Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, please gather ‘round! Don’t push, don’t crowd, leave that to the professionals! Today, we have a new act; prepare for mystery, suspense, baggy pants and a face-full of meringue. Wait for it...send in, the clowns.
Yes, as an astute blogger recently illustrated, the comically small door has been opened and a whacky horde of clowns just keep stepping through it. It’s impossible not to watch the show! Just look at the clowns and all of their zany antics! Oh wait, is a belief in liberty zany, or how about personal responsibility? Okay, maybe it’s not zany, but it must be ridiculous. I mean, who are these clowns to stand on the principles that built this country, anyway?
This is the attitude that continues to seep out of the incumbent establishment, “Who are these clowns to challenge us?” Watch out, America. These clowns may not look the same as the politicians you are used to. They may dress a little different; they may do and say hilarious things such as reading the constitution and believing in the framework built by our founders. They may even have the audacity to ask for the truth, and to hold everyone accountable. Most ridiculous of all, they may even ask you to hold them accountable.
Most Americans recognize that our nation is at a cross-road. Both parties have indulged in excessive spending and left us with crippling debt. Our incumbent officials must be held accountable for either perpetuating this spending binge, or failing to stand against it. I am running as a Republican candidate for US Congress MN CD 7 because I see many members re-dedicating themselves to the principles of fiscal responsibility, free enterprise and liberty.
The powers that be in Washington look at us like we’re stepping out of a clown car. They don’t believe in personal responsibility, accountability, or truth. They forget that this nation is fueled by people who must take personal responsibility to support their families. They forget that people must operate on principles of truth and hard work to earn their living. They forget that Americans are held accountable for their actions every day.
So, they see a tiny car with a tiny door swinging open and clown after clown stepping out. We, however, know that the car is a cardboard cut-out. Standing behind it is an endless line of people who are finished with incumbent politicians who don’t operate in the real word of actions and consequences. Now, can someone grab me a pair of polka-dot suspenders, a red nose that honks, and a bottle of seltzer? It’s time to step through the door.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Coming to Terms with Limited Government
Washington has a nasty habit of using words with vague definitions. It's part of the “Washington is never wrong” strategy to stay away from anything with solid meanings; it also makes the job of an honest person much more difficult. To tackle this task, some of the articles on this blog will be dedicated to defining terms that will be used throughout the campaign. Honesty and clarity are key aspects of leaderships; “we the people” deserve a blueprint for success, not a blank slate.
Conservatism revolves around a key theme: limited government. Our government has grown beyond its intended purpose, and it needs to be scaled back to preserve our freedom. But, what is a limited government?
The left criticizes the idea of a limited government by equating it to a small government. This is theme of progressive thinking, that problems are bigger than people, groups, and communities; these problems can only be addressed by a bloated central government. Their criticism of conservatism is that a small government wouldn't be able to handle big problems. This is the importance of definitions; a limited government isn't small and powerless.
The founders of our nation established a limited government, not a small government; however, our Federal government has become inefficient, redundant, and comprised of too many unsustainable and unnecessary programs. A small government has too many boundaries to deal with problems, where a limited government respects the boundaries established by the constitution. These boundaries involve the daily decisions of Americans and American businesses, as well as matters reserved for the state and local governments. In short, our federal government should be facilitating the military and enforcing laws that cross state lines, not telling us what kind of cars to drive ,or what to teach our children, or what temperature we should use on our furnaces.
Our founders fled a government that was too big for its own good; they established a government that allowed people to stand up and achieve on their own. “Twice American” means first appreciating the struggles that lead our forefathers to freedom, and second, taking the responsibility and fighting to preserve it. Conservatism's view of a limited government is peeling back the layers of regulation and restriction that go beyond the scope of the constitution. The federal government was indeed given a supreme role in its LIMITED scope, but RESTRICED from interfering with the RESPONSIBILITY of local-government and SECURITY of the individual. It's about having a government that is big enough to handle problems, but only the problems it was designed to handle. Most importantly, it's about remembering the framework, laid by our founders, that led to unprecedented global success.
Regards, Lee Byberg
Conservatism revolves around a key theme: limited government. Our government has grown beyond its intended purpose, and it needs to be scaled back to preserve our freedom. But, what is a limited government?
