9-12 Project Guide to Voting

Image via Wikipedia

You may or may not have heard about the 9-12 groups and/or projects.  It refers to a set of 9 principles and 12 values, most of which I think many of us can agree with.  I've been thinking how easy it is to agree with one of the principles that says:  " I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday" as opposed to actually making this a principle you live by each and every day of your life.  This is only one of the nine principles.   There are eight more.  Click on the link above to see a complete list of the nine principles and the 12 values.  

I suppose I've been thinking about these values and principles because of the recent primary races in various states.  Listening to each candidate talk about the opposing candidate can lead you to believe none of them has made the 9 principles and 12 values the centerpieces of their lives.  However, I believe one needs to take a close look at what each candidate says in reference to each of the principles and values.  Then, take a close look at how their actions reflect their stated core beliefs.  You are probably not going to be happy with some of what you find, however, that does not mean that you won't find things you do like.

As I stated in a previous post, we tend to want our information in "four minutes or less" and we want to make judgments about who we will vote for with minimal effort.  We've become dependent upon "trusted sources" and do little or no fact checking ourselves.  I completely understand that it is really difficult to find the "facts" and the "truth" that we need, but I believe it is becoming clear that we must do this. 

I've also discussed "Saul Alinsky" tactics in previous posts.  One of them used with skill is the idea of "making people live up to their own standards."  This makes taking a stand and stating clearly and frequently that one agrees with the principles and values outlined by 9-12 groups dangerous.  Being flawed human beings we will all act in ways that contradict our stated beliefs.  This then gives the opening for each of us to "destroy the opponent." 

I read an article in a local paper within the last year that commented on the tactics used by one political party in order to win elections.  It involved making accusations against the opponent that were sure to elicit emotional responses from voters and steer them to voting for their candidate.  The most heinous part of the plan was that it did not matter if it was true or based in fact or not.  (The Journolist scandal comes to mind.)  By the time the air cleared their candidate would be safely in the state or nation's capital.  I do not name the party because both major parties have probably been guilty of these tactics.  I point it out to demonstrate how disastrous this can be for our country.  We are encouraged to look for and only vote for "perfect" candidates.  If that's the case why even bother, because they do not exist.

So where does this leave us?  It leads us back to the unchanging principles and values our country was built upon.  Our founders were not perfect.  We are not perfect.  However, the concept of our Constitutional Republic took that into consideration.  We select people to represent us who will make important decisions for us and our country.  If they fail to represent us in a way that supports the founding principles then we need to see that they are replaced by someone who will. This is clearly stated in principle number 9:  The government works for me.  I do not answer to them, they answer to me.  That means, for example, that if I ask my representatives why they voted a certain way that goes against what their constituents want, AND oversteps their authority, I expect an answer.  A clearly stated answer that gives me the information that I need to evaluate their actions.  The statement, "we have to pass the bill for you to find out what's in the bill" does NOT qualify.  The response that "the government can do almost anything in this country" does not qualify.  Mocking people who are asking hard questions does not qualify. "I don't worry about the Constitution" does not qualify either.  

Our Constitution created a separation of powers and outlined the powers that each branch of government were to exercise; each branch serving  the role of providing checks and balances on the other branches.  Our freedom of the press was there to ensure that there was an additional source of checks in place.  Do you believe the integrity of our Constitution is in danger?  Do you believe that we are jeopardizing that system of government that we cherish?  I do.  So, what do we do?  The first step might be what is presented on The Essential Liberty Projects website, Essential Education.  This is then followed by Essential Affirmation.  This, of course is only one source.  Another source is Constituting America.  Knowing exactly what it is that you are defending and affirming is a great place to start. 

Now, back to principles and values :-)

I joked recently that I was going to change the name of my blog to:  "Looking for a Reason to NOT be Scared!"  That's because I am searching for evidence that our founding principles are still at the core of what guides our elected representatives.  I'm finding more reasons to be scared and less reassurance than I bargained on.

