Farley Anderson

The following article was written by Farley Anderson, who is fighting a legal battle to get on the ballot to run for governor of Utah. The dispute is over the use of electronic signatures in the petition process.  The I-Sign process is an initiative of a group called  The People’s Right (www.utahlive.us). One of the stated objectives of this group is to “to lead the nation in a movement to raise the political power of people above that of political parties, special interest, media hype or money power through a direct process deliberately left open in the Utah State Constitution.”

For background on this dispute, see the following news articles:

• E-signatures in politics debated (Salt Lake Tribune)
• Lt. Gov fights e-signatures (Salt Lake City Political Buzz Examiner)
• Candidate’s filing blocked due to e-signatures (AP)
• People Power (Salt Lake Tribune editorial)

Internet gathered E-signatures petitions may revolutionize politics if allowed to stand. A new frontier of Internet Political activism faces First Amendment challenge.

We need your support to help fight a Supreme Court battle.  We plan to use the power of the internet and innovation to make politics better, more open and user-friendly and more about what is right than what is in it for me.  Not everyone is pleased with us shaking the political applecart.

A grass roots movement in Utah seeks to open a whole new paradigm of citizen-powered political activity to give a new political choice to everyone.  Most people in our country are truly and justifiably disgusted with politics in general.  It has become way too much about who really wants the job and who can sell off enough influence to buy an election.  The Internet, more than any other tool, may have the power to return the power to our people and restore a system of equality and justice as promised in the lead paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence.  As newspaperman and first amendment advocate Edward Morrow put it, “A nation of sheep begets a government of wolves”.  Knowledge, with activity, raises a people above the blindness of the herd mentality.  The Independence project is a grass roots movement to utilize the power of free information via the internet to build a sense of political community and offer a change so refreshingly comfortable and new that it will catch the imagination of a sleeping people (see the movement website at utahlive.us).  Imagine a political system that is not run or controlled by money, a system where everyone is an automatic delegate, a system that is more about information  and raising each individual up to accept the responsibilities and rights of a free people  instead of the unabashed sell-off of influence we now see.  The movement’s objectives are the hallmark of the success of the great American experiment.

People have a fundamental, God-given First Amendment right to petition government.  Utah State law requires that the petition process be used to enable unaffiliated candidates the chance to get their name on the ballot.  Many people in this state chose to exercise their basic first amendment right to petition the government on behalf of Farley Anderson for Governor, using electronic signatures. The State of Utah is in full opposition to this process. The people already have a fundamentally guaranteed first amendment right, and Utah law already states that an electronic signature is the equivalent of a paper signature in every legal way.  I guarantee that if we were talking about e-dollars instead of e-signatures on a petition, that every county and the Lt Governor’s office would immediately find a way to verify the signatures.  While the battle has caught the attention of national and world media and “the eyes of the nation are upon Utah”, it feels more like a couple of guys with big ideas taking on the giant of establishment power.  If you can imagine, our state’s executive branch is even suing the county clerks who are friendly to these constitutional rights.  Remove ignorance and greed from politics and we have a fair shot at restoring our Republic (Farley Anderson author of the book the Restoration of our Republic and Utah State Gubernatorial candidate hopeful).

We believe that this is a battle worth fighting.  The petition process gives the people an enormous check on government power.  Anything that makes the political process more participatory to more people is a good thing.  This process enabled the Anderson campaign to be the first ever to receive signature petition support from every county in Utah, as well as from Utah citizens currently overseas.

We actually found that the electronic signatures required, on average, five to ten times the work to gather as their paper counterpart; as the process was new and unfamiliar to most people.  We felt good about the process, however, as we knew that the support was genuine.  People had time to actually consider what they were signing in the privacy of their own home and did so of their own accord.  We believe that this is a people-empowering and building process far superior to the traditional petitions that are often signed without thought or consideration by many people.  The process included going to a secure website, signing the signature electronically, checking a box indicating under penalty of law that the person signing is that person, filling in the required field with information that must exactly match with the voter’s registrar, and then finally use the last four digits of their driver’s license as a pin. The signing is witnessed from a remote location as provided for in Utah State code.

