“Policemen and laws can never replace customs, traditions and moral values as a means for regulating human behavior. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. Our increased reliance on laws to regulate behavior is a measure of how uncivilized we’ve become.” ~ Walter Williams

I am grateful that Ron Paul has stepped up to address the issue of overbearing airport security. As he well says in his remarks, “…enough is enough.”

To me the direction our airport security has taken is symbolic of a greater problem we face in America. It was a problem forseen by our founding fathers, particularly Alexander Hamilton.

From Federalist Paper No. 8:

“Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will after a time give way to its dictates…and [the] alarm attendant on a state of continual danger will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political  rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.“

Prophetic words. I am grateful to see we still have those back in DC who value freedom.

One of the benefits of being a GOP delegate is that I get to see a lot more material from the candidates than the average voter. Over time, the mass amounts of emails, mailers, etc. invariably lead to little nuggets of insight about the “real” candidate.

Today I found one of those nuggets in an email communication from Senator Bob Bennett:

“Obama’s proposal to cancel NASA’s Constellation program and the Ares I rocket booster will not only devastate the economy of northern Utah; it will also weaken our missile defense and our national security.”

So what’s the nugget?

Bennett’s first priority is bringing home the bacon for Utah.  Coming in second is national defense/national security.

Frankly, I agree with Bennett that the Constellation program needs to continue, because it is of prime importance to our national security.

However, the fact that it brings jobs to Utah should not matter, because while it’s nice that Utah has some job benefits, we may find that the most cost efficient model puts those jobs in Texas or Florida, where we currently have launch sites.

Bottom line, “job creation” through congressional deal making is not a conservative leadership, but the prime modus operandi of the DC deal maker.

Today on our radio show, The Conservative Professor, I threw out my top 5 books for conservatives if I were going to create a Conservative 101.

1. The Law: Fredric Bastiat
2. American Cause: Russell Kirk
3. Conservative Mind: Russell Kirk
4. Commentaries on the Constitution: Joseph Story
5. Road to Serfdom: F.A. Hayek

What would you add/subtract from this list and why?

By John F. Pilmer

This week’s Republican caucuses drew much larger than normal crowds following this week’s unprecedented attempted takeover of health care by the Washington’s liberal left.  Here’s one peak into the experience in Utah and the unanimous precinct rejection of the mystery health care bill just passed by the House and signed by the president.
Daily Herald: 15,000 Pack into county caucus locations

Conservative Survivor – Raucous Caucus

The recent health care debate has reminded me how far we’ve fallen from the words stated by JFK. You’ll no doubt recall those famous words, “Ask not what you’re country can do for you…” At the end of the day, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a 100% “what can government do for me” type policy and as such simply doesn’t pass a basic litmus test for the proper role of government.

One of the key questions of the proper role of government litmus test is: “Can the problem be solved by a) individuals, b) families, c) intermediate associations, or d) a combination of the three?”

In terms of providing addressing ‘health care issues’ in America (with an emphasis on the second word of that phrase), the answer to the aforementioned question is a resounding “yes.” In sidestepping these three critical institutions of a civil and free society, Obamacare is destined to ultimately weaken our civil society and weaken our nation’s charitable nature.

By John F. Pilmer

The “law of the farm”, “reap what you sow”, “what goes around, comes around”–whatever you want to call it, the ripple effects of a tsunami of greed, corruption, toxic debt and governmental mismanagement are starting to show up in very painful ways.  In the U.S., we “ain’t seen nothin’ yet” as we brace for the long term consequences of short-term feel-good spending by Congress.

A trillion dollars in new debt in the first year of the Obama administration. Breathtaking! Now, the CBO estimates the liberal spendthrifts are ready to borrow another trillion, give a take a few billion, to fund Nationalized Healthcare. This is BAD, BAD news for our economic health in the long run–to the extreme.

Consider the little country of Greece, in the middle of their own debt crisis. Their relatively small economy is having negative effects on world markets.

Oil Plunges on Greek debt News: story

US Stock Market down on news of Greek debt problems: Hong Kong story; Canada story; US story

Now, what if that were the U.S. debt crisis, instead of Greece. What would be the effect–a tidal wave compared to the ripple caused by Greece!

China, our 2nd largest creditor (Japan just reclaimed #1 spot),  is concerned about the United States ability to pay it’s debt (story).  The world is questioning us for the first time in history because we are spending like teenagers!

Printing money we don’t have to create another iefficient government run program (ObamaCare) will surely draw fire from our country creditors.

Watch my healthcare survivor story:

Healthcare Survivor Story

I think I share the guilt of many, in that I say I believe in things or advocate principles that I haven’t taken the time to really understand. That’s not to say that my following or advocacy of those principles has been completely blind.  It’s more along the lines of “I know enough to be dangerous.”

One of those principles is Limited Government.

Recently I have been reading the book “On Ordered Liberty,” written by Samuel Gregg. It’s a bit of a tedious read and at times very hard to push through even though the book itself is only little more than 100 pages.

That being said, I think nestled in between many hard to understand sentences I feel like I’ve finally found some ways to articulate what the principle of Limited Government really means.

So here’s my one liner: Limited Government is a “set of defined, publicly acknowledged and consistently applied coercive rules” that create “spheres of personal freedom within which one can act without being arbitrarily subjected to another’s will.”

Perhaps a crude parallel is the example of flying a kite. The string of the kite is limited government. The kite is the individual. Without the a strong but flexible string (a limited form of government), the kite cannot fly and thus reach its full potential.  However, if the kite string is too weak (anarchy) the pull of the wind of freedom instead of lifting the kite in the air will snap the string and the kite will lose all the benefit of freedom’s wind.  On the other hand if the string is too thick and heavy (socialism, facisim, communism, etc.), it looses flexibility and drags the kite down, because the wind of freedom can not support the weight of the string.

Does this definition work for you? Or would you add or subtract something?

Campaign time means lots of speeches, promises and catch phrases.  As I watched the 08 presidential race and now as i watch the races shaping up in Utah, I find myself asking a similar question.  What do the words mean?

In 2008, Obama used “hope” and “change” over and over, but what did he really mean? Now I am hearing words like bipartisan or conservative being tossed around. Senator Bennett, for example, has made “conservative” part of his campaign mantra, but if you asked those who consider themselves conservative if Bennett meets the test, many would say “no.”

Again, what do these candidates or pundits really mean or rather what do the words they use really mean?

In any debate, one of the most critical elements is to define the terms of the debate.

So here goes…tomorrow I’ll look at Limited Government.