So, I humbly submit a guide inspired by the 9-12 concept for you to consider:
Principles:

1.  America is good.   This means America is founded on principles that include the rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  America offers opportunities to all and strives to provide equal justice.  America is a country that provides aid to other countries and seeks to defend freedom and liberty when called upon to do so.  America is not perfect.  The people of America have, at times, made mistakes.  Our elected officials need to reflect the belief that America is good while taking into consideration past mistakes so that we do not repeat them again.  When expressing regrets over past errors they do not condemn the whole country and they strive to also emphasize the good that this country has done and will continue to do.  It is also important to know if they believe in our system of government and are willing to protect and defend it.  Taking an oath and making that statement is not enough.  Their words and actions need to reflect these beliefs.

2.  I believe in God and He is the center of my life.  This simply means that you possess a transcendent source of "right and wrong." All religions have some basic "rules" that serve to guide how we live our lives.  Even if you do not believe in any one god or don't believe in any supreme being, but you still have a firm belief in what is right and what is wrong, that qualifies.  Our elected officials do not have to be of any particular religious persuasion, but they do need to demonstrate through their actions and statements that their core beliefs serve to guide them every day.  That includes making known to the voters just what those core beliefs are.

3.  I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.  That means that you strive to eliminate all lies in your life, you deal fairly and honestly with others, and, if you make a mistake you admit it.  Our elected officials do not need to be without blemish, but they do need to demonstrate the strength of character to tell the truth even when it is difficult to do so.  And, when they are confronted with the fact that they have failed they take responsibility and strive to correct the error.  I might also add what I usually ask my children at times like that: "What have you learned from this?" and "How will you avoid this in the future?"  An answer to questions like that from a politician would be a breath of fresh air, don't you think?

4.  The family is sacred.  My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.  The strength of our families, which provides a place to instill values and core beliefs and raise children to become people who will better our world is a key to many things.  The government does not raise my child, my husband and I do that.  Our elected officials need to demonstrate that they believe that strong families benefit us all.  They need to support things that will make families stronger, not things that will weaken them and/or tear them apart.

5.  If you break the law you pay the penalty.  Justice is blind and no one is above it.  That's pretty clear.  People, individuals act as independent moral agents.  Providing the conditions or reasons for the offense may be valuable in the sense that it helps "explain" what lead up to the criminal act.  It does not provide an excuse.  Our elected officials need to demonstrate that no one is above the law, even when it is a difficult thing to do.  They also need to hold everyone to the same standards.

6.  I have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.  God given rights, not government given rights.  Having been blessed with these rights we also have personal responsibility to exercise those rights in a manner that conforms to certain values and principles.  Our elected representatives need to state clearly their understanding of this principle.  This needs to be done by opposing actions that could limit these freedoms and supporting actions that infringe on these rights as little as possible.  Overall, they should be able to discuss their actions and votes on issues in the context of the powers given to them via the U.S. Constitution.


7.  I work hard for what I have and I will share it with whom I want.  Government cannot force me to be charitable.  This comes down to the concept of private property.  Our elected officials need to clearly state that they support the concept of private property, mostly through their decisions, actions, and voting record.  The concept of "redistribution of wealth" is not compatible with our system of government.  The value of charity (more on that later) is part of being good stewards of what we are blessed with.  Demanding that we act in a charitable manner is not a value, it's a use of force.  Of interest is the incident regarding Glenn Beck's comments regarding comments made by Jim Wallis, a spiritual adviser to President Obama, in regard to the redistribution of wealth.  There is an article on Media Matters that claims that Glenn's comments are a "distortion" of what Jim Wallis actually said.  You decide.  My Opinion is best represented in an article by Dan Calabrese.  In it he states:
   The fact is that the needs of the poor can only be addressed as Christ intended    by freely acting individuals within an economic system that produces prosperity, thus giving people the means to give freely."
I say amen to that!

8.  It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.  The first amendment pretty succinctly outlines our rights in this country.  Our system functions best if debate is encouraged and facilitated.  Our system and the freedoms it ensures is sometimes "messy" and "frustrating" but it is the only kind of environment that ensures that we retain the liberty we cherish.  "Gridlock" in Washington is bemoaned as a curse, however, it serves a vital role in slowing us down so that we can be sure we have considered the consequences, intended as well as unintended, in order to do what is best for our country and our society.  This, of course, does not include situations that are truly emergencies.  I say 'truly" because the methodology often used is to define anything and everything as an emergency just to win the argument.  Our elected officials need to demonstrate their willingness to listen to all sides of an issue and resist the urge to resort to name-calling, insults, and other attacks.  I, for one, would like to hear a candidate talk about what it is about him/her that I can support in specific terms.  I don't want the candidate to tell me who is opponent is I want them to tell me who THEY are.  You really can  disagree without being disagreeable.  Our representatives also need to have the courage to take a stand for their principles and values even when it may jeopardize their political career.  They should also be willing to answer those hard questions from their constituents in a manner that is truthful and straightforward. That seems to be a tall order, but one we need to seriously consider. 