All in all, the system is far more thoughtful and secure than that required with paper signatures.  We provided the county clerks with the petitions in paper form, along with a special access number to go into the site to verify and gather the information in whatever format they desired. This process can save government vast amounts of time and money in what is otherwise the very mundane task of petition verification. The process is especially appealing to the younger generation, who is in general more computer savvy and often feels left out of the current political process.

Some argue that part of the prescribed process is to be able to face the petitioner.  This logic is hollow.  Many petitions are circulated by paid petitioners whose only motivation is to get paid, generally per signature.  If time and circumstance would allow most would agree that if a petition could be dropped off at the home and the signer given the time to consider the petition at leisure that it would be superior to the way most petitions are signed, even if the signer never saw the person who dropped it off and picked it up.  Under this circumstance would the signature not be accepted under the current system?  Should this process be any less valid because we dropped it off top the home  electronically, unless of course the real motivation is to keep this power from the people?

What the Utah Lt Governor’s office refers to as merely typed names on a paper are in reality real legal signatures submitted by real American citizens exercising real first amendment guaranteed rights to petition government.  Any argument to the contrary belies the fact that these citizens engaged in a process that is far more thoughtful, more secure, more representative and more open and user friendly to our people than what has been traditionally used.  The entire focus is being steered away from this basic premise and the government’s responsibility to verify and not to usurp this process.  We will gladly entertain any argument as to the validity of these premises and of the process itself, but believe that it is entirely inappropriate to disenfranchise these citizens based upon the whims of the executive branch.  If the executive branch is concerned that these signatures were somehow produced by “magic” and are not representative of the people listed, they have many tools available to assist in the verification, not the least of which is to ask the citizen.  Interestingly, this does not seem to even be a question.  This guaranteed first Amendment right is unalienable and denies no one of their life, liberty, or property to exercise.  After an initial process creating a policy and instruction to subordinates this process will save precious time and resources of government to accept.  Every single county in Utah participated in the process of petitioning on behalf of Mr. Farley Anderson for governor, something that has never happened before in any political campaign, thus demonstrating the increased openness of the system.  The county clerks who received instruction from our Lt Governor’s office were actually being told to violate their oath of office to protect the constitutionally guaranteed rights of citizens they represent.  When the Lt Governor’s office proclaimed that the law requires only paper signatures be verified when no such law exists, a usurpation by the executive branch of government occurred, thus making new law. Further, by refusing to accept the petitions verified by the counties, we see a further usurpation of the state government over the rightful responsibility and rights of the counties.  All of this is underscored by open and unabashed, politically-motivated unfairness to keep an unaffiliated candidate for governor from receiving a constitutionally guaranteed right to be placed on the ballot and thus possibly jeopardizing the employment of the Lt Governor.  We recognize a legitimate governmental role to create standards, but if no standard has been established then each county clerk is responsible to take reasonable measures to accommodate their citizens. Otherwise we are back to the patently un-American assumption that people only have rights after they have been given them by a legislative body.

