Comedian and Big Hollywood contributor Carl Kozlowski, “cyclone of information” and aspiring voice over artist Brant Thoman, and comedian, stage actor and “general rabble-rouser” Jake Belcher are taking internet radio by storm with  Grand Theft Audio, a wild mix of entertainment, pop culture, politics, and just about anything else that strikes their fancy.

In this interview these media entrepreneurs discuss, among other topics, how they came together, what makes their show different, and the uneasy relationship some conservatives have with pop culture.

For those who have never heard Grand Theft Audio, how would you describe it?

CARL KOZLOWSKI: Uncensored in the best sense of the word. We’re definitely a freewheeling and funny show that refuses to be censored on matters of politics and our vast and deep opposition to Obama, his cronies and their policies. We’re proud and excited about the fact that we’ve had at least one major comedy, music-world or media-mogul guest, including Andrew Breitbart, Big Hollywood editor John Nolte, and conservative comedy icon Evan Sayet – on our shows. It’s a big party with great discussions that bring issues to fun life.

BRANT THOMAN: In short, three friends giving their honest opinions and personal take on all things that could and should matter.

Who is GTA’s target audience, is it the typical talk radio crowd?

CARL: We’re shooting for a broader audience then those who typically listen to talk radio. I’d say teens to 30somethings that really, truly want to be different. We’re the next generation of Rush Limbaughs crossed with a little bit of Howard Stern, minus the overtly sexual shenanigans.

BRANT: Who isn’t? Aside from coma patients, small children and some pets.

JAKE BELCHER: Our target is any open-minded critical thinker, sick-to-death of being spoon-fed garbage by the mainstream media.

What inspired Grand Theft Audio’s creation?

CARL: I had long been a standup as well as a reporter, so I was fortunate to win the title of America’s Funniest Reporter in a Laugh Factory contest. Someone said I should look into radio, and combine my natural curiosity about everything, my insane level of ADD and my ability to be funny into being a radio host. I asked the two funniest guys I know – Jake and Brant – to join me. We began by training in a real dump of a radio school in LA and then moved on to real radio at KABC in LA (America’s top talk station!). Eventually a syndicated show bounced us, so we struck off for internet radio and some unceasing, uncensored fun! We felt it was time for a new generation of conservative voices and we’re proud to be part of that wave!

JAKE: I have always been beyond outspoken in my views on everything. When Carl suggested a talk show, it seemed a no brainer. We narrowed in on an idea of doing politically charged talk show with the biggest “names” we could get. Very quickly, we found that many celebs LOVED to expound on hot button issues.

BRANT: Jake and I have always looked for ways to work together, and have on several occasions. When he approached me to work alongside him and Carl I jumped at the chance. What better job than to be able to sit around and shoot the shit with your best friend.

Some topics that come up put you at odds with a lot of folks in the “conservative movement.” For instance, pot smoking was aired (pun intended) on one show and there seemed to be consensus that it should be legal. Is it fair to describe GTA as a conservative show, or is that too limiting?

CARL: I’d say we’re libertarian, which means that moral issues are between you and your concept of God, or lack thereof. Take gay marriage, for example. It really doesn’t affect straight America, so why are we up in arms about it? Separation of church and state means that we cannot rely on religious arguments to make policy. That said, I’m a fairly devout and practicing Catholic. However, I personally speak out against abortion on the show because I believe unequivocally that it’s a separate human life and that a person’s rights end when they affect the life and death of any other human being at any age. The other guys are more passionate than I am about pot issues, as I have only tried it a few times in life, while I’m way more up in arms about abortion – though all three of us believe that taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for someone else’s abortion. Each of us respects the others enough that if one of us gets off on a rant about pot or abortion, we don’t get in the way even if we’re not as passionate about it. With pot, I feel it’s no big deal really and is a huge waste of money in regards to the expense of keeping people in prisons and prosecuting a relatively harmless drug that was as legal as alcohol for decades in this country.