9.  The government works for me.  I do not answer to them, they answer to me.  I have shared above some examples of comments made by our representatives that demonstrate how far we've drifted from understanding that our representatives work for us, We The People.  Our representatives need to demonstrate their understanding of this principle by treating their constituents with respect and addressing them as intelligent people.  They need to also resist the urge to point fingers in the "blame game" that has been so prevalent in our political process.  This will increase their awareness of their need to take responsibility for their actions and decisions.  That does not mean that they never disagree with those with differing views.  They need to point out the flaws they perceive in opposing views without making it a personal attack. By the way:  saying that you will stop blaming someone else for present problems when "all the problems go away" does not demonstrate to me a willingness to take responsibility for one's actions.  That's just my opinion.  

Well, that takes care of the nine principles.  I will tackle the values list in a future post.  Thank you for coming on this journey with me.  As always comments and alternate sources of information are welcome as long as they are respectful and constructive. 

Related articles by Zemanta

• Ronald J. Pestritto: Glenn Beck, Progressives and Me (online.wsj.com)
• With or Without Federal Permission (lewrockwell.com)
• The GOP is abandoning the fight for family values (thehill.com)

What does restoring honor mean?

Image via Wikipedia

I started this blog because I needed a place to process and share my concerns about the direction in which our country was headed.  I was inspired by the theme for this weekend's events and the statement "Restoring Honor Starts Here."

I spent Friday evening and 4 hours on Saturday watching the events organized by Glenn Beck; America's Divine Destiny and Restoring Honor Rally.  Whatever your opinions or feelings are about Glenn Beck, please read on and share with me your thoughts.

You may have heard any number of things about this event.  That it might be a "pit of hate" or that Beck was trying to steal the message of Martin Luther King, Jr. who years ago spoke on the same site and said that he had a dream.  The fact that Alveda King was a part of this did not matter.  There are already many reports that are trying to find evidence of hate and attendees that have something negative to say.  I am not surprised.  I am not surprised that they found some examples of t-shirts that had hateful things to say.  However, what they are not showing are the number of shirts that said "Restoring Honor Starts Here" or "Faith, Hope, and Charity."

So what does restoring honor mean?  It means returning to the principles on which this country was founded.  Restoring Honor Starts Here means that it begins with the individual.  If we each try to live honorably it will make a difference.  A great source to find out what he means by faith, hope, and charity is found at his site: "Make the Pledge-40 days and 40 nights." This also includes Martin Luther King's Pledge of Non-violence.  This is what he encouraged people to commit to in the days leading up to the rally....and beyond.

If you did not see the rally you can watch it online at C-SPAN's video library.  You can also see Rev. Al Sharpton's Reclaim the Dream rally at the same site.  I watched both in their entirety.  I encourage you to do the same.  The Taylor Marsh article below may also be of interest. I do agree with her statement that "no one owns a calendar day" and "real heroes live beyond a moment." I agree.  The real heroes, those who have set examples of how to live our lives, live on in us all.  I do not agree with many of the writers other views and come back once again to what the definition of "hate speech" is.  She could not find it at the rally, although she tried.  She claims, however, that Glenn Beck's hate speech will return on Monday. 