The Story.  A grassroots movement in Utah dedicated to the cause of proving that it is possible to run an effective information-based campaign without a sell-out to special interests or the support of major political parities, decided to use the power of the internet and an e-signature petition to put their candidate on the ballot. The first snag we ran up against was a letter from the State’s Lt Governor’s office to county clerks informing them that the law requires only a paper-based system, when no such law exists.  Some county clerks may need to be reminded that their oath of office is to protect basic constitutional rights of people in their county and not to the Lt Governor and to the political party for which he stands.    Four brave county clerks independently chose to certify the signatures.  Next, the petitions with the required number of county clerk certified signatures (both electronic gathered and paper gathered) were turned into the Lt Governor’s office at the prescribed time and in the prescribed format.  Again, to our astonishment, we were denied access, as they would not even accept the petition. Our only option at this point was to sue for redress. Since this is a statewide issue, the only court of jurisdiction is the Utah State Supreme Court. We immediately obtained a writ to serve papers and force the Lt Governor’s office to accept the petitions and give us a hearing to determine if the executive branch has the authority to make law and usurp county authority to certify petitions.  We felt that if we could narrow the scope to these two issues that we could mostly represent ourselves and, with limited legal help, mount an effective response.  The State has responded by claiming that the entire block of Salt Lake County signatures (which has the largest block of certified e-signatures) are invalid.  They argue that because of this, the required number of signatures was not turned in.

Why is this important? This case will set a precedent for the entire nation to follow.  As some are also aware, the legislature has significantly raised the number of signatures required and shortened the time to gather the signatures, making it impractical in Utah to use the citizens’ referendum and initiative as the peoples check and balance of government.  The use of electronic signatures can restore balance back to the people.  With voters involved any bad law could be brought before the people on the next ballot in a referendum.  In addition, every bad law ever written could face this citizen’s review.  This battle has caught the attention of national media and the imagination of people from many states.  This is a powerful tool to bring a restoration of our Republic.  Now I need to ask again for your support to bring this to completion.    Note–while as a candidate I have covenanted not to take special interest or corporate money.   I feel that this first amendment legal battle is beyond my campaign and the People’s right will accept any legal/financial help offered.  Legal support should be directed to:

The People’s Right

P.O. Box 179

Kanosh UT 84637

Too often the answer is, “The ‘government’ stole it!”

Liberty-loving Americans must bring politics and economics back into the first person.

We speak of the “the government” and the “the economy” as if they were independent, conscious entities.
But the “government” is people, interacting with each other and operating according to forms and policies established by we the people and our duly elected representatives.

Likewise, the “economy” is people interacting and acting according to economic forms and norms in the interest of bringing value to themselves and those they love.

Where has our liberty gone? It has gone into the oblivion of the third person — that third person being “i Government.”

Read the rest of the article at the Center for Social Leadership.

I’m hoping that our work here in Ohio can inspire others throughout America (and beyond) to form their own groups as well.

As a reminder, each group has certain resources on Liberty Discussions for communicating and reporting back.

• Group Page: http://libertydiscussions.com/groups/cincinnati-ohio/
• Group Blog: http://libertydiscussions.com/cincinnatiohio/

On the group page you will find the following tools:

• Group email (try not to abuse this)
• Group calendar – this can be used to post events.   Group admins can add a sidebar widget to their blog showing upcoming group events.
• Group forums

From the Communist Manifesto, we read:

Karl Marx

“Abolition of the Family! … The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course…”

The socialists observed that in traditional society, there is widespread infidelity in marriage.  They used this as an excuse to promote legalized promiscuity:

“Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women.”

According to Marx, parents in a communist society are to be denied the natural right and duty of educating their own children:

“Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.”

Engels wrote in Principles of Communism:

“Question 21: What influence will the communist order of society have upon the family?

“Answer: It will make the relations between the sexes a purely private affair which concerns only the persons involved, and calls for no interference by society. It is able to do this because it abolishes private property and educates children communally, destroying thereby the two foundation stones of hitherto existing marriage–the dependence of the wife upon her husband and of the children upon the parents conditioned by private property. This is an answer to the outcry raised by moralising philistines against the communistic community of wives. Community of wives is a relationship belonging entirely to bourgeois society and existing today in perfect form as prostitution. Prostitution, however, is rooted in private property and falls with it. Hence, the communistic organisation rather than establishing the community of women, puts an end to it.”

John Goodlad

We find many of these ideas being promoted today, especially the notion that the state has the duty of raising and educating children.   The Onion humorously addressed the topic in an article titled, “Increasing Number Of Parents Opting To Have Children School-Homed.”  But this issue is quite serious, and we can see that many Americans adhere to this philosophy.

