I remember taking a class in British Literature of the 18th Century, and contrary to the narratives of American historical perspective, King George III was a very popular King in Britain at the time.  Many in Britain thought the Americans were over-reacting to a series of taxes that were meant to pay for debts incurred for Britain fighting wars that secured American interests such as the French and Indian War.

I have written in past posts on the 4th of July, that underlying the stated motives of Independence, Americans fought because they knew they had something good.  You don’t risk everything to fight against something as mutable as a tax code.  If you read the literature of the founding generation of Americans, you find that their motivations ran far deeper than merely protesting what they considered to be tyranny.  Their self image consisted of  of a belief that they were engaged in a moral project commensurate to that of ancient Israel.

When Moses ascended Sinai for the first time, he did so with the assumption that the law to be forged would match the moral strength of character of the people it would govern.  Sobered, he ascended the second time to forge a law for a group whose moral strength he had over-estimated.  He returned with a law that matched the moral discipline of its subjects.

Recently, in England, a controversy has arisen about their school lunch program.  After revamping the program to meet more nutritious guidelines, government leaders are suggesting that forcing nutrition on kids is causing less of them to eat meals.  On one side you have the argument that kids should be able to choose what you eat .  On the other side, you have the argument that government should close down businesses that sell junk food close to the premises of schools and the schools should force kids to eat healthy food. In a recent editorial a frustrated Brit, said this, “Sure, only four in 10 primary school kids and one in three secondary pupils currently eat school meals, but that is largely the fault of the misguided notion of free choice.”  Of course, this editorial cites the impact that unhealthy eating habits has on the healthcare system as part of the reason that the government should force eating habits on its citizens.

Regulating eating habits isn’t something that only modern politicians with their government-run health care systems have to worry about.  You will be hard-pressed to find more oppressive legislation to control what people eat than what you find in Leviticus.  What is certain is that when a government sees the need to micro-manage the eating habits of its populace that something more than liberty, choice, or freedom has been lost.

The lack of internal control by individuals breeds external control by governments.

In their zeal to pass a health care bill that would empower the government to micromanage just about every aspect of our lives, Democrats constantly taunted Republicans and conservatives to offer a better alternative.

I have a question for them to consider.  What is the correlation between the declining nutritional value of a school lunch and the banning of prayer in public school?

Some have said that you are touting your love of the Constitution as a campaign gimmick.  Others have said that Constitutional expertise can’t be objectively measured, and that anyone can read and understand the Constitution.  What do you have to say about allegations such as these.  Is there something special about your understanding of the Constitution that qualifies you to be a Senator?

The following quote is from Ralph Waldo Emerson’s Self Reliance:

A political victory, a rise of rents, the recovery of your sick, or the return of your absent friend, or some other quite external event, raises your spirits, and you think good days are preparing for you. Do not believe it. It can never be so. Nothing can bring you peace but yourself. Nothing can bring you peace but the triumph of principles

If you win this election, how will your election be more than just a political victory but rather a triumph of principles?

These are the questions from this interview:

In reference to government loans and grants Tim Bridgewater has said that it would be foolish for companies not to take advantage of this low-cost capital.  How one defines capital tells you a lot about the economic philosophy that they espouse.  How do you define capital?  Does a government that is $14 trillion dollars in debt have capital to invest in small businesses according to your definition?

Those who are politically active will have been following this election and probably made up their mind already.  Since I am going to go out to friends and neighbors, many of whom probably aren’t interested in politics, to tell them to vote for you what should I tell them?

People have made an issue about you not committing to your own term limit.  Just three and a half short years ago, Barack Obama was in your same shoes.  If you are elected to the Senate, do you have ambitions beyond becoming a Senator?  Where do you see yourself in 20 years from now?

this link is the document proving Lee did not produce or authorize the recent radio ads exposing Bridgewater. They were produced and aired by
Common Sense out of VA. I think we can all agree with the content, however.

This post was submitted by carol.