The main piece of evidence for this claim in this particular article is the fact that Glenn Beck said he believed that Barack Obama "had a deep-seated hatred" of white people; that he was racist."  There is a Youngturks video at youtube that discusses this.  What a "soundbite" will not give you is the background and what lead up to this statement.  This is the smoking gun for many of his critics.  How can we talk about tough issues without this language?  If you see evidence through a person's behavior, their background, their past actions, and their statements that they are racist what do you do?  As to the video's commentator mocking Glenn's claim that he believes most Americans are color-blind, he makes the standard "what would you know about racism?" statement.  That most Americans strive to live honorably and treat others as they would wish to be treated is not such a far fetched statement.  To use specific instances of where people fail in order to paint a picture that all of a "group" of people are racist or hate mongers is destructive and keeps us from achieving the dream of Martin Luther King, Jr.  It is also a classic Saul Alinsky method.  Alinsky, who had no belief system by which he ordered his life, held great disdain for people who tried to live by some sort of moral code.  His weapon against them was to "make them live up to their own standards."  This was not a constructive and healthy challenge to help people live better lives, it was a tool to discredit and invalidate everything the opposition stands for.  It is pretty effective because we are all flawed human beings.  It is not difficult to find instances where we fail to live honorably.  Adding to this the fact that Saul Alinsky had not such constraints (the end justifies the means) and you've got a recipe for much pain and suffering.  Just because you can prove someone is not perfect does not invalidate every good thing you know about them. 

The other notable thing that Taylor Marsh does is to dismiss Alveda King's participation in the event by referring to her as an "anti-abortion activist."  Alveda King expresses that abortion harms blacks.  This then is used to marginalize her support for the rally.  I encourage you to research MLK's stance on abortion as well as the road Alveda King took in order to take a stand against abortion.  I would also encourage you to find out more about Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.  Planned Parenthood's statements as well as other views.  The Eugenics movement of the early 20th century is worthy of your exploration.

One of the most ironic statements at the Planned Parenthood site includes:
"...attempts to discredit the family planning movement because it's early 20th century founder was not a perfect model of early 21st century values is like disavowing the Declaration of Independence because it's author, Thomas Jefferson, bought and sold slaves."

Individuals who subscribe to the world view that is prominent in the pro-choice arena have on many occasions indeed disavowed our Founding Principles because the people who wrote the documents were not perfect. 

Is America perfect?

In answer to that question I share a concept that may be useful.  Some time ago, at my son's suggestion, I read a series of books by Orson Scott Card.  One of them, in particular, has had an impact on my life.  It is titled Speaker for the Dead.  The books and stories were enjoyable to read, but the concept of a Speaker for the Dead is the thing that has stayed with me. This concept arose from the author's frustration about how people were portrayed at their funerals.  Knowing someone's life story is important because we can learn where they succeeded, but we also need to hear about where they failed.  I encourage you to read the entire explanation but I share a portion here:

"...to understand who a person really was, what his/her life really meant, the speaker for the dead would have to explain their self-story--what they meant to do, what they actually did, what they regretted, what they rejoiced in.  That is the story we never can know and yet it is the only story worth telling." (Intro xi-x)


Glenn Beck ended his keynote address yesterday by re-stating that for us to move forward we need to learn our American story, successes as well as failures; find America's whole story.  We need to first restore honor on and individual level if we ever hope to achieve the dreams of our founders as well as the dream Martin Luther King, Jr. 

I see nothing hateful about that.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Taylor Marsh: Glenn Beck's King for A Day Rally (huffingtonpost.com)

If you smell smoke, you check to see if there's a fire

I had commented the other day on a friend's post on FB that the event she shared was a symptom of the bigger plan.  The issue in question was a woman singing the "Black National Anthem" instead of our adopted, traditional national anthem.  My response was that the plan to "divide and control" was demonstrated in events such as these.  Another friend sent me the link again, and said that she felt it was out of line for the woman to substitute the black national anthem but that it was not part of a larger agenda.

You have to know that I respectfully disagreed.  If you find yourself dismissing the possibility of the larger agenda I believe you may not have the full picture of what is going on in our country.  If you look at all the pieces; all the evidence I believe it would give you a better foundation on which to make your judgments.  "Identity politics" divides us.  Approaching the world from the viewpoint of the "oppressed" vs the "oppressors" does nothing more than create a victim mentality in order to identify the bad guys (the "oppressors".)  In Germany it was the Jews.  In Black Liberation Theology its the "whites."  In La Raza, it's "those frail white people."  In white supremacist groups it's anyone with dark skin.

I was reminded in this exchange of something called "normalcy bias."  It's a cognitive condition that can dull sensitivity to risks and dangers.  There is a facet of this condition that I think is termed "conformity bias" that creates situations where our judgment and behavior rely heavily on the behavior of those around us.  I thought of my fear of flying.  Whenever there is turbulence or any sound that is strange I look to others, especially the flight attendants to determine whether or not I should start thinking about reminding myself where the emergency exits are and/or if I should start flapping my arms.  You cannot live in a constant state of "fight or flight" but at some point you do need to recognize danger signs and take appropriate action.