In the 2001 book, “Developing Democratic Character in the Young,” edited by the influential education theorist John Goodlad, we read:

“…education is a task for both parents and state. The state, parents and children all have interests that must be protected…

“we are looking for balance…that will consider the interests of parents, state, and children.”

And after these deceptive statements, we find this bold pronouncement:

“Parents do not own their children. They have no ‘natural right’ to control their education fully.”

Wow. The author goes on to explain how the public schools are to be used to instill these democratic (i.e. socialist) ideas in children:

“[we can] protect against the loss of democratic values by insisting that all schools – public and private – teach these basic values, but ensuring that this is done requires careful supervision, and we may predict a new round of outraged complaints if government begins to monitor private schools in this way.  Instead of intruding heavily in the conduct of private schools, we might do better to stem their proliferation.”

John Locke

I include these quotes as a reminder of what we are up against.  Truly, parents do have a natural duty to teach and raise their children.  John Locke, whose ideas influenced the development of the Constitution, explained:

“The power, then, that parents have over their children arises from that duty which is incumbent on them, to take care of their offspring during the imperfect state of childhood.  To inform the mind, and govern the actions of their yet ignorant nonage, till reason shall take its place and ease them of that trouble, is what the children want, and the parents are bound to [provide].” (as quoted in The 5000 Year Leap, pp. 286-287)

Locke goes on to explain that parents must not abdicate this responsibility to the state:

“The subjection of a minor places in the father a temporary government which terminates with the minority of the child…The nourishment and education of their children [during their minority] is a charge so incumbent on parents for their children’s good, that nothing can absolve them from taking care of it.”

As early as 1825, Thomas Jefferson had observed conflict brewing between the commerce clause and states’ rights.  In a letter to William M. Giles, he talks about it:

“I see, as you do, and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power. Take together the decisions of the federal court, the doctrines of the President, and the misconstructions of the constitutional compact acted on by the legislature of the federal branch, and it is but too evident, that the three ruling branches of that department are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic. Under the power to regulate commerce, they assume indefinitely that also over agriculture and manufactures, and call it regulation to take the earnings of one of these branches of industry, and that, too, the most depressed, and put them into the pockets of the other, the most nourishing of all. Under the authority to establish post roads, they claim that of cutting down mountains for the construction of roads, of digging canals, and aided by a little sophistry on the words “general welfare,” a right to do, not only the acts to effect that, which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think, or pretend will be for the general welfare.

“And what is our resource for the preservation of the Constitution? Reason and argument? You might as well reason and argue with the marble columns encircling them. The representatives chosen by ourselves? They are joined in the combination, some from incorrect views of government, some from corrupt ones, sufficient voting together to outnumber the sound parts; and with majorities only of one, two, or three, bold enough to go forward in defiance. Are we then to stand to our arms, with the hot-headed Georgian? No. That must be the last resource, not to be thought of until much longer and greater sufferings. If every infraction of a compact of so many parties is to be resisted at once, as a dissolution of it, none can ever be formed which would last one year. We must have patience and longer endurance then with our brethren while under delusion; give them time for reflection and experience of consequences; keep ourselves in a situation to profit by the chapter of accidents; and separate from our companions only when the sole alternatives left, are the dissolution of our Union with them, or submission to a government without limitation of powers. Between these two evils, when we must make a choice, there can be no hesitation.

