Election Day!

4 Days Remain

This Tuesday each one of us has a chance to honor those who sacrificed for our freedom to VOTE. Will you choose to throw that away or take a moment and make informed choices?

In the end don't forget to pray for all those involved. As an Election Judge it is important for us to pray for Candidates, their families and every person involved in the process during an election. I hope you take the time to do this before and after you vote next Tuesday.

I recommend the non-partisan Christian Citizenship Ministry for election information!

5 Reasons the Fahrenheit 9/11 Trailer Is Relevant Today

"You can make people do anything if they're afraid."

Hmmmmm, that's very interesting. Ok, Let's see how many more similarities I can find.... or would it be hypocrisy since this video is targeting the "evil" Republicans and Conservatives, not sure. Oh, how things "change" don't they?!

Here's some that stand out to me:

1) Playing on fear (currently: healthcare, swine flu, etc. etc.)

2) Congress not reading the bills (or should I say, STILL not reading them)

3) Government being non-transparent (or should I say, secret)

4) The "elite" as our leadership... gee sound kind of like having tax payers pay for things like weekly cocktail parties at the White House, etc.

5) And then there is the golfing....apparently it was an issue since it was even in the trailer but why bring that up right?! (esp. since our Obama has now out paced our last President by doing more rounds in 9 months than Bush did in almost 3 yrs...)

I'm sure I'm wrong and you guys will explain that in detail to me but wow it sure seems oddly similar...

The River is Rising

It can be easy to feel like we can’t make a difference, like the problems of this country let alone this world are just too big or that there are too many to tackle. That is completely understandable, especially when we try to do it alone. The key is realizing we are far from alone. In fact when you start looking around these days you will be surprised to find people from all walks of life all over the United States are finally standing up and speaking out. But the river is rising in America...

People trying to secure the basic values we used to share and not try to tear down. People trying to protect a Constitution and one that is not a “living” document but a constant and secure one. That way we can count on its protections and for all Americans.

There is a momentum building in America to refortify the basic but sacred foundations of our country. The question is; are you going to join those that have started to stand and speak out or remain seated and silent?

People can make any excuse they want but the bottom line is there is something everyone can do. Just find something you care about. An issue, a hobby, whatever and if you want you can find a way to take that and make a difference in our world. Today you don’t have to rely on the newspaper or media, etc. You don’t have to be a big shot or know “somebody” to get your voice heard.

Get online with sites you can relate with and leave comments, get a blog going, join something like facebook, and start going to rallies. You will meet people who are like-minded and can relate to! These are just a few ideas but start getting involved somehow. Then the rest gets easier as you meet people and make connections!! It’s then that you realize that you are really not alone in this! And then the momentum continues to build. The river keeps rising...

I don’t know about you but I am awake now. I am not going to allow my country to be destroyed by anyone or any political party or person when the generations before us worked so hard, sacrificed so much and died to give us the freest nation in history. I owe it to my children to fight back. Now does that mean violently? At this point, absolutely not!

We must use all the non violent means possible to stop what has been happening to our country. Saying nothing is just not acceptable anymore. Going on with our lives like nothing is happening is not acceptable. Acting like everything will just be ok is not acceptable. The torch is passed and it is up to us.

How can we in good conscience go to a family get-together, a tee ball game, a restaurant, etc. and just ignore the fact of the reality that our culture, our very Republic and freedoms are under attack. We can put our heads in the sand and pretend it isn’t happening as we have for some time now. And while we did that our freedoms were eroding away and being worn down little by little so that we would not notice. Pretty soon we won’t be able to ignore it anymore. Of course the problem then is it will be too late to do anything about it.

However, for now I can still speak out and that means you can too. So it isn’t too late. And right now that momentum I was talking about is picking up great speed. Will you join in or keep pretending there isn't a problem?

I hope we will all wake up and stand together to fight against what is probably one of the greatest internal threats this country has ever faced in order to protect our Republic. It is our turn to fight for freedom not only for our current generations but all the future generations of this great country. Can you feel it yet, I can, the river is rising!

The River Is Rising

Written By: Michael W. Smith (click on title to see video)

I feel it, I feel it, I feel it in my bones
And I just don't think I can hold it anymore
The river is rising, flowing out of me
And I'm coming alive, I'm coming alive

I'm gonna dance and sing and move my feet
'Cause the river is rising, flowing out of me
Got to let the world know, take it to the streets
Got to dance and sing and add a shout of praise

Hallelujah, the river is rising
Hallelujah, the river is rising

I feel it, I feel it, I feel it in my bones
And I just don't think I can hold it anymore
The river is rising, flowing out of me
And I'm coming alive, I'm coming alive

I'm gonna dance and sing and move my feet
'Cause the river is rising, flowing out of me
Got to let the world know, take it to the streets
I got to dance and sing and add a shout of praise

Hallelujah, the river is rising
Hallelujah, gonna dance and sing and add a shout of praise
Hallelujah, the river is rising
Hallelujah

Oh, oh, oh, oh, the river is rising
The river is rising, oh, oh

I feel it, I feel it, I feel it in my bones
And I just don't think I can hold it anymore
The river is rising, flowing out of me
And I'm coming alive, I'm coming alive

I'm gonna dance, sing and move my feet
The river is rising, flowing out of me
Got to let the world know, take it to the streets
Got to dance and sing and add a shout of praise

Hallelujah, the river is rising
Hallelujah, got to dance and sing and add a shout of praise
Hallelujah, the river is rising
Hallelujah, got to dance and sing and add a shout of praise
Hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah

*

School's In but Truth is Out

You might be asking yourself what is this? Well, let's go straight to the "source" and let them tell you. Here is the explanation from their website:

What is the Story of Stuff?

From its extraction through sale, use and disposal, all the stuff in our lives affects communities at home and abroad, yet most of this is hidden from view. The Story of Stuff is a 20-minute, fast-paced, fact-filled look at the underside of our production and consumption patterns. The Story of Stuff exposes the connections between a huge number of environmental and social issues, and calls us together to create a more sustainable and just world. It'll teach you something, it'll make you laugh, and it just may change the way you look at all the stuff in your life forever.

And here is their video:
(Although if you want to watch the four part series posted further below you will see the full video with the rebuttal. This is just an option for those who wish who don't have a lot of time or don't wish to see the full video twice.)