Being “out of step” on a couple of big issues, makes us unique and, hopefully, more interesting to listeners and the press  as we grow because we’re not easy to box up and define. But I’d say on fiscal matters, national security and the importance of taking pride in our nation and keeping it worthy of pride, we’re absolutely dead-on in the conservative camp.

JAKE: I do feel that just calling us conservative is not really taking in the bigger picture of everything around us. I’m more like a libertarian traditionalist with fiscally conservative principles. The thing that gets my goat the most is when the government wants to tell you that you can’t do something and then wants to charge you for the right not do it.

BRANT: I grew up during the Reagan years, am a fiscal conservative, and think smaller government is better. The market place should, for the most part be allowed to fix itself. Except when it comes to monopolies but the current blockheads in D.C. don’t really care. Case in point: Ticketmaster and how they have to create two new entities to compete with themselves (which sounds like playing chess with yourself).

Tobacco and Alcohol kill more people every year than Marijuana and I think one way to shrink our debt is decriminalization and taxation of FDA regulated and gov’t sold Pot is a step in the right direction. Besides, once we study it and find the true medicinal uses how can we argue with its uses?

Social reform is important and the decriminalization, growth and use of industrial hemp is one of the keys to this. Talk about new green jobs that can help the U.S. retake the role as the we are still and agricultural super power why not be even stronger in the world.

Do you think pop culture gets enough attention from folks on the Right?

CARL: I think it’s important that conservatives engage with the culture and gets praise for the things that are good about it, not just condemnation for that which is wrong. The best thing we can do is give Show Biz some respect when it’s warranted. Eventually they’ll see we’re not stereotypical monsters and they’ll come around to respecting us as well.

JAKE: I think there is a hide under the bed mentality that many conservatives have that is going to make it near impossible for the movement to emerge from. How do we make the youngsters look away from their iPhones and see what the government is doing to them with dry bread talking heads that have little to no appeal to them. That is why GTA has guests that kids want to hear from, while also trying to educate them on what’s happening in the world in the language they speak.

Patrick Goldstein wrote, in reaction to Andrew Klavan’s comments about Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds, “[Conservatives] either detest pop culture or have such inflexible rules about how it is supposed to be created that they end up stuck on the outside, looking at the filmmaking process with either scorn or derision.” Was Goldstein right, wrong or only seeing part of the picture?

CARL: I’m always baffled by readers who find great satisfaction in saying, “Well that’s $8.50 I’m not gonna spend.” Or who go off on harangues about one admittedly awful comment George Clooney made about Charlton Heston nearly a decade ago (which Clooney apologized for and Heston’s widow acknowledged as received, and I believe, forgiven). It hurts our movement and our place in society as a whole if we just say ‘boycott Hollywood!” or even exhibit an irrational hatred of an actor due to this or that belief or comment in years past. “Up in the Air” is a beautiful, apolitical film with huge, huge lessons about life and yet many conservatives absolutely will not see it because Clooney has some liberal views. Why can’t people remember the principles we learn as children: Reward that which is good by seeing it, and punish that which is bad by privately refusing to spend money on it. If all you have is hatred and contempt for Hollywood, that’s all it’s going to have for you – and then no one wins.

What role does GTA or would you like GTA to play in promoting conversation on controversial subjects among ideological opponents?

CARL: I’m the main booker of guests for the show (each of us has distinct and equally important roles, and the dudes have been bringing in some really cool guests too lately). I always tell guests that we’re largely conservative because I want them to know where we’re coming from. I invite them to either agree or argue like hell with us in a funny way. So far, no one’s shot us down over our politics, and usually there’s not a big fight on-air either. I think that we’re showing conservatism doesn’t have to fit the stodgy stereotype forced on it by the left, and that we will be a big force in providing truly alternative thought to all the young people out there getting brainwashed by the left in our educational system. I also think that comedy provides an easy way for serious messages to be discussed and ultimately accepted.

BRANT: None other than my own political agenda of ruling the world…just kidding.

Is it easier to take on politically charged subjects with folks whose business is comedy even if the parties involved come from opposite perspectives?