“But in the meanwhile, the States should be watchful to note every material usurpation on their rights; to denounce them as they occur in the most peremptory terms; to protest against them as wrongs to which our present submission shall be considered, not as acknowledgments or precedents of right, but as a temporary yielding to the lesser evil, until their accumulation shall overweigh that of separation. I would go still further, and give to the federal member, by a regular amendment of the Constitution, a right to make roads and canals of intercommunication between the States, providing sufficiently against corrupt practices in Congress, (log-rolling, etc.,) by declaring that the federal proportion of each State of the moneys so employed, shall be in works within the State, or elsewhere with its consent, and with a due salvo of jurisdiction. This is the course which I think safest and best as yet.” (emphasis added)

Thomas Jefferson

“We think experience has proved it safer, for the mass of individuals composing the society, to reserve to themselves personally the exercise of all rightful powers to which they are competent, and to delegate those to which they are not competent to deputies named, and removable for unfaithful conduct, by themselves immediately. Hence with us, the people (by which is meant the mass of individuals composing the society) being competent to judge of the facts occurring in ordinary life, they have retained the functions of judges of facts, under the name of jurors; but being unqualified for the management of affairs requiring intelligence above the common level, yet competent judges of human character, they choose for their management, representatives, some by themselves immediately, others by electors chosen by themselves.” (from a letter to Pierre S. du Pont de Nemours, 1816)

A republic is not aristocratic, but it’s not populist either. The idea of some people being more qualified than others doesn’t sit well with those who believe in standing for the common man. This kind of angst is the kindling that fuels the push towards democratic socialism. Today there are people like William P Meyers who openly argue that the Founders were elitists who used the guise of republican government to secure wealth and power for themselves. From Mr. Meyers’ website we read:

William P. Meyers

“…to win the American Revolution this predatory elite [i.e. the Founding Fathers] needed help. Their own rhetoric about freedom and equality led to widespread demands for the right to vote: universal suffrage. In other words, the people began demanding democracy. Even the slaves (white and black alike) demanded to be freed and allowed to vote.

After the British were defeated a centralized, national government was seen by George Washington and company not as a method of extending freedom and the right to vote, but as a way of keeping control in the hands of rich. They wrote several anti-democratic provisions into the U.S. Constitution. Slavery was institutionalized. The Senate was not to be elected directly by the people; rather Senators were to be appointed by state legislatures. The President was not to be directly elected by the voters, but elected through an electoral college. The Supreme Court was to be appointed. Only the House of Representatives was elected directly.

More important to our democracy-versus-republic debate, the U.S. Constitution left the question of who could vote in elections to each individual state. In most states only white men who owned a certain amount of property could vote. So, on the whole, the first federal government that met in 1789 was a republic with only a fig-leaf of democratic representation. This is what today’s commentators mean when they say America is a republic, not a democracy.”

It’s not hard to fall into this trap. After all, our Founders did form the Constitution in secret, and they presented the document to the public only after it was finished. One could argue that this is no different from the elitist attitude we see from our current representatives, who pass bills without giving the public a chance to understand their content. If we believe in representative government, shouldn’t we be okay with this behavior?

It is critical for Americans to understand the difference.

Let’s consider the Founders. Were they predatory elitists? No, in fact they were best qualified to represent the people because they were best able to effectively articulate the will and wishes of the people. The values of liberty, virtue and self-government were already ingrained in the culture. The people valued the leadership of the Founders because they were able to take core American values and implant those ideals into the government. And we must remember that those early leaders recognized and respected natural rights. Their knowledge and abilities, gained through education and experience, did not give them a sense of superiority over the rest of the population.

Contrast that with elitists today. They seek to use their position of power to go against the will of the people. But they even take it a step further. They seek to manipulate the people and shift them away from their core values.

Democracy propaganda usually has a populist slant, appealing to the common man’s desire for power over the elites. Of course the true effect of democracy is the opposite of what the working class desires – it allows elites to concentrate even greater power. The tea party movement has brought increased awareness of how democracy leads to oligarchy. This new right-wing populism has caused the elitists to take a different tack.

For example, David Brooks of the New York Times characterizes tea partiers as ignorant commoners, and he pits these populists against the “educated class”:

David Brooks

“The public is not only shifting from left to right. Every single idea associated with the educated class has grown more unpopular over the past year.