WHY IS THIS A BIG DEAL?

7,000 schools and churches and organizations are now playing this across the country.

Maybe you have heard about this. What if you haven't? Do your family members know about it? What about your neighbors and friends?


What if this was a so called "right wing" slanted video?


Does any of it belong in our schools?

PLEASE WATCH ALL FOUR PARTS.
It is worth the investment you put into it. Educate YOURSELF on what LIES our children are being taught.

BOTTOM LINE:

If there are this many incorrect "facts" that can be proven or even fairly questioned, what on Earth is it doing in SCHOOLS???

And what are YOU going to do about it.

The "Mainstream" Myth You Need to Know About

------------------------------

I will provide for you information on cases regarding three murder investigations handled VERY differently by our media, our President, our government, etc.

You decide if you think the "news" in this country is dead. You decide if you think the news AT ANY LEVEL is fair or giving us, the American people a fair shake using a "just the facts" kind of approach.

Let's begin with this intro to get us started...

A Tale of Two Murders

Two heinous crimes. Two different reactions from the government and media to the murders of George Tiller and William Long.

June 11, 2009 - by La Shawn Barber

"Which received more front-page headlines, statements of outrage, condemnation, sympathy, and resulted in apologetic genuflecting: the murder of a 67-year-old man who made his living as a late-term abortionist or the murder and wounding of two young military recruiters on duty?

What do mainstream media and liberal bloggers find more newsworthy: a white, anti-government, schizophrenic “Christian” who murdered the notorious Dr. George Tiller or a black, America-hating, anti-military Muslim who murdered William Long, a young soldier?"

A Tale of Two Murders (cont.)

BUT IT DOESN'T END THERE...

CBS Skips Killing of Pro-Life Activist; ABC Sees ‘Flip Side’ to Killing of Abortionist Tiller

Pro-Life Advocate Murdered Outside Michigan School While Protesting Abortion

Tiller v. Pouillon Murders


There are so many more articles showing the enormous bias in coverage it would shock most of you. It just depends on the issue or the people you want to research.

And this post is only the tip of the iceberg.

*

WARNING: This Post is Sexually Graphic. But as an adult, YOU MUST MAKE YOURSELF AWARE.

When will these companies finally do enough to make us STAND UP?

APATHY OR ACTION?

Abercrombie & Fitch (A&F) continues its pattern of pushing pornographic-themed material into mainstream America. Abercrombie & Fitch (A&F) has just begun offering their "New College" line of T-shirts.

The first A&F t-shirt pictures a young girl opening her blouse - exposing herself. A&F titles the image: "Show the Twins".

The second picture is of a female running nude. A&F titles it: "Female streaking encouraged."

The next Abercrombie & Fitch T-shirt is entitled: "Female Students Wanted for Sexual Research"

(I ADDED THE LOWER TWO PICTURES: "Tie me up, don't tie me down" and "Math Tutor plus Bed minus Clothes divide Your Legs equals Anatomy Lesson")


Abercrombie & Fitch does not merely sell a popular line of clothing – they sell a lifestyle. And because A&F clothing is popular among teens and college kids, the influence of their sex-as-recreation lifestyle is widespread.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention reports that Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year— almost half of them among young people 15 to 24 years of age.

TAKE ACTION
Send an email to Abercrombie and Fitch. Ask them to pull their sexualized shirts.

After sending your email, call A&F at 614-283-6500 (press "0" to speak directly to a real person).

American Family Association | P O Drawer 2440 | Tupelo, MS 38803 | 1-662-844-5036

Before you go... Did I mention, these garments ARE NOT on Abercrombie's website. Gee, I just can't imagine why.

I have just three questions...

WILL YOU....
1) Remain silent on this?
2) Spend a penny at Abercrombie & Fitch?
3) Spend a penny at Hollister (their affiliate)?

AMERICA WAKE UP! A simple argument of government out of control presented as if life was a musical....

Information You Are NOT Being Told

Dear Minnesota,

You can call a comedian a Senator...

but the joke's on us.

And just in case you forgot the kind of "man" we are getting...

Articles by Katherine Kersten

Mpls Star Tribune

Vulgar mockery of Christians: Is this what we want in a U.S. senator?

Wednesday, October 22nd, 2008

I get it — Al Franken is a serious senatorial candidate despite his penchant for the pornographic. Franken’s one-liners about rape and oral sex and his leering fantasies about big-busted women were just for yucks, right?

Last June, DFL bigwigs chose to forget about their man’s decades-long record of sexual crudity after he hooked the endorsement by putting on a serious face and saying “sorry” at the party’s convention.

But Franken didn’t apologize for another aspect of his trash-talking shtick. He’s aimed some of his most offensive material at religious believers, particularly Christians.

Why hasn’t this been aired in public? We in the press are too busy searching through Sarah Palin’s junior high yearbooks and tracking down the filing dates of Joe the Plumber’s tax returns.

Meanwhile, Franken gets a pass for making a joke of the life and death of Jesus Christ.

Franken finds Christ’s crucifixion to be a barrel of laughs. For example, in his 1999 book, “Why Not Me?” he wrote about his discovery — as a fictional former president — of “the complete skeleton of Jesus Christ still nailed to the cross” during an archeological dig. At the Franken Presidential Library gift shop, visitors can buy “small pieces of Jesus’ skeleton.”

“We would like to display Jesus’ skeleton at some future point,” Franken went on. “It’s merely a matter of designing and building an exhibition space … . Until then he’s very comfortable in a box down in our basement near the geothermal power station.”

Very funny. Anybody want to try a joke like that about Mohammed?

Franken also wrote a Saturday Night Live monologue for Jesus Christ that appeared in a magazine. After poking fun at Christians’ belief that Jesus was both God and man, he had Christ speculate on having the hots for Mary Magdalene:

“If Mary Magdalene looked like Barbara Hershey, I might have thought twice about this celibacy thing. I mean, the real Mary Magdalene was about four foot two, 135 pounds. And with bad teeth yet.”

In Franken’s world, God has a mouth as foul as Franken’s. In one book, he has God refer to books about liberal media bias as “total bullshit.” Later, he describes God as having his head “up his ass.”