Also, Mike discusses America’s international role.  Hopefully, you are sending these to your friends and family.  I did this to help people get to know Mike who haven’t had the chance.

Click here for one of the best resources I have found for starting a conversation on this issue.

Here are the questions I asked in this interview:

In Martin Gross’ book, National Suicide, he makes the argument that government keeps growing because the government is so big that most members of Congress don’t have really know how government works.  There are so many agencies and bureaucracies, that even an ambitious new Senator will have a hard time knowing where to start.  Where do you propose to start?

You tend to cover many of the conservative platforms regarding immigration.  However, at some point the Immigration Act of 1965 is going to need to be updated.  Determining who can legally immigrate to a country is a process that is always inherently discriminatory.  If America is to give a priority to a certain type of immigrant, what factors should determine what kinds of legal immigrants we should invite to our country?

Here are the questions I asked:

While following this campaign, I have actually found better information and discussion of issues on newer media sources such as blogs, facebook, etc.  Meanwhile I find mainstream media discussions of the election to be lacking.  How do you plan to use new media sources to interact with your constituents?

Much has been said of your involvement with Energy Solutions, and many are trying to represent this involvement as a liability for you.  What experience have you gained from working with Energy Solutions that you think would be an asset for the people of Utah?

Your opponent has tried to represent your involvement with nuclear waste in Utah as an issue where you have been inconsistent in your position.  On one hand you are fighting for the interests of the State on the other you are fighting against the interests of the State and in favor of the rights of an individual company.  It appears that your opponent is trying to say that because of this inconsistency, you won’t be the staunch advocate for State’s rights, which is an important issue that is mobilizing the conservative movement.  I look at a state like California, and I come away thinking that a fierce advocacy for state’s rights isn’t always going to guarantee a good outcome.  At what point do you draw the line between State’s rights and individual rights?  In other words what will be your guiding principles for determining where an individual’s rights end.

Most voters who are following this election know about your involvement with Energy Solutions and possibly your work with 1-800 Contacts, because these are areas where the media have been able to drum up enough controversy to run a story or two.  You say that you have been spending your professional life fighting against the growth of government.  Can you provide some other specific examples of cases that you have been involved in where you were directly fighting the growth of government?

This is the first question that I asked Mike last Sunday:

I know you better than a lot of the people who will vote for you.  It has been interesting for me to see how a man that I know pretty well can be so thoroughly distorted as the translation of his identity is filtered through different media sources.  Like looking at a very poorly done portrait, I come away from many representations of you and say they have missed him completely.  What have been the biggest surprises/shocks that you have faced after suddenly receiving so much media attention?

In the answer to this question, Mike discusses the impact of the “Temple Mailer” that was sent the day before the Convention.  Last night the story broke, that a Washington lobbyist who formerly worked for Bob Bennett played a significant role in sending this mailer.

Hey kid, did you know your dad had to steal money from taxpayers to take you to this game?

Despite the fact that this mailer was a substantial violation of federal election laws and grossly illegal, as this story unfolds a few things are worth considering in more depth.  First of all, is the cowardly, secretive way in which it was executed.  In the article published last night in the Salt Lake Tribune, Tim Stewart, the lobbyist involved in the mailer said the following:

“I sincerely wish that I could take credit for what may be the most brilliant and poressibly the biggest single game-changing political play in Utah politics in the last 20 years. But I can’t. I am not that diabolical nor creative,” he said. “Instead, I am just a two-bit, wannabe political consultant, contacted by some Utah folks wanting to exercise their First Amendment rights. They came up with a great idea and we found a vendor and that’s about the extent of it.”

I am a big supporter of the First Amendment, but in national elections there are laws that need to be followed, and you don’t have to be a lawyer to figure this out.  Even some reporters at the Salt Lake Tribune were able to figure that out and actually report it.

However, those behind the mailer could face an investigation and potential fines by the FEC for not disclosing an expense made to influence a federal election and for failing to file as a political action committee.