The educated class believes in global warming, so public skepticism about global warming is on the rise. The educated class supports abortion rights, so public opinion is shifting against them. The educated class supports gun control, so opposition to gun control is mounting.

The story is the same in foreign affairs. The educated class is internationalist, so isolationist sentiment is now at an all-time high, according to a Pew Research Center survey. The educated class believes in multilateral action, so the number of Americans who believe we should “go our own way” has risen sharply.

A year ago, the Obama supporters were the passionate ones. Now the tea party brigades have all the intensity.

The tea party movement is a large, fractious confederation of Americans who are defined by what they are against. They are against the concentrated power of the educated class.”

We cannot allow the democratic/oligarchic elitists to characterize themselves as the educated class. The only way to fight against this deceitful propaganda is to help create our own “educated class” – not a caste of superiors, but simply a group of citizens who seek out and uphold true principles. We need to use the principles of republican government to cultivate a new batch of leaders who can match the Founding Fathers in wisdom, vision and virtue.

While cyberspace has made it easier to share information with everyone near and far, the culture that has erupted from this continues to take its toll on the quality of the information being shared.  Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have become the battlefield for who can win the most attention, and the winners almost always have little educational or uplifting values to their merit.

When political or philosophical content does get shared online, the conversation that follows also reflects the same trends.  Those who like it root for their beloved politician with a “Go So-and-so!” while those who disagree call you a hatemonger.  The conversations on political forums are full of heated emotion but lacking in open-minded and persuasive dialogue.

It is clear to me that sharing our beliefs and values through solely the internet will never be able to have the influence that our voices were meant to have in a republic.  The Founding Fathers never could have imagined the technology that is available to us today, but it doesn’t mean that their ideas are outdated or old-fashioned.  If anything, their concept of representation through a republic is exactly the medicine that can counteract this virus that has diseased our culture.

I’m old enough now to see how our technological culture is affecting our youth today.  When I graduated from high school almost ten years ago, cell phones were only affordable to wealthy businessmen.  Today, few teenagers are without a cell phone or an ipod, and many have access to the web from both of those devices.  But these devices mean we’re spending less time reading, less time thinking, less time talking to one another, and less time serving and learning about our community.  Access to entertaining but anemic information has made much more meaningful endeavors seem boring or old-fashioned.  If you, like me, believe that there is a cultural attack on family, moral virtue, and the Constitution, do we want to  send our children out into battle without properly preparing them with the armor that will protect those virtues?

My conclusion is that the only way to combat the effects of technology on our culture is three-fold:

1) Spend more time reading and educating ourselves on the principles of the Constitution. The 5000 Year Leap by Cleon Skousen is an excellent place to begin.

2) Make conversations about politics more personal. The best place to start is in our own families.  Find ways to make the conversation interesting to our children.  For example, seniors in high school may find politics more interesting if they understand how laws passed by Congress are affecting the price of their future tuition.  You can use similar ways to share your ideas with your friends.  A goal of Liberty Discussions is to do just that: make the conversation more personal as we teach and learn from one another.

3) Find more persuasive methods to use the internet to share your educated opinions. My husband and I designed Liberty Discussions to not only promote person-to-person conversation and problem solving but also to be a place to report and gather the lessons we are learning and the actions we are taking.  I know that you have unique and creative ways to address the concerns that many Americans share.  That’s why you were invited to the site by either us or your friends!  By reporting back through your group blogs, we here in Cincinnati can learn what topics people in Idaho learned about, the solutions they devised, and how they took action through their representative republic.  By so doing, we can be models of the kind of persuasive and thorough communication that is possible and can inspire others by our efforts, even online!

The problem is that the term social justice is often considered synonymous with caring for the poor.  Indeed, taking care of the needy is a fundamental part of Christianity.  But social justice isn’t the same thing.  Just as the word democracy conditions Americans to accept democratic socialism, social justice confuses people and connotes a sense of entitlement.