But Franken saves his sharpest barbs for those weirdos, Catholics.

In 2006, he and a guest on his Air America radio show joked about Eucharistic communion wafers — sacred to Catholics as the body of Christ — and compared them to chips and guacamole. In “Dog Confessional,” a proposed sketch for Saturday Night Live, Franken depicted “a series of dogs, played by cast members, confessing to a priest,” according to the Washington Post. NBC refused to air it.

In another book, Franken described greeting a New York audience with the words, “Isn’t Cardinal O’Connor an asshole?”

Franken’s campaign did not return a phone call seeking comment.

If a 12-year-old kid spouted this stuff in a schoolyard, he’d be hauled to the principal’s office and told to grow up. But in today’s surreal political climate, a guy who lobs insults like these has a shot at one the highest political offices in the land.

We’re used to slanderers of Christianity getting government arts grants. But Franken wants more. He’s asking us to send him to what’s been called “the most exclusive club in the world” — and to serve us there until 2014.

Our nation’s founders wanted the Senate — as Congress’ upper house — to balance with a sober, long-term perspective the much more numerous House of Representatives, whose members serve only two-year terms and are supposed to reflect the people’s shifting sentiments. Senators serve six-year terms, and were intended to be the nation’s wisest councilors — equipped to discern and protect the country’s broad, enduring interests.

“The use of the Senate,” explained James Madison in 1787, “is to consist in proceeding with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom, than the popular branch.”

For this reason, the Constitution entrusts the Senate with unique powers — its members conduct impeachment trials, make treaties, and give the president advice and consent on important appointments, including Cabinet secretaries, ambassadors and federal judicial nominees with lifetime tenure.

A Minnesota senator represents the whole state, not a smaller, relatively homogeneous congressional district, as House members do.

If Franken is elected, can he represent all the people of Minnesota — including Christians — for whom he has repeatedly shown disdain?

Posted in Main, Politics, Al Franken | 324 Comments »

Franken’s Porn-O-Rama is no satire

Wednesday, June 4th, 2008

In the last few months, I’ve gotten a flood of emails from readers suggesting stories about Al Franken and his follies. This vein could be a rich one to mine, given Franken’s years of motor-mouthing on Saturday Night Live and Air America Radio, and his collisions with taxing authorities across the country.But I’ve let the Franken stories blow by, overwhelmed by their number. However, things changed last week when Franken’s 2000 Playboy article — “Porn-O-Rama” — got stuck in my e-mail filter.

I know what you’re thinking: Kersten’s got one of those prudish, Jerry Falwell-style family filters designed to snare anything that would raise a slight pink on your grandmother’s cheeks. Not so. Mine seems to screen primarily ads for male enhancement products and overly creative animal films.

Why then did my e-mail filter crash closed on Porn-O-Rama?

In his Playboy romp, Franken fantasized about oral sex delivered by a machine, as well as sex with combinations of females who fit the Playboy view of women as big-breasted automatons, panting at the prospect of servicing the likes of Franken. That’s why they call it fantasy, I guess.

I wonder how many DFL officials will be able to pull Porn-O-Rama through their Internet filters and read it before the party endorses its candidate for U.S. Senate this weekend. I wonder, too, whether folks like Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Attorney General Lori Swanson, whose campaigns took money in 2006 from Franken’s so-called Midwest Values PAC (yes, you read that right) will feel compelled to return those bucks on truth-in-advertising grounds.

Last week, spokesman Andy Barr articulated the Franken campaign’s official defense as follows: “Al understands, and the people of Minnesota understand, the difference between what a satirist does and what a senator does.” Key Democrats like Reps. Betty McCollum, Tim Walz and Keith Ellison already have rejected Camp Franken’s attempt to explain away Al’s excellent adventures in Playboyland. Will others follow?We’ve often heard Franken described as a “satirist.” The label makes him sound respectable, even sophisticated. We associate satire with some of literature’s greatest names. If applicable, the term explains and excuses Franken’s work, placing it squarely in the literary mainstream.

Does Franken qualify as a satirist?

To find out, I pored over dictionaries and literary compendia. Webster’s online dictionary was typical. It defined satire as “trenchant wit, irony or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly.”

In other words, satire is serious business. A satirist mocks a problematic situation in order to bring it to public attention, correct or reform it. He blends comedy and censure in the service of mankind’s improvement.

Take Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal,” perhaps the most famous satire in the English language. In this work, Swift, an eighteenth century Irishman, suggested that poverty-stricken Irish families could survive by selling their numerous children to wealthy landlords to eat. Swift’s grim humor is a vehicle for what he called his “savage indignation” at England’s grievous injustice regarding the Irish.

The Greek dramatist Aristophanes used a lighter touch in his classic satire, “Lysistrata.” In this ribald play, the women of Sparta and Athens withhold sex from their husbands for a larger purpose: to bring an end to the Peloponnesian War.

Porn-O-Rama is no satire. Franken doesn’t condemn Hugh Hefner’s pornographic world — he embraces it. The piece is a celebration of the Playboy philosophy, laced with effusions about the glories of Internet porn.

Today, parents and teachers are struggling to prevent such smut from overwhelming our culture. Ellison reacted to Franken’s lewd Porn-O-Rama joke about his sixth-grade son’s supposed report on bestiality by saying, “I have to ask myself, can I explain it to my 11-year-old daughter? I’d have considerable difficulty.”

How about Barr’s second point — that Minnesotans will “understand” that Franken’s conduct as a “satirist” is irrelevant to his potential conduct as a senator?While a man’s sense of humor is only one part of his personality, it tells us something essential about him — it bears the DNA of his character, you might say. That’s why you would be surprised to learn, for example, that a friend you believed to be a devoted father and husband — respectful of his wife and a model for his children — was guffawing publicly about his fantasies of sex with other women.

We understand instinctively that the lives of real human beings cannot be separated into compartments.

Posted in Main, Al Franken | 170 Comments »

Al Franken and the Accountant from Hell

Wednesday, April 30th, 2008

I want to know more about this half-wit accountant, Allen Chanzis, who keeps getting blamed for Al Franken’s failures to pay every tax known to man. After all, Franken’s no two-bit bar comedian who can claim he’s never made a dime to offset his bar tab.