Paul Ryan, an attorney with the Washington-based Campaign Legal Center, said any group independently spending more than $250 expressly advocating for or against a federal candidate must file that expenditure with the FEC. Moreover, a group formed for the purpose of advocating for or against a candidate must file as a political committee if it raises or spends more than $1,000.

The fact that the cowards are choosing to remain anonymous is telling, and will only further indict them when who they are is finally discovered.

Of course the story mentions that Bridgewater had nothing to do with this as his campaign doesn’t want to get close to this story.  The problem is they are already up to their necks if not in over their heads with this issue.

First of all, we have a Washington lobbyist and an anonymous group of criminals who are willing to face federal charges in order to see that Mike Lee doesn’t get elected.  Voters of Utah need to ask themselves why a lobbyist would take these risks to not see Bennett go.  Perhaps this would have something to do with the fact that he would be out of a job if Lee were elected.  However, then we have to analyze the fact that at the time the mailer was sent, it was pretty much settled that neither Bennett nor Eagar were serious contenders in the race, so only Bridgewater would stand to benefit from the fallout.  Add to this the fact that Tim Stewart donated serious money to the Bridgewater campaign.  The campaign is returning the money (which is too bad, since they haven’t been able to raise much money other than from Mr. Bridgewater himself), but this doesn’t change the fact that the money is any less dirty.  When you get caught robbing the bank, giving the money back doesn’t change the fact that you robbed the bank.  If I am to believe that a Washington insider and lobbyist, who is gloating over the influence he has had in the campaign just anonymously donated to Bridgewater, and now that the crap hit the fan, the campaign is giving the money back and had no idea…  That is all a bunch of crap, and if you believe it you are stupid.  Bridgewater’s campaign ought to do more than return the money.  I believe it is in their court to provide the abundance of proof that they weren’t closely colluding with Stewart.  In this case, anything less than the provision of an abundance of proof is an admission of guilt in my opinion.

We might also consider if a Washington lobbyist saw the writing on the wall for Bennett, that is why the mailer attacked Bennett as well, why would this lobbyist so quickly convert to supporting Bridgewater?  Hmmm?  Why would a lobbyist want a guy like Bridgewater in the Senate?  What could a lobbyist possibly stand to gain from a guy who has spent his professional career bilking the taxpayer by sourcing money from over 300 different federal agencies to give to private businesses?  Why would a lobbyist so strongly support Bridgewater and be so afraid of Mike Lee?  In light of all this, we might also ask why would Bob Bennett come out in support of Bridgewater?  It also might be fair to ask, when Bridgewater went to DC to secure Bennett’s endorsement, did Bridgewater ever meet with Tim Stewart?  Like I said above, it is Bridgewater’s obligation to provide the burden of proof that these intimations are false, anything less is an admission of guilt.

This week I am trying to stay positive and focus on why Mike is a great candidate.  I have quite a few more questions coming in future posts over the next few days so stay tuned.  Today I went on a tangent because if Bridgewater is involved in anyway in the criminal activities going on in this election, then the voters need to know that, and it is Bridgewater’s responsibility to prove that he is not. This isn’t the job of his campaign communication director, Tiffany Gunnerson.  My prediction is that when the burden of proof comes out, Bridgewater is indicted before he is vindicated.

However, in most of the important elections where I have voted, I tend to be voting against someone rather than for someone.  Mike Lee is the first candidate that I have been excited to support.  I am also pretty confident that my reasons for supporting Mike are far different than the reasons of those who support him adamantly.

Not very many people get the chance to support someone in a major national election who is also a very close friend.   They end up having to vote for someone based primarily on a limited number of interactions, many of which are distorted by the medium through which they are conveyed.

It is frustrating to watch from the sidelines and see someone that you know so well become so thoroughly distorted.  The most frustrating part of this distortion is that the voters do not know what they are missing.  Of course, this is one of the challenges of democracy: how does a candidate accurately represent oneself to a constituency who will only ever know the candidate superficially.