A Mormon leader whom I greatly admire, Ezra Taft Benson, describes the difference between redistribution schemes and true charity:

“…the socialist doctrine of equality…struck a sympathetic chord with most Americans because its initial goal was equality of rights. Today, however, the goal for the proponents of equality is to restructure our entire economic system, using the power of the federal government to enforce their grand design. They now advocate throughout our economy that we redistribute wealth and income, a good definition of socialism. Our present middle of the road policy is as Von Mises…suggested: socialism by the installment plan.

Americans have always been committed to taking care of the poor, aged, and unemployed. We’ve done this on the basis of Judaic Christian beliefs and humanitarian principles. It has been fundamental to our way of life that charity is to be voluntary if it is to be charity. Compulsory benevolence is not charity. Today’s egalitarians are using the federal government to redistribute wealth in our society, not as a matter of voluntary charity, but as a matter of right.” (From Freedom and Free Enterprise, 1965)

This is all basic stuff for right-of-center Americans.  But I think there is a lesson to be learned here for conservatives.

We need to get beyond the simple right-left paradigm and realize that each side espouses essential values.   The left values compassion and charity.  Americans with a more liberal orientation feel bothered when conservatives make statements that seem to belittle those values.

During these difficult economic times, we all need to step up and take on a more active role in caring for the poor.  Conservatives can add a lot of value by promoting voluntary charity and free market solutions.

In my first attempt at documentary filmmaking, I explored how morality is perceived across the political spectrum.  I suggested that there are two major components of morality which correspond to the two great commandments in the Judeo-Christian tradition: love God and love your neighbor.  I argued that conservatives tend to focus on the first commandment (obeying God’s word), while liberals emphasize the second commandment.

Here is a clip from my documentary (Quicktime required).   In this clip, I interview two Americans on opposite sides of the political spectrum (an evangelical pastor and an LGBT activist).  Their comments seem consistent with my theories.

I think I have gotten a little better at filmmaking and narration since then, but I believe this piece conveys some valuable insights.  We can’t be selectively moral; we need to revise our view of the political spectrum so that we accept all truth.

For example, a few weeks ago I came across this headline from CNN:

Hopefully I’m not excessively paranoid, but nowadays I tend to suspect some ulterior motive in most of the news stories I read.  In this case, the article informs readers that Mr. Elbridge Gerry wasn’t the bad guy that everyone thinks he was.   But couldn’t it be that since the 2010 census is under way, maybe this article is meant to condition us so that we’re not surprised when the congressional districts get redrawn in unusual ways?

I think it’s obvious that there is bias in media.   I’m not talking about a vast conspiracy to brainwash Americans.   It’s just that media elites tend to create a groupthink culture in their organizations, and they feel that they know what’s best for America.   Most of the bias in mainstream media is liberal.   Bernard Goldberg, in his book Arrogance, wrote:

“You have caught them red-handed over and over again with their biases exposed, and all they do is Deny! Deny! Deny! Only now the media have become even more brazen.  Simply denying isn’t good enough anymore.  Now they’re not content looking you in the eye and calmly saying, “What bias?” Now they’re just as calmly turning truth on its head, saying the real problem is conservative bias.”

But we do encounter conservative bias sometimes as well.   Right-wingers find an outlet through Fox News and other places.

The real problem is the underlying assumption in any kind of media bias – that ordinary Americans are too ignorant to form their own opinions and so they have to be told what to think.

It’s Time to Decentralize Media

Media today seems to be getting more centralized.  And the information that gets put out by media organizations seems more and more like propaganda used for political purposes.