Even before his current attempt to get to Washington to enact tax laws that apply to the rest of us, Franken was in the Cadillac club of high-end comedians. One would assume he has a stable of accountants and lawyers housed in his servants’ quarters.

At least Keith Ellison could claim that his serial campaign finance violations involved obscure laws that bite you only when in elective office. But Franken’s failure to pay income taxes in 17 states, failure to pay workers compensation premiums, failure to pay disability premiums and failure to file corporate tax returns pretty much takes the wind out of the “gosh, I forgot” argument.

At least, that’s what I first thought. But then our chief law enforcer—Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman – announced that he has no problem with this kind of serial law-breaking. In a Saturday interview, Freeman morphed into a big softy:

‘It appears to me that this is some carelessness in his personal business,’ Freeman said of Franken. ‘Nothing criminal, nothing malicious, nothing nasty. I’m guessing most people have something [similar] in their life, where they forgot to pay their property taxes or workers’ comp.’

Fair enough, but I want the same consideration for Think Again miscreants when they skirt the edge of what is legal. When Downtown Dan “forgets” to put money in the parking meter, JonR “forgets” his driver’s license at home, Tiny Litess “forgets” the speed limit is 30 mph in town, and Average Guy “forgets” that he’s supposed to pay for the overpriced gas at the pump, I demand equal treatment from County Attorney Freeman.

And after Freeman clears these four upstanding gentlemen because they exhibited “carelessness in … personal business,” I expect that each will have a shot at a run for the Senate so that they can create laws for the rest of us shmucks. Yes, I know; they may also need qualifications for such high aspirations, such as a career as a high-end comedian.

Does Franken still have a pulse in his political life? I’ve stopped trying to guess. Stand-up comics enabled by half-wit accountants weave wonders in this world.

Fascist States of America? Yes. But It's Not Too Late.

I could hardly believe what I was hearing last night while listening to the radio. Poof that sure enough we have entered an extremely dangerous time in our nation's life. Real evidence of fascism.

So I'm thinking to myself, what will our nation look like soon? What will "we the people" keep allowing to happen? But I'm not hearing much noise being made or even much news about this. Maybe it's just the way the family business, the American dream, story of theirs that made this a real jolt for me.

AMERICA MUST WAKE UP! Quit caring about political party labels! We have run out of time to be playing games with party politics. Before it is too late we need to come together and realize what is truly happening and what has been happening for quite a while to our country. It has been slow and gradual but has proved to be an effective process.

Don't think this is a big deal? Or that it affects you? It does. And if you are not absolutely outraged by the end of this article then you do not believe in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights. I honestly can not see a way those documents and freedoms they proclaim don’t vastly conflict with the road we are heading down. And heading down faster each and every day.

First let me give you excerpts from an interview two days ago with Fox News Host Gretchen Carlson of Fox and Friends and Glenn Beck. She is upset because her parent's car dealership was one of those that is going to be closed.

Carlson stated, "I'd like to get a hold of the car czar too. Never did I think personally that I would need to get a hold of him, but now I do because my parents have owned a General Motors dealership in Anoka, Minnesota, for 90 years and they were terminated last week and they would like to know why. They would like to know why from the car czar."

"It said you would no longer be part of the new General Motors. Apparently there was criteria, but let me tell you this Glenn - they haven't lost money. They are a profitable operation. Their objective, they met at 103 percent. You can't go higher than that and yet they are being terminated. There are 80 employees who will not have jobs anymore. My parents lay awake at night worrying about those employees."

"Many, they all had a meeting yesterday in the state of Minnesota, but here is the ironic thing - there was a dealership that was closed in the first round in the metro area of Minneapolis. That person was able to get a meeting with GM executives last week for an hour and a half. And lo and behold Monday night, that dealership is back in business. Now you tell me this isn't about who you know and who you can speak to."

What she is referring to is the intervention by Minnesota Senator Amy Klobachar (D) in the closing of a dealership owned by Paul Walser outside of Minneapolis. After Sen. Klobachar's involvement GM reversed their decision and allowed the dealership to remain open.

Carlson went on to say, "There was government intervention with a political person who was able to set up that meeting. But I thought this was supposed to be that you were closing dealerships because they weren't performing."

In addition she explains that GM threatened not to honor warranties on the remaining vehicles in the closing dealership lots if they did not agree to GM’s terms.

"It gets worse because by Friday (June 12) terminated dealers by GM have to sign what's called a wind-down agreement. And if they don't sign it, they have a gun to their head - they will not get any warranties on any of the vehicles that are currently sitting in their lots, which the judge [FNC contributor Andrew Napolitano] tells me is illegal."

Judge Napolitano confirmed that federal law required GM to fulfill the obligations under the warranty and such agreements can not alter those terms. However, Carlson stated there is a “gag order” being forced on the dealers that forbids public discussion about this.

Carlson stated, "There's also a gag order in the agreement - a gag order that says you can not speak to anybody other than your employees unless you get GM's consent."

Now, it might seem redundant but I think it's important. Last night I heard the interview Glenn Beck had with Gretchen Carlson and both her parents, who own the dealership she was talking about in the above excerpts. I can't do this interview justice except to share it in its entirety and allow them to speak directly to you.

I ask that you read it carefully and listen to their story. Listen to the story of two regular Americans whom you probably hadn’t even heard of before today. Owners of a private business that has been in their family for 90 years and in a blink of an eye watched the government just takes it away, with no questions asked.

GLENN: From Radio City in Midtown Manhattan, third most listened to show in all of America. Hello, you sick twisted freak. Welcome to the program. Glad you're here. Yesterday on the TV program well, let me start earlier than that. Gretchen Carlson who is on Fox and Friends, she's the one in the middle. She's the girl. And I went in yesterday and she was she had a bee in her bonnet and it was all about I'm sorry for the bee in the bonnet thing. Stu just looked at me. I'm sorry, I think I did get that from the Ingalls family growing up. I'm sorry. So she was all up in arms because of the bailouts and what's going on with the auto industry. Well, as I continued to talk to her, I realized that her family owns a car dealership and has for 90 years, and it's a successful, profitable one. Made 103% of their goal last year. And now all of a sudden they made the first round of cuts. Now all of a sudden they're out of business. Meanwhile Gretchen finds out that somebody who didn't make the first round of cuts meets with a congressman or senator. We'll get the story from her. And all of a sudden they're back open for business. What is going on in our country? Gretchen Carlson is with us now. Is this your mom and dad, Gretchen, on the phone?