If you smell smoke at home, in the movie theater, at your job, you or someone would probably check to see if there is fire.  Fire is dangerous.  You would take action to protect yourself, your co-workers, your family would you not?  If you become aware of actions and events in our country that don't seem quite right what do you do?  If the majority of people around you say, "don't worry, be happy" and/or "don't listen to those nutcases, fear mongers, hate mongers, and, the most popular today, racists" you would probably dismiss the information and not seek further for the facts that are a vital part of decision-making.

If you educate yourself on the Progressive world view and how and WHY our Founding Fathers designed our Constitutional Republic I believe you would find that the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" are in grave danger.

I did not want to believe this.  I kept telling myself, "if our government officials step out of line, our system is built to withstand this attack and the American people will bring it back to where it should be."  I found out that this is no longer the case.  It wasn't any one thing, but a collection of facts that lead me to this blog.
As a behavior analyst I know that if you are genuinely confused by a person's behavior there is a very good chance that you are being manipulated.  So I started educating myself.  At this point, to tell you the truth, I'd like to jump back into the "don't worry, our Constitution will protect us" world I was living in.

The checks and balances are vanishing.  And, the one I am most concerned about is that the freedom of speech, press and religion are disappearing and many people are not even aware of it.  We are told that Fox News is not a real news outlet.  We are told that Glenn Beck is (fill in the blank) so we don't even watch, because we don't want to listen to all that hate.  We enter the conformity bias state and form our opinions and base our actions without all the facts.

One of my relatives never watched Fox News.  She has never heard of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Van Jones,  or Andy Stern.  She has no information about these people and their connection to our president, except maybe to hear on MSNBC that there's nothing there to be concerned about.  The Weather Underground members who wanted to "kill Capitalism and install world Socialism" are old news.  These people are now respected teachers, law professors or employed by Foundations with really nice sounding names.  However, it seems that they have done nothing more than decide to work within the system to achieve the same ends. 

I do read the other side of the story.  I take the time to read the Huffington Post, and other sites to try to find out facts I might not get with Fox News.  Below is an example of the types of sites I visit to do a reality check.  I remember listening to Glenn Beck's radio program one day and heard him mocking the Obama children.  He has always clearly stood for leaving the children out of the discussion.  He subsequently apologized.  However, this article also addresses his "paranoid" notion that there are a number of individuals close to the Obama administration who are actively trying to encourage boycotts of advertisers in order to silence him.  The article below, as happens many of these situations says it's all unsubstantiated and he's just (fill in the blank.)  However, when he makes a statement like this, especially on his TV show, he also shows the websites and quotes from interviews and speeches that support his statements.  I rarely, if ever, find that the mainstream and Soros-funded news sources address these facts head on.  They tell their listeners and readers that things are absurd and motivated by hate without ever giving them all the information.  In other words, "don't worry, be happy, don't listen to him cuz he's (fill in the blank.)  The other link below is an article about Van Jones.  I've found other articles stating that Glenn's claim that Van Jones is a radical communist is taken out of context and proves nothing.  What is important is to look at the whole picture of an individuals character.  Have they done or said or supported things in the past that you should be concerned about?  Was there a pivot point in their lives when they disavowed past actions and state clearly what they believe now?

You decide for yourself.  But first you need to learn the language.  You need to understand what a Progressive means when he says "fundamental transformation."  You need to understand what he means by "social justice."  You need to understand what he means by "change the whole system." You need to examine closely where the progressive's plan is leading.  You also have to understand that some of what you hear and read are in some cases misleading and in some cases false.  I am finding that these cases used to be less prevalent than they are now.  You need the whole picture.  I know that takes time, but believe me our life, liberty and our pursuit of happiness depends on us all doing our part.

Who doesn't think hope and change are good things?  I implore you to look closely at what their world view means to our freedom from tyranny.  Don't let anything stop you from pursuing the truth. 

Related articles by Zemanta

• Glenn Beck Mocks Obama Daughter; Issues Apology (alternet.org)
• Van Jones Rails Against 'That Little Idiot Box': Fox News (huffingtonpost.com)