The left criticizes the idea of a limited government by equating it to a small government. This is theme of progressive thinking, that problems are bigger than people, groups, and communities; these problems can only be addressed by a bloated central government. Their criticism of conservatism is that a small government wouldn't be able to handle big problems. This is the importance of definitions; a limited government isn't small and powerless.
The founders of our nation established a limited government, not a small government; however, our Federal government has become inefficient, redundant, and comprised of too many unsustainable and unnecessary programs. A small government has too many boundaries to deal with problems, where a limited government respects the boundaries established by the constitution. These boundaries involve the daily decisions of Americans and American businesses, as well as matters reserved for the state and local governments. In short, our federal government should be facilitating the military and enforcing laws that cross state lines, not telling us what kind of cars to drive ,or what to teach our children, or what temperature we should use on our furnaces.
Our founders fled a government that was too big for its own good; they established a government that allowed people to stand up and achieve on their own. “Twice American” means first appreciating the struggles that lead our forefathers to freedom, and second, taking the responsibility and fighting to preserve it. Conservatism's view of a limited government is peeling back the layers of regulation and restriction that go beyond the scope of the constitution. The federal government was indeed given a supreme role in its LIMITED scope, but RESTRICED from interfering with the RESPONSIBILITY of local-government and SECURITY of the individual. It's about having a government that is big enough to handle problems, but only the problems it was designed to handle. Most importantly, it's about remembering the framework, laid by our founders, that led to unprecedented global success.
Regards, Lee Byberg
Monday, February 8, 2010
Time for Renewal
Many people want to fix America. That’s a nice expression, it sounds easy, almost momentous; we are broken, we are fixed. There’s a lot of talk coming out of Washington: “We are going to fix the economy! We are going to fix education! We are going to fix our standing in the world! We are going to fix the environment!” What isn’t coming out of Washington? Results.
The problem lies in the concept, to fix. You can fix a washing machine, a car, or a computer; these are machines with defined parts. You can’t “fix” a country. Now we face a dilemma: America is broken, but we cannot just “fix” it. This is a chance for renewal. Renewal literally means “to make new again.” As a concept, or even a goal, it goes much deeper than a quick fix.
Renewal means learning the lessons of history. Renewal is about peeling back the mistakes we have made and returning to a system of government that empowers people to control their own destiny. When we look to the beginning of America, we see a people who were only a tiny percentage of the world population standing in the face of the near-eternal dynasties of Europe. This isn’t about military victories, it’s about economic leadership. Renewal in America means returning to the government framework that allows anyone to stand up and achieve.
This is the heart of conservatism; looking to the values and the framework that brought prosperity to the world in an unprecedented manner. There’s an important distinction, however, that must be stated. Our world has changed, people and their values have changed. Conservatives understand that values lie in the hands of the people, not the government. Our founding fathers understood this. This country was founded on a government that was limited to the protection of its people, not the dominance of its people.
America has a chance to become new again. We can’t just fix some broken component, we must renew. This is about being Twice American; we are Americans first by right, and second by choice. Renewal is about peeling back layer upon layer of a government that has far exceeded its role; about returning values to the people, not some bureaucrat. A new America taught the world what people in control of their destiny could accomplish; a renewed America has the potential to far surpass the previous lesson.
Regards, Lee Byberg
The problem lies in the concept, to fix. You can fix a washing machine, a car, or a computer; these are machines with defined parts. You can’t “fix” a country. Now we face a dilemma: America is broken, but we cannot just “fix” it. This is a chance for renewal. Renewal literally means “to make new again.” As a concept, or even a goal, it goes much deeper than a quick fix.
Renewal means learning the lessons of history. Renewal is about peeling back the mistakes we have made and returning to a system of government that empowers people to control their own destiny. When we look to the beginning of America, we see a people who were only a tiny percentage of the world population standing in the face of the near-eternal dynasties of Europe. This isn’t about military victories, it’s about economic leadership. Renewal in America means returning to the government framework that allows anyone to stand up and achieve.
This is the heart of conservatism; looking to the values and the framework that brought prosperity to the world in an unprecedented manner. There’s an important distinction, however, that must be stated. Our world has changed, people and their values have changed. Conservatives understand that values lie in the hands of the people, not the government. Our founding fathers understood this. This country was founded on a government that was limited to the protection of its people, not the dominance of its people.