CALLER: I hope they're with me. They are in Minnesota. I'm here in my office in New York. And by the way, I don't mind the bee in the bonnet because Little House on the Prairie was from Minnesota.

GLENN: See what I mean? See what I mean? Hi, Karen and Lee, how are you?

CALLER: Pretty good, pretty good, thank you.

CALLER: We're both here.

GLENN: Good. Wow, Lee, you are I mean, Karen, you sound like my mom there. My parents were from or my grandparents and my mother was from Minnesota, and you just, that was a flashback there for a second.

CALLER: Well, but she's probably just as proud of you as we are of our daughters.

GLENN: No, uh uh, no, I don't think so. Anyway, so tell me the story here, Lee. Your father

CALLER: Yes, sir.

GLENN: Or was it your father started the business?

CALLER: He started the business back in 1919 on Memorial Day and it was a Dodge dealership and they immediately turned it into a Chevrolet dealership and then over the years they acquired other lines like Buick, Olds, Cadillac. And we had those for many, many years and then we became what they call a metro dealer and we built a new store, and the rules at that time were you could only really have one line to be a metro store and so we went to bat and we were able to keep Cadillac and we gave up Buick and Olds. And so we've been sitting here now for 31 years in a new building and operating selling Chevrolets and Cadillacs.

GLENN: Okay. Now, Gretchen tells me that you guys made the first round of cuts.

CALLER: That's right.

GLENN: And then you didn't make the second round.

CALLER: No. We got the registered letter and the FedEx and the first sentence says we are not renewing your Chevrolet or your Cadillac franchise. And then went on to explain.

GLENN: You've been in business for 90 years?

CALLER: Yep.

GLENN: 103% of goal last year?

CALLER: Yep.

CALLER: And we haven't had a losing month since the Eighties when there was 21% interest rate, you know, on anyone that bought a car. And even through all this, and the interesting thing is that we know for sure that some dealers who were kept are losing money. And the other kind of upsetting thing is the one that was given the dealership back, it seems somewhat political because it's very hard to determine. I don't think any of the big conglomerates, i.e., the dealers who owned six, seven, eight, nine, ten franchises in around the Minneapolis area, this particular person that was cut and was reinstated is one of those. Otherwise it's hard to tell if any of them have lost a dealership. But they have a gag order on you. You are not supposed to tell. And Mr. Henderson said, well, he is not going to tell because he doesn't want to ruin your business. Well, when you get a letter, FedEx on a day that they determine you are going to get the letter, it's only fair to your employees to let them know what it says. We can't go around pretending. Because you can't appeal if you done tell, either. So that's what happened to us.

GLENN: Okay. Did they have any criteria in did they have any reason why they cut you guys?

CALLER: Well, they claim that they have some criteria like profitability, sales, your capital standard, if you have enough capital in the business, your customer satisfaction. But they won't say which one they are using or if it was a conglomeration of them or if it was something else or if it was your location. I think that was, too.

GLENN: How are you doing on all of those?

CALLER: Well, we're wonderful. We're way over our percentage of where we should be capitalized. We've been profitable. And our CSI, in fact in our sales CSI, I think we're the top dealer in the city of Minneapolis if not second or third and our service is in line with everybody else. And it could be location. They are looking at where these dealerships are placed and what kind of a number of people that we're representing. And I suppose that might have had something to do with it.

CALLER: Yeah, but we're on the freeway with 13 acres.

GLENN: Wait, wait, wait. What do you mean what kind of people you represent?

CALLER: Numbers of people, I suppose, in our area of influence.

CALLER: Glenn, my dad's being too nice.

GLENN: Yeah, tell me, Gretchen.

CALLER: Well, this is why my dad's been so successful in business. Because everybody loves him. And this is why this will be a humongous blow to this community because everyone knows that (inaudible) run this dealership to the Nth degree and they will give you the best service possible. My dad's being too kind because they don't know why they were cut, Glenn.

CALLER: No, we don't.

CALLER: What they are telling you is that they are profitable and I interviewed two more dealers on Fox and Friends this morning who are also profitable and they don't know why they were cut. So when is America going to wake up and say that they want answers about why free enterprise is under assault in America. That's what I want to know.

CALLER: Well, and here's the thing. About three weeks ago or two weeks ago before they said they were going to cut all these dealers you had, you know, 13 acres, you had your building, we have a body shop, we're profitable, we employ about 85 people, sometimes up to 100 full time, healthcare, everything. And you had a certain worth to your dealership which obviously was a fair amount. All of a sudden and last Tuesday we had nothing, nothing but a white elephant building and hard to employ employees were going to try.

GLENN: I have to tell you that I never even considered the fact that you have, for 90 years, legacy now gone. That's it. My husband's been a dealer for years and he has credentials including the Time dealer of the year, Time magazine dealer of the year in Minnesota, and he was the runner up in the national contest. And he's been the president of every bank board and hospital board and church board. And, you know, I wish they would just come and visit us working at our dealership and the people we service. And they love coming. And we have a huge area of influence. I'm wondering if what they are going to do is they are going to take it away from us and give it to someone else and all our dealer franchise was now are negated. We have no rights.

CALLER: No.

CALLER: Nothing. They have taken everything away.

GLENN: So you have over $4 million worth of inventory.

CALLER: Right.

GLENN: If you didn't sign the gag order, which means that you're talking now, if you don't sign the gag order, you won't they are saying to you that you can't sell the cars. They're yours, right? You bought them from them.

CALLER: Uh huh.

GLENN: And you won't get any warranties on these cars.

CALLER: What will happen, as I understand it, it's very confusing. I'd have to ask a Chrysler dealer, I suppose, because they are in the middle of it. But I think what you have to do is you have to sell those cars to another dealer or something like that at a loss so that they can then retail the car and cover it with warranties. Once we're terminated, we can no longer do any warranty work, you see. So if we don't sign this thing and send it in, what happens is they will put us in the bankruptcy court and the judge has the authority to probably terminate us within a week, you know.