CARL: Yeah, I think it comes down to if you can laugh with or even at each other, truly laugh and not in a mean-spirited fake bully way, then you can get past differences and really learn to listen and respect each other.

BRANT: It hasn’t been hard. Our guest have a good time talking with us and we have a good laugh with them. Several want to come back and do the show again.

JAKE: Comedians are smart. Much smarter than the general public and I feel it is MUCH harder to fence with comedians over political issues as it can be tougher to get past the jokes to the reality of the situation. Even someone like a Janene Garofalo, as misguided as I percieve her to be, is still an incredibly smart person. She has to be otherwise she would constantly be being led to slaughter. We welcome the challenge of having liberals on the show though because if you don’t know what your opponents are saying, how can you ever compete with new ideas in the marketplace?

What kind of future do you see for the show?

CARL: I’m insanely ADD – I’m a reporter, and do standup, and write books and movie scripts and am preparing TV series ideas, etc – and yet radio is the one thing I’ve enjoyed more than anything else and that I feel I do better than anything else. We all want this to become our careers, and the sooner the better. We’re about to send demos to both XM Sirius satellite radio and to terrestrial and syndicated stations. We truly believe that we’re the next generation of blockbuster conservatives in the tradition of Limbaugh and O’Reilly, and we won’t rest until we get there – or at least somewhere pretty cool.

BRANT: XM, Fox news’ “Red Eye Show”, AM radio (since FM talk is dead in L.A.) or just an expansion to what we have. A second and then third night would be nice.

JAKE: My hope for the show’s future is with your kids as they listen on their iPhones and through the many social media outlets that we choose to use. The world changes everyday I feel it is our duty to add a little levity to the situation and truth to peoples lives.

I want to thank Carl, Brant and Jake for taking time to answer my questions. GTA streams live every Thursday night from 6 to 8 PM (PST) at LATalkRadio.com. You can hear archived shows at LATalkRadio.com’s Grand Theft Audio page.

America: home of the free and land of the brave. As a child, I remember growing up signing the National Anthem with such awe and passion. No, I am not particularly a good singer, but it did not matter: I loved my country and I loved our National Anthem. I was proud to live in the land of the brave, to be counted among such a great people. I could not wait to grow up and join the ranks of brave men and women fighting tirelessly to keep our country free. The way I saw it, all Americans were patriots working hard as soldiers, businessmen, farmers, teachers, and even lawyers, to preserve the liberties and heritage of America.  Unfortunately, my 10-year-old mind’s version of America quickly faded as the song ended and I grew older. As an adult, my perspective of America’s people dramatically changed. As an adult, I saw greed, empathy, slander and self-entitlement where, as a child, I had imagined, honor, grace, trust and passion. I began to ask myself “Where are the people who are the latter? Do they exist? Are they hiding waiting for their chance to make their stand?”

Coming from the world of business, where every word must be prefaced with 10 pages of legal explanations and exceptions, my ideas of America become much darker. I quickly learned that trust was not a luxury, truth was not a value, and honor was only for fairytales. Yet, my heart ached for the America that I imagined as a child, for the America my parents taught me about. I continued to ask myself, “Where are the patriots, the brave Americans who stand for freedom?” I knew they had to be out there somewhere. Life went on and I spent my time working and building my business. I soon forgot about the National Anthem and the America that I was searching for. The memories of my childhood passion become buried by deadlines and contracts. Soon, America was to me as it was to the rest of her people, just a place. Life had more important things to bring me than childish views of a land brimming from sea to shining sea with brave, kind, and goodhearted people. Besides, I had to look after myself and my family. 

It was at that moment that I realized my failure, when I caught myself saying that I was more important than my country and her future. A flood of realization poured over my very soul. The Patriots were all around me; they were next door, they were at church, they were business owners, doctors, soldiers, even lawyers, just as I had envisioned as a child. The problem was not that Patriotism had died; it was that somewhere along the line, we had changed the meaning of the word. My