Even those who have made a concerted, honest effort to get to know Mike will still be getting the equivalent of a first date impression.

I have decided that the best endorsement I can give Mike is to humanize him in an environment where humanization is a toxic endeavor.  Take for instance the sanitized debates that are quickly becoming overbearing rehearsals of memorized talking points.  In an environment of robocalls, polls, facebook banter, vinyl signs, ego-maniacal media personalities, and contrived debates, perhaps the best message that can be sent at this point is that Mike is human – and a good one at that.  Anyone who insists otherwise is simply wrong and doesn’t really know Mike.

My first memories of Mike were when I visited him at his small rental house he lived in on 900 E. in Provo as he was attending law school.  Sharon was home with the newborn twins.  He was living the typical life of a starving grad student.  I remember a conversation I was having with Sharon a few years after this about my own aspirations in graduate studies.  I said something to the effect that maybe I would wait until after my degree to get married and have a family.  I remember what she said.  She said she wouldn’t trade those years in graduate school.  That was when she and Mike had nothing and she spent many hours at home alone with newborn twins.  She said it was during the sacrifice of those difficult years that their strong relationship was forged.  So when I started hearing the remarks that Mike was a son of privilege and that he shouldn’t be taken seriously as a candidate because he has student loans, it was hard to believe that anyone would take those remarks seriously.

Not very many people get the luxury of spending two weeks in Washington DC with a future candidate for the U.S. Senate.  I have had that luxury.  Mike and Sharon were gracious enough to let me stay in their home in the summer of 2002 while I explored Washington DC as an American Studies student.  I remember riding with Sharon to drop off the kids at the local public school as we had discussions about how frustrating it was that they didn’t teach the kids about the founding fathers at school.  Of course, Sharon and Mike made up for this lack as I recall the stacks of library books her boys had laying around the house – many of them about the founding fathers.

While visiting, Mike invited me to his law office.  He was trying to convince me to become a lawyer.  Like most lawyers, he is secretly… well no I would have to say publicly proud of his profession, largely because he knows he is making a difference.  At the time, he was working on a case that was being presented before the Supreme Court.  This was probably one of his first efforts to fight to reduce the size of government – North Carolina’s government to be exact.  He was working on a case on behalf of the state of Utah asserting that because the Census didn’t count missionaries, that the census was inaccurate and Utah deserved a 4th Congressional seat that was then given to North Carolina.  He insisted that I should read the brief he had recently presented.  When I first opened it, I thought this is going to be a boring collection of legalese.  To my surprise, it was an interesting, well-argued case that was intelligible to a sophomore in college.  This was my first exposure to Mike’s talents as a legal scholar, and all I can say is that his abilities are real.  It is a small percentage of lawyers that find themselves arguing cases before the Supreme Court a few short years out of law school.  Although Mike didn’t convince me to become a lawyer – I actually became a businessman – I would be proud to have a lawyer like Mike represent me as a Senator.

One night while visiting Mike, I came back after seeing some monuments and I mentioned that I had gone to the monument for FDR.  He asked me what I thought of FDR.  Keep in mind that I was currently in the throes of a university-level, liberal indoctrination effort.  I said it seems like he was a pretty good president.  Mike spent a few hours setting me straight.  When Mike says he wants to fight the growth of government, he means it.  This isn’t a convenient campaign platform.  Not all voters are going to get to hear Mike’s anti FDR seminar, but let me add that he isn’t just a Constitutional expert.  He knows the history of the Constitution’s abandonment inside and out.