CALLER: But Glenn, here's the deal. They got a gun to their head because they have to sign this thing by Friday. Keep in mind that they filed an appeal which General Motors, by the way, never even informed them that they could file an appeal. They just happened to find out. They got that in by Monday night. Now you are telling me that of all the GM dealers who have been cut and all the ones that possibly are filing appeals that somebody was actually looking at those appeals on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday and giving them an answer back and by Friday they have to sign this agreement or they're dead.

CALLER: Well, and we don't even know to whom we are appealing. That's, we just said to the review committee we don't know if it's the government, we don't know if it's General Motors. We have absolutely no idea. And then at the end when you're all done, you have you're forced to give them your customer, all your customer base and your customer service base and then you have to say, well, that's good; now you've cut us. And if you want to put up someone else three miles from us, we have to agree to that. So it's

GLENN: This is unbelievable.

CALLER: It is unbelievable that they can do that to private enterprise.

GLENN: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It was originally life, liberty and property.

CALLER: Right.

GLENN: I mean, the only thing they haven't done is taken your property.

CALLER: I know, but

GLENN: They have taken everything you've had of worth.

CALLER: Completely.

GLENN: They have made it worthless.

CALLER: Well, and you know the other night I had a dream about our employees. I know all of our employees and their families and, boy, you know, in this economy if we can't keep them on, what are they going to do?

GLENN: Lee, what are you going to do? You've been doing this forever. What are you

CALLER: We'll keep operating here and we have an excellent body shop.

GLENN: Selling what?

CALLER: Well, we'll sell used cars. We've always had a good used car operation. And we'll try to expand that and we'll also go, have to go look for other franchises, whatever that may be, if there's anything at all out there that would be possible, you know.

CALLER: You know what that's going to be, Glenn? That's going to be a foreign dealer. So as much as we're trying to promote patriotism and buying American here which I've done my whole life, now the answer ironically may be to have somebody like Volkswagen or Honda come in. I mean, how crazy is that?

CALLER: Well, and now all of our customers, if and when they get rid of us will be at least a 30 minute drive. And so for getting their services or even buying the car. What's going to happen is they are just really going to lose most of our Chevy buyers. That is basically what is going to happen unless, of course, they choose someone else and us and put them in a location very, very close. It's quite amazing when you read the documents. It's taken away every right you ever had. And think of these people who just may have purchased a dealership and paid big money for these franchises and now they have nothing. They're gone.

GLENN: Have you guys, have you thought about suing for any sort of restitution?

CALLER: You can't do that according to this agreement.

CALLER: That's why I said the gun's to your head, Glenn.

GLENN: Wait, wait, but if you done agree to the agreement.

CALLER: Well, if you don't agree to it and don't sign it, like I say, in a few weeks dealers in that position will be terminated immediately rather than given this time of six to eight, ten, twelve months to wind down your business.

GLENN: So what are you going to do? Are you going to sign that agreement or are you going to stand fast and roll the dice that at some point sanity prevails?

CALLER: Well, everybody we talk to, we were at a big meeting Monday with all these dealers that have had something happen to them and we don't know what. Nobody said anything at the meeting. But it was highly recommended by the attorneys that were there, it would be very foolish if you don't sign it. Because it's your only chance to hang on and see what happens down the road.

CALLER: Well, and if you sue, you have to pay all of General Motors' lawyer fees. That's in the contract. Whether you win or lose, you have to pay them. And our lawyer said they charge about $1500 an hour. I mean, you could be in the millions. So you could lose, which you probably would, against General Motors. You know, you can't really fight the factory.

GLENN: No, you are not even, you are not in the fight against General Motors anymore.

CALLER: No.

GLENN: You are in the fight against the unions, the government and General Motors.

CALLER: Yes.

GLENN: Big business, big labor and big government. This is, this is fascism. This is what happens when you merge special interests, corporations and the government. And you know what, guys? If people like you don't take a stand and I'm not suggesting that you, you know, don't sign or do sign. That's up to you. You've got a lot riding on it. But at some point you know what poem keeps going through my mind is, you know, first they came for the Jews. People, all of us are like, well, this news doesn't really affect me; well, I'm not a bondholder; well, I'm not in banking industry; well, I'm not a big CEO; I'm not on Wall Street; I'm not a car dealer; I'm not an autoworker. Gang, at some point they are going to come for you.

CALLER: They are. If they can do this, they can do anything.

CALLER: And you know what, Glenn, you know who is paying their $1500 an hour general legal fees for General Motors?

GLENN: We are.

CALLER: The taxpayer. The taxpayer is paying that and that's why people should care about all of this and they should also care because their taxes are going to go up when dealerships like my parents go under. Because how are the communities going to pay the tax revenue that Main Motors in Anoka, Minnesota was giving to the City.

CALLER: Yeah, that really is, that is completely true.

CALLER: It's just a big chain reaction that will have a tumbling effect, there's no question.

CALLER: Even the gas station across the street where we fill up all our cars is going to take a big hit. You are right, Glenn. People don't realize how important. And Lee and I were trying to figure out what plan General Motors has to be profitable. I mean, how many cars do they

GLENN: Here it is. Here's their plan. Their plan is the government is going to give $4500 rebates if you buy one of these cars. You buy a car, you get a you turn in your junker, you get $4500 to the next car. Let's play that out. That's a second GM bailout and then other side it is protectionism. Because now you have to protect this big American company, big American labor that your tax dollars are at stake. So you've got to protect it. The minute we go down the road of protectionism, look up Smoot Hawley, the minute we go down protectionism, it's over, game over. Because other countries will do the same thing and then you're in trouble. Then you've got then you're over in this global economy.

CALLER: Well, who's going to pay the $4500? It's going to be the taxpayers.

GLENN: The taxpayers. The taxpayers.

CALLER: It is. And it's going to be those people who are I mean, it's so crazy. And eventually I can tell you one thing. Our employees here at Main Motor have it figured out. They might not have had it figured out two or three weeks ago, but they hear the writing on the wall loud and clear. And I think the rest of the American public will figure it out, too. We hope so. We hope so.

GLENN: Okay. Lee, Karen, thank you so much. And Gretchen, you stay in touch with me and let me know what's going on, all right?

CALLER: Thank you very much for having us on.

CALLER: Thanks for your time.

GLENN: You bet.