But it wasn’t always this way.  Earlier in our country’s history, decentralized media was a defining characteristic.  Alexis de Tocqueville describes it thus:

“The United States have no metropolis; the intelligence as well as the power of the country are dispersed abroad, and instead of radiating from a point, they cross each other in every direction; the Americans have established no central control over the expression of opinion, any more than over the conduct of business.  These are circumstances which do not depend on human foresight; but it is owing to the laws of the Union that there are no licenses to be granted to printers, no securities demanded from editors as in France, and no stamp duty as in France and formerly in England.  The consequence of this is that nothing is easier than to set up a newspaper, and a small number of readers suffices to defray the expenses of the editor…In America there is scarcely a hamlet which has not its own newspaper.”

Tocqueville goes on to explain the effect of the decentralized press:

“…it’s influence in America is immense.  It is the power which impels the circulation of political life through all the districts of that vast territory.  Its eye is constantly open to detect the secret springs of political designs, and to summon the leaders of all parties to the bar of public opinion.”

In order to stop the barrage of propaganda, we need to shift America’s culture closer to what it used to be.  That’s going to require ordinary citizens like you and me to take on a more active role in documenting and reporting the news.

Documenting Modern History

Most of us know why history is important.  We study history so we can learn lessons from the past and apply them to the present.  We are indebted to our predecessors who kept a record of what happened.

Scholars spend immense amounts of time and write volumes of literature analyzing historical events.  But there are events taking place right now which dwarf the past – unprecedented changes that will affect our society for decades to come.  Isn’t it worth our time to try to study and understand what is happening?

During these times of considerable change, we can’t sit on the sidelines.  We can’t accept packaged, watered-down summaries from mainstream media.  We have to become the producers and analysts of information.

Developing the Right Skills

In order to become effective citizen journalists, we need to take the time to develop new skills and attributes.  These include:

1. Independence.  We must first decide that we will not rely on the opinions of others.

2. Self-initiative.  This means finding the motivation within ourselves to ask questions, seek answers and report on the results.

3. Research and Analysis.  It’s not enough to simply find and present data; we have to become interpreters of information.  That means we need to read books and understand where things fit in context.  We need to develop a big picture view.

4. Record Keeping.  It’s one thing to effectively observe the world around us, but we need to go a step further and get into the habit of documenting our observations.  A simple way to start is to keep a journal or blog.

5. Persuasive Writing and Speaking.   We can’t sit back and let the most vocal dominate the conversation.   We have to realize that each of us has valuable ideas and insights that need to be shared with society.   And so we need to step outside our comfort zone and find ways to influence others.   That takes work and practice.   But I’m convinced that by learning how to present arguments, we can awaken a sense of leadership.

Mobilizing the Voice of the People

One of the main purposes of Liberty Discussions is to help ordinary Americans become citizen journalists.  This community provides an opportunity for members to share their opinions and present effective arguments to their friends, neighbors, and the general public.

As more and more citizens develop and apply these skills, we will be able to mobilize and find our collective voice.   Through healthy discussion and debate, we will be able to find truth.  We will learn to effectively communicate our wishes to our representatives, and by so doing, enforce the paradigm of bottom up change.

The goal of this movement is to take political power away from those politicians and elitists who are overstepping their authority.

But where does political power come from?

A republic, by definition, “derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people.” (Federalist #39)

The people hold all the power, but they surrender a portion of that power to representatives so they can manage the government.

America’s system of federalism divides political power into smaller, manageable groups so that it doesn’t get out of hand.

According to Federalist #51, “The power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments [federal and state], and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments [legislative, executive, and judicial].  Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people.”

Elitists today would flip this around have us believe another paradigm – one in which power trickles down to the people.  Instead of dividing political power, they seek to consolidate it – and divide the people into smaller manageable groups.

They also want to create a culture of dependency.  For example, advertisements for the 2010 Census tell people to fill out their census form not for purposes of representation, but so that their community can get its fair share of federal funds.

Many Americans have woken up and recognized the danger of losing their liberties.  But the way to uphold the Constitution is not to focus on political change, but rather cultural change.  We need to create a culture in which the people exercise their proper role in the republic, shaking off the perception that they are divided and dependent slaves, and becoming instead unified, independent, self-reliant masters.