America has a chance to become new again. We can’t just fix some broken component, we must renew. This is about being Twice American; we are Americans first by right, and second by choice. Renewal is about peeling back layer upon layer of a government that has far exceeded its role; about returning values to the people, not some bureaucrat. A new America taught the world what people in control of their destiny could accomplish; a renewed America has the potential to far surpass the previous lesson.
Regards, Lee Byberg
Friday, February 5, 2010
Hope vs. Certainty
Leadership depends on a strong foundation. Today, the foundations of our leaders, the base of their messages, are rooted in one of two places: Hope, or certainty. This article will focus on the difference of these two concepts. It will be the foundation for articles to come; it will frame the conversations about issues that come up during this campaign. Laying the foundation won’t always provide every answer, but a foundation anchored on truth will allow the construction of solutions that work.
Hope. Hope is a powerful term, it is inspirational. Hope asks us to think beyond the conventional wisdom of what we can create, what we can become, or even where we are going. Hope asks us to look past our doubts; it opens us to new possibilities. However, there is a less inspirational side to hope; hope isn’t anchored on truth, it’s anchored on ideals. Hope is a dangerous term, in this respect. We should have hope, we should dream bigger than ourselves; this is a core tenet of being an American. Without hope, we would never achieve. But, is hope an appropriate foundation for leadership?
Hope is baseless by definition. Hope asks us to not look at what we are or what we know, it asks us to dream. Hope asks us to look at a plot of land and see a house, not the bricks, wood, and nails that will take to build the house. Hope looks to the ends, never the means.
Leadership demands that we account for the means. Leaders should have hope, they should have vision, but they must never ignore the reality of achieving that vision. Washington has responded to the state of America with hope, but the results are falling far short of their vision.
Leading through certainty means to act on truth. Certainty requires discipline, a respect for where we have been before, and knowledge of what worked. Certainty takes the dreams of the hopeful, looks at the resources available, and works to achieve those dreams. Certainty also looks at those dreams with enough maturity to know what is possible. It is said that we are living in an unprecedented time, that we haven’t ever faced what we are going through. Leaders anchored in certainty know the deception of that statement. Situations may never be exactly the same; however, we can find examples through history to teach us how to deal with the present.
Leading requires knowledge of the past and the wisdom to see what has worked. Leaders must have the maturity to determine what is anchored on truth, and what is anchored on dreams. We cannot hope for a change through wishful thinking and reckless spending. Our leaders must act with certainty that the solutions will work because we have learned from the successes and the mistakes of the past. A true leader knows where he came from, not just where he wants to go.
Hope. Hope is a powerful term, it is inspirational. Hope asks us to think beyond the conventional wisdom of what we can create, what we can become, or even where we are going. Hope asks us to look past our doubts; it opens us to new possibilities. However, there is a less inspirational side to hope; hope isn’t anchored on truth, it’s anchored on ideals. Hope is a dangerous term, in this respect. We should have hope, we should dream bigger than ourselves; this is a core tenet of being an American. Without hope, we would never achieve. But, is hope an appropriate foundation for leadership?
Hope is baseless by definition. Hope asks us to not look at what we are or what we know, it asks us to dream. Hope asks us to look at a plot of land and see a house, not the bricks, wood, and nails that will take to build the house. Hope looks to the ends, never the means.
Leadership demands that we account for the means. Leaders should have hope, they should have vision, but they must never ignore the reality of achieving that vision. Washington has responded to the state of America with hope, but the results are falling far short of their vision.
Leading through certainty means to act on truth. Certainty requires discipline, a respect for where we have been before, and knowledge of what worked. Certainty takes the dreams of the hopeful, looks at the resources available, and works to achieve those dreams. Certainty also looks at those dreams with enough maturity to know what is possible. It is said that we are living in an unprecedented time, that we haven’t ever faced what we are going through. Leaders anchored in certainty know the deception of that statement. Situations may never be exactly the same; however, we can find examples through history to teach us how to deal with the present.
Leading requires knowledge of the past and the wisdom to see what has worked. Leaders must have the maturity to determine what is anchored on truth, and what is anchored on dreams. We cannot hope for a change through wishful thinking and reckless spending. Our leaders must act with certainty that the solutions will work because we have learned from the successes and the mistakes of the past. A true leader knows where he came from, not just where he wants to go.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
