was originally sent to him by a family member who lives in Massachusetts. The family member said, “As a Conservative Democrat, (not yet an Independent) I want Washington to wake up, toss out Pelosi, arrogant politician that she is, who will still try to ram through decisions Americans do not want… but yesterday, again, Massachusetts ‘fired the shot heard round the world.’ Independence began here and it is still here. Walking by the Old Granary Burial Ground here this morning, I thought I heard the voices of Paul Revere, John Hancock and Sam Adams whispering: ‘Well done, Massachusetts sons and daughters.’”

As the American Thinker published earlier this week, “Sure, Martha Coakley ran a horrible campaign. But Democrats win safe seats with horrible campaigns all the time. Brown ran a great campaign, but good candidates lose uphill battles all the time in places like Massachusetts.” To put this in perspective, Obama won Massachusetts by 26 points just a year ago.

While reasons for Brown’s victory may be many, there is clearly a change of mood throughout the nation as more and more citizens become disenchanted with the direction Washington is taking the country. “Buyers’ remorse” is common in a retail setting, and it appears obvious that what we are witnessing is political buyers’ remorse by many who bought into the “hope and change” mantra.

Such buyers’ remorse was evidenced this week by Mort Zuckerman, former Harvard Business School professor and current editor of the U.S. News and World Report and an Obama supporter. He admitted on CNBC this week that he sees nothing in the Obama economic agenda that makes sense and predicts Massachusetts-like electoral reversals across the country in November leading to a Republican landslide if Washington leadership continues unabated on their populist anti-capitalism agenda.

In his acceptance speech to supporters Tuesday night, Brown declared, “Across this country -- to all those folks who are listening, if you're covering me -- we are united by basic convictions that only need to be clearly stated to win a majority -- and if anyone doubts that in this next election season that's about to begin -- well, let them take a look at what happened here in Massachusetts. Because what happened here in Mass can happen all over America.” How we pray he is right!

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, Published 01/17/10

I can’t help but think that Martin Luther King, Jr. would not be very happy with us today. After all, so many of the principles that were dear to him and gave his life purpose are not held with the same regard that they were when he was enlightening a divided culture.

He taught, for example, “All labor that uplifts humanity has dignity and importance and should be undertaken with painstaking excellence.” He wasn’t all that keen on welfare programs, and yielding our personal responsibility and accountability to the state.

He probably wouldn’t have been too supportive of the identity politics going on these days, either, where politicians sell out to special interests for votes, rather than doing what’s best for the nation. For as he said, “An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity.” And as if to underscore this notion, “Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.”

I think he would be supportive of the peaceful and principled “Tea Party” revolts against a government seeking to diminish individual liberty and exact oppressive taxation on the productive members of society. As he said, “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” Certainly those are wise words of encouragement to those of us who object to the direction the country is headed now.

As further evidence of his support for the “Tea Party” cause, he once said, “Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. And so we must straighten our backs and work for our freedom.” Individual and universal freedom was everything to him, without regard to ethnicity, and advocated freedom, as opposed to government programs that diminish the freedom to build, achieve, be rewarded for those achievements, and succeed.

On another occasion he said, “I say to you that our goal is freedom, and I believe we are going to get there because however much she strays away from it, the goal of America is freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be as a people, our destiny is tied up in the destiny of America.”

Echoing those immortal words of the father of the modern conservative movement, Edmund Burke, who said “All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing,” King said, “History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.”

King was a highly principled man, driven by truths and fundamental values. He referred often to those values. “If we are to go forward, we must go back and rediscover those precious values - that all reality hinges on moral foundations and that all reality has spiritual control.” Some of those values were the very foundational principles upon which the nation was founded, that he found lacking in their application to all American equally. “When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

I think Martin Luther King would have concurred with Morgan Freeman a few years ago in a “60 Minutes” interview with Mike Wallace. Wallace started out, “Black History Month, you find…”, Freeman interjected, “Ridiculous.” The interview continued.

WALLACE: Why?
FREEMAN: You’re going to relegate my history to a month?
WALLACE: Come on.
FREEMAN: What do you do with yours? Which month is White History Month? Come on, tell me.
WALLACE: I’m Jewish.
FREEMAN: OK. Which month is Jewish History Month?
WALLACE: There isn’t one.
FREEMAN: Why not? Do you want one?
WALLACE: No, no.
FREEMAN: I don’t either. I don’t want a Black History Month. Black history is American history.
WALLACE: How are we going to get rid of racism until...?
FREEMAN: Stop talking about it. I’m going to stop calling you a white man. And I’m going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace. You know me as Morgan Freeman. You’re not going to say, ‘I know this white guy named Mike Wallace.’ Hear what I’m saying?”

That sounds a lot like what Martin Luther King said, that his children would “one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” And for that, we honor you and your work, and strive to that end.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, Published 01/10/10

Common sense may be in short supply in Washington these days, but it isn’t in Boise. Idaho Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter sent a scathing letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid denouncing their attempt to take over America’s health care system.

Echoing the sentiments of most Americans, Otter began, “I am alarmed by the recent actions of Congress, with both the House and Senate rushing to pass ‘health care reform’ over the past two months. The deal making, arm twisting and the ends-justifying-the means attitude that we saw throughout the process and recent votes on HR 3590 (as amended) and HR 3962 reflected a fundamental disconnect with the real challenges and priorities of ordinary Americans.”