CALLER: We really appreciate it and keep up your good work.

GLENN: Thanks a lot. We just love your daughter. She's great. Thanks a lot. Thanks, Gretchen.

CALLER: Bye bye.

So now I ask you, where is your outrage? What will you do about it? Do you understand that eventually, if it hasn't yet, the government will eventually take what you have too?

Stop The Insanity

Aside from our collective protection (i.e. our military/police) name a program that our government has been in complete control of AND was a SUCCESS. Go ahead and take your time.

I don't really feel I need to say too much because I believe your lack of responses, at least lack of accurate responses, will say it all.

So why in Heaven's name are we allowing so much power to be turned over to the government? Banks? Car companies? Health-care? What's after that and where will the line be drawn?

All these programs and spending might have good intentions behind them and I'll give you that. But, for example, name a country where these have been done and actually worked? Why are we refusing to look to examples all around us to see if the paths we are trying will work out well? I don't see what is so complicated about that idea!

We have to wake up before we are fighting FOR our freedoms, rather than simply to PROTECT them.

What was that phrase again? Do you remember that line? How does that go again?

We the government? No.

Oh, that's right...

"WE THE PEOPLE..."

(UPDATED) Left and Right? WRONG.

Is this what you think of when you think of Left, Right, Liberal, Conservative, Democrat, Republican, etc.?

Well, it's actually more like this and let me explain...

Totalitarianism

Anarchy

1. Articles of Confederation (1777)...too close to anarchy and didn't work
2. US Constitution (1787)
3. Republican Party (today)
4. Democrat Party (today)

Here's the point.

Today we are focused ONLY in the PURPLE area illustrated below:






We are missing the big picture illustrated in the PURPLE area below:




It is vital we wake up and realize that we are arguing in between #3 and #4 all while we continue to move farther and farther from our Constitution!!


Your thoughts?

"American "Progressivism" The History and Future

Forgive my lack of personal remarks at this time but I haven't had a lot of spare time lately and I take my personal thoughts very seriously as I hate being misunderstood. So, I wanted to share these articles. However, your comments will help direct what my personal thoughts should more specifically address.

I will begin with a series of articles by R.J. Pestritto on "American Progressivism" and remember, your thoughts are very much welcomed especially if you agree with or would consider yourself to be a progressive.

R.J. Pestritto

Shipley Professor of the American Constitution at Hillsdale College

Many on the left today call themselves “progressive,” and they do so not just because it’s a nicer way of saying “liberal,” but also because they very much intend to revive the political principles of America’s original Progressives, from the Progressive Era of the 1880s through World War I. Why would leftist politicians, like Mrs. Clinton, purposely identify themselves with this Progressive movement?

The reason is that America’s original Progressives were also its original, big-government liberals. Most people point to the New Deal era as the source of big government and the welfare state that we have today. While this is perfectly accurate, it is important to understand that the principles of the New Deal did not originate in the New Deal; rather, they came from the Progressives, who had dominated American politics and intellectual cultural a generation prior to the New Deal.

We have no less an authority on this connection than Franklin Roosevelt himself. When FDR campaigned in 1932, he pointed to the Progressives – and in particular to Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson – as the source of his ideas about government.

In terms of the personalities who made up the Progressive movement, some are familiar to us and others are less so. The movement was comprised of well known politicians like Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt; but it was also comprised of intellectuals and writers who are less well known but who have been very influential in America. There were folks like John Dewey, who was America’s public philosopher for much of the early 20^th century. Even less well known was Herbert Croly, but Croly was highly influential, since he founded and was the first editor of The New Republic – which became the main organ of Progressive opinion in the United States, and is still one of the most important journals on the Left today. I should add here that Woodrow Wilson actually fell into both of these categories – he was both a well known politician and president, but also was, for decades prior to his entry into politics, a prominent intellectual (a college professor and president of Princeton) who wrote many books and influential articles.

As I’ll explain in my next piece, these Progressives wanted a thorough transformation in America’s principles of government, from a government permanently dedicated to securing individual liberty to one whose ends and scope would change to take on any and all social and economic ills. Here’s the order of the points we’ll consider in the pieces to follow:

1) What did Progressives think about the American founding, and why did they want to eradicate its principles?

2) How did we get today’s excessively powerful presidency from the Progressives?

3) What was the connection between Progressivism and Socialism? Were the Progressives actually Socialists?

4) What are some of the critical connections between Progressivism and what’s going on in our country today?

---

II. The Progressives and their Attack on America’s Founding

As I mentioned in my last piece, America’s Progressives aimed for a thorough transformation in America’s principles of government. While our founders understood that our national government must have the capacity to be strong and vigorous (this is why the Articles of Confederation were failing), they also were very clear that this strength must always be confined to very limited ends or areas of responsibility; government, in other words, while not weak or tiny, was to be strictly limited.

The Progressive conception of government, on the other hand, was quite the opposite; Progressives had an “evolving” or a “living” notion of government (yes, we get the term “living constitution” from the Progressives), and thus wanted government to take on whatever role and scope the times demanded. The Progressives reasoned that people of the founding era may have wanted a limited government, given their particular experience with George III, but they argued that people of their own time wanted a much more activist government, and that we should adjust accordingly.

Quite simply, the Progressives detested the bedrock principles of American government. They detested the Declaration of Independence, which enshrines the protection of individual natural rights (like property) as the unchangeable purpose of government; and they detested the Constitution, which places permanent limits on the scope of government and is structured in a way that makes the extension of national power beyond its original purpose very difficult. “Progressivism” was, for them, all about progressing, or moving beyond, the principles of our founders.

This is why the Progressives were the first generation of Americans to denounce openly our founding documents. Woodrow Wilson, for example, once warned that “if you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence, do not repeat the preface” – i.e. that part of the Declaration which talks about securing individual natural rights as the only legitimate purpose of government. And Theodore Roosevelt, when using the federal government to take over private businesses during the 1902 coal strike, is reported to have remarked, “To hell with the Constitution when people want coal!” This remark may be apocryphal, but it is a fair representation of how TR viewed these matters.

In the next piece, we’ll consider how the presidency was transformed under men like Wilson and TR.