Mike, when you win I want a tour

One night he offered to drive me around town to show me around.  He showed me the homes of famous national figures.  He showed me the home where he lived while his father was Solicitor General.  He also thought it would be cool to show me the CIA headquarters, or at least the bus stop outside of the headquarters where he used to stop every day as he rode the bus to work.  However, a few months after 9/11, we quickly learned that you can’t even drive by the bus stop in front of the CIA headquarters.  We were quickly confronted by guards armed with M-4s who directed us to drive to a barricade.  They wrote down our driver’s license numbers and told us in the future to remember that this wasn’t a public area.  We now joke about this as the time that we stormed Langley.  Nevertheless, the story does illustrate one thing.  Mike thinks things like the CIA headquarters are cool.  He didn’t want me to come to DC without seeing the bus stop outside.  Unlike the liberals in Congress who would be happy to throw the CIA under the bus, I know that Mike will support the government agencies and military that are in charge of keeping us safe.  In addition, I also told Mike that if he wins the Senate race, perhaps next time around he can give me the VIP tour of that bus stop.

Mike and Sharon also weren’t going to let me spend two weeks in the DC area without having me go to Colonial Williamsburg.  Mike let me drive his car: A Toyota Camry with well over 100,000 miles on it that he was proud to recount the story of how he got it for a steal.  As a sophomore college student, I drove a nicer car than this “DC Lawyer.”  Anyway, I trekked down to Williamsburg, and for those who have never been, this is basically a historical re-enactment attraction (kind of like Nauvoo).  The idea is to go back in time to colonial America to see what it was like.  After spending the day listening to actors play the role of men like Patrick Henry and other founders, I drove back to Mike’s colonial-style home in  Vienna, Virginia.  I remember thinking to myself that Mike was something of an anachronism.  He is a man that is in some ways out of place in 21st Century America.  All he would need is the proper attire, and he would probably fit right in as a character in Colonial Williamsburg.  No acting necessary here.  I am by no means saying that Mike should drop his bid for Senate and get a job with the Colonial Williamsburg Historical Society.  What i am saying is a man of the past…this past, is the man of the hour.

One night during my visit, Mike and Sharon put the kids to bed and insisted that I watch their edited version of the movie Amistad with them.  It isn’t hard to imagine why Mike would like this movie so much.  The climax of the film is when John Quincy Adams argues a case before the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of a marooned group of escaped slaves.  I also went and saw Spiderman on this trip with Mike.  Some people identify with movie heroes like Spiderman.  Some people, though probably a smaller number, identify with John Quincy Adams making a speech in the Supreme Court.  Mike is one of the latter.  The following passage is a quote from that speech:

The other night I was talking with my friend, Cinque. He was over at my place, and we were out in the greenhouse together. And he was explaining to me how when a member of the Mende — that’s his people –  how when a member of the Mende encounters a situation where there appears no hope at all, he invokes his ancestors. It’s a tradition. See, the Mende believe that if one can summon the spirits of one’s ancestors, then they have never left, and the wisdom and strength they fathered and inspired will come to his aid.

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams: We’ve long resisted asking you for guidance. Perhaps we have feared in doing so we might acknowledge that our individuality which we so, so revere is not entirely our own. Perhaps we’ve feared an appeal to you might be taken for weakness. But, we’ve come to understand, finally, that this is not so. We understand now, we’ve been made to understand, and to embrace the understanding that who we are is who we were.

In Self Reliance, Ralph Waldo Emerson’s treatise on individualism that many consider to be a foundational piece of American philosophy, Mr. Emerson says the following:

A political victory, a rise of rents, the recovery of your sick, or the return of your absent friend, or some other quite external event, raises your spirits, and you think good days are preparing for you. Do not believe it. It can never be so. Nothing can bring you peace but yourself. Nothing can bring you peace but the triumph of principles

If Mike wins the Repbulican primary in Utah on June 22 it will be more than a political victory.  It will be a triumph of principles – the same principles upon which America is founded.  Like I said above, a man of the past…this past, is the man of the hour.  Mike is the man.

Special Note: If you are supporting Mike Lee in the Senate race in Utah please leave a comment that explains your endorsement in the comment area of this page.  I am going to drive paid traffic to this page, because I believe that the best endorsement Mike can get right now is the endorsement of average, every day Utah citizens THAT VOTE!

You can read all of my coverage of the 2010 Utah Senate Race Here – Including the six-part Youtube Interview where you can get to know Mike better.