Questioning the constitutionality of congress’ proposed health-care reform, Otter queried, “Where does the U.S. Constitution grant Congress the power to pass legislation mandating compulsory health care coverage or creating a nationalized health care system? Even the wildest interpretations of the ‘general welfare clause’ in Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution cannot justify what congressional leadership and the Administration propose within the bills. It is disappointing that some members of Congress have seemingly forgotten that the U.S. Constitution limits the authority of the legislative branch to the enumerated powers of Article I, and that absent such power it cannot enact laws no matter how ‘just’ or ‘well-intentioned.’”

Otter’s question of constitutionality is legitimized further by Pelosi’s exchange with a reporter a few weeks ago where she was asked where the Constitution authorized congress to do what they are attempting. Pelosi responded emphatically, “Are you serious?” Not once, but three times. Yes, Madam Speaker, we are serious. Her spokesman later told the press that Pelosi didn’t consider that a legitimate question. It appears self-evident, that constitutionality is of no concern to Pelosi. She and her fellow radicals in Washington are intent on doing whatever they desire, regardless of whether it’s legal or constitutional.

Reid displays equal contempt for law as he has been liberally circumventing or rewriting Senate rules to ensure passage of the Senate version of health-care reform.

Otter then lashed out over the financial elements of the legislation. He wrote, “States -including Idaho -continue to point out the financial burdens associated with the most recent proposals. The astronomical costs projected with either bill will greatly impact our children and grandchildren as taxpayers shoulder the tremendous debt associated with these potential ‘solutions.’ Moreover, many states and local governments will experience increased costs not covered by either bill, which could constitute a crushing unfunded mandate and violation of federal law.”

“Perhaps even more troubling are the undemocratic and inequitable compromises reached in the U.S. Senate to push HR 3590 through the process. It is appalling to learn that both Nebraska and Louisiana have received deals, now referred to as the ‘Nebraska Compromise’ and new ‘Louisiana Purchase’ in return for their senators’ support. I find it dubious that taxpayers in Idaho and other states will have to cover 100 percent of costs associated with newly eligible Medicaid enrollees in Nebraska or provide an additional $300 million in Medicaid aid to Louisiana.”

Questioning the congressional leaders’ motives, Otter continued, “I understand many families are struggling to meet their basic needs today, including health care. However, that is no excuse to sacrifice fiscal responsibility, sound judgment and constitutionality for political expediency.”

Then the teeth are bared as he concludes his letter, “I question the wisdom as well as the constitutionality and legality of these bills and will explore all my options, including legal action, to protect Idaho and the U.S. Constitution should Congress adopt and the President sign compromise health care legislation. Given the bills now before the conference committee all that truly will be ‘compromised’ is our American system of government in exchange for a multi-generational legacy of debt.”

Otter is not alone in threatening legal action over “Obamacare.” At least 13 states are exploring legal action against the health-care proposal. Considering the unconstitutionality of the proposals and the dubious manner they were drawn up, we might wonder why all 50 states are not fighting it.

Thank you, Governor Otter, for standing up for the rule of law and constitutional principles! Thank you for being willing to fight this unprecedented assault on individual liberty, and a “multi-generational legacy of debt.”

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, Published 01/03/10

The heroics manifested by many of our founding fathers are literally beyond comprehension of the contemporary mind. Facing seemingly insurmountable odds, a rag-tag militia and collection of colonialists stood up against what was then deemed insufferable oppression by the greatest military and economic power in the world. They rose to the occasion, displaying the character of those men and women and the resolve with which they approached their challenge.

Washington drew up an aggressive and risky plan to capture the British encampment in Trenton that would include a three-pronged attack with troops crossing the icy Delaware River led by him and Generals Cadwalader and Ewing. Against all odds, Washington hoped the battle for Trenton would bring a victory to help curtail the desertions and prevent complete abandonment of the army by those troops whose enlistment expired on December 31.

Just a week before the planned attack, Thomas Paine, author of the “Common Sense” pamphlet which had done much to inspire the early revolutionary movement, came out with another inspiring publication, “The American Crisis.” This new publication began famously, “These are times that try men's souls; the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”

On Christmas morning, Washington assembled his leadership for final preparations for the troop movements and the attack on Trenton, and provided them with the password for the mission, “Victory or Death.”

By six in the afternoon on Christmas Day, Washington’s troops had begun crossing the ice-choked Delaware River. The weather abruptly changed for the worse, forcing Generals Cadwalader and Ewing to back out of the operation, unbeknownst to General Washington. This left Washington’s 2400 troops alone in their mission.

By 3 a.m. on the morning of the 26th Washington’s troops had successfully crossed the river, and still cold and wet from the sleet and blinding snow storm, marched into Trenton for a victory over the British and Hessian troops stationed there. The Americans lost but three soldiers in the battle for Trenton, while six were injured, but there were numerous casualties by the British, and over 1,000 prisoners of war were captured as they retook the city.

This is not just an inspiring story for the revolutionaries 234 years ago, but it should be inspiring to all of us who love America and the principles upon which it was founded. We have faced a challenging year in the battle for the American spirit, and this winter has been a daunting one as legislation has passed which not only threatens individual liberty, but is arguably unconstitutional.

Our battle today for freedom is not against a foreign power, but a domestic one, determined to transform the nation into something it was never designed to be. And our battle is not with muskets and powder, but with words based on fundamental principles of liberty and constitutionality. But that same American spirit which removed the yoke of oppression years ago can, and must, be the spirit which motivates us to stand up and be counted, doing all we can to influence our elected officials and supporting electoral change at the ballot box. Liberty won 234 years ago, and it can reemerge supreme yet again, but it takes all of us who love freedom.