---

III. How the Progressives Originated the Modern Presidency

As I explained in my last piece, the Progressives wanted to disregard the Constitution in order to enlarge vastly the scope of government. As a practical matter, how was this to be done? It happened in a variety of ways, but principal among them was a fundamental change in the American presidency.

Under the system of our founders, government was to have sufficient strength and energy to accomplish its ends, but those ends were strictly limited by the Constitution. The principal way in which the Constitution keeps the government within its boundaries is through the separation of powers. As readers of The Federalist and of Thomas Jefferson know, the point of separation of powers is to keep any one set of hands from wielding all of the power in national government.

The Progressives, especially Woodrow Wilson, hated the separation of powers for precisely this reason: it made government inefficient, and made it difficult, if not impossible, to expand the power of government so that it could take on all of the new tasks that Progressives had in mind. So they looked to the presidency as a way of getting around this obstacle.

Under the original system, the president was merely leader of a single branch, or part, of the government, and thus could not provide leadership of the government as a whole. In his book Constitutional Government, Wilson urged that “leadership and control must be lodged somewhere.” The president, Wilson pointed out, was the only politician who could claim to speak for the people as a whole, and thus he called upon the president to rise above the separation of powers – to consider himself not merely as chief of a single branch of government, but as the popular leader of the whole of national politics. Wilson even contrasted the “constitutional aspect” of the presidency – its constitutionally defined role as chief of one of the three co-equal branches of government – to the “political” function of the president, where he could use his connection to public opinion as a tool for moving all of the branches of government in the direction called for by the people.

It was in this way that Wilson believed the original intention of the separation of powers system could be circumvented, and the enhanced presidency could be a means energizing the kind of active national government that the progressive agenda required.

In the next piece, we’ll consider whether the principles of the Progressives made them socialists.

---

IV. Progressivism and Socialism

Since the Progressives had such a limitless view of state power, and since they wanted to downplay the founders’ emphasis on individual rights, it is only natural to ask if they subscribed to socialism. There are several things to consider in answering this question.

First, when considering the relationship of progressivism to socialism, we must be clear that we are talking about the similarity in the philosophy of government; we are not suggesting that America’s progressives were the kind of moral monsters that we see in the history of some socialist or fascist regimes (although it is the case that their racial views – particularly those of Woodrow Wilson – were indeed morally reprehensible).

Second, we must also bear in mind that there was an actual socialist movement during the Progressive Era, and prominent progressives such as Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt were critics of it. In fact, Wilson and Roosevelt both ran against a socialist candidate in the 1912 election (Eugene Debs). The progressives were ambivalent about the socialist movement of their day not so much because they disagreed with it in principle, but because the American socialist movement was a movement of the lower classes. The progressives were elitists; they looked down their noses at the socialists, considering them a kind of rabble.

Keeping these points in mind, it is, nonetheless, the case that the progressive conception of government closely coincided with the socialist conception. Both progressivism and socialism champion the prerogatives of the state over the prerogatives of the individual. Wilson himself made this connection very plain in a revealing essay he wrote in 1887 called “Socialism and Democracy.” Wilson’s begins this essay by defining socialism, explaining that it stands for unfettered state power, which trumps any notion of individual rights. It “proposes that all idea of a limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view,” Wilson wrote, and “that no line can be drawn between private and public affairs which the State may not cross at will.” After laying out this definition of socialism, Wilson explains that he finds nothing wrong with it in principle, since it was merely the logical extension of genuine democratic theory. It gives all power to the people, in their collective capacity, to carry out their will through the exercise of governmental power, unlimited by any undemocratic idea like individual rights. He elaborated:

“In fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. Limits of wisdom and convenience to the public control there may be: limits of principle there are, upon strict analysis, none.”

Roosevelt, too, argued for a new conception of government, where individual natural rights would no longer serve as a principled boundary that the state was prohibited from crossing. He called in his New Nationalism program for the state to take an active role in effecting economic equality by way of superintending the use of private property. Private property rights, which had been serving as a brake on the more aggressive progressive policy proposals, were to be respected, Roosevelt argued, only insofar as the government approved of the property’s social usefulness. He wrote:

“We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary.”

In the next and final piece, we will consider the some of the most important connections between the original progressives and the resurgence of progressivism today.

---

V. Progressivism and the Current Crisis

There are important connections between America’s original Progressive Era and the crisis we are facing today, and it is useful to consider these connections on two levels.

The first connection is at a general level, and concerns our abandonment of the Constitution. The present crisis did not appear out of nowhere, and didn’t simply begin with the election of Barack Obama. Politicians of both parties spent the better part of the 20^th century disregarding the Constitution, as they looked to have government step up to solve every conceivable human problem. Thus it ought to be no surprise that the Constitution’s limits on government aren’t even part of the conversation today as our politicians debate the new interventions in our economy and society that seem to come daily.

Such a state of things would have greatly pleased America’s original progressives. As I’ve endeavored to explain in these pieces for the newsletter, progressives believed that the role of government should be determined not by our Constitution, but by whatever the needs of the day happened to be. This is why they sought to eradicate talk of the Constitution from our political discourse; today, that goal seems to have been realized.

The second connection between the original Progressive Era and our situation today has to do with policy. The progressives knew that our original system of government was not capable of handling all of the new tasks that they had in mind for it. So they envisioned creating a vast set of bureaucratic agencies. They argued that Congress should enact very broad and vague laws for supervising more and more facets of the American economy and society, and then delegate to the bureaucratic agencies the power and discretion to enact specific policies. Both Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt conceived of government in this way.

The New Deal certainly went a long way toward implementing this progressive vision, and what we have seen in our own situation with TARP and the various other interventions is simply greater steps toward the progressive plan. Our Congress has simply said to the Treasury agencies: here’s a trillion dollars, here’s all the legal authority you need, now go out, determine what is in the public interest, and spend and regulate accordingly. That is the progressive vision of government, in a nutshell.

For more on the Progressives, two of my books may be of interest:

1) American Progressivism, which I co-edited with American historian William Atto, contains a basic introduction to progressive ideas written by Professor Atto and me, and then several selections from the actual writings of Progressives like Wilson, TR, Dewey, Croly, and others.

2) Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism, which is a much more in-depth look at Woodrow Wilson and how he was central to originating the liberalism that dominates America today. This is for those who are really interested in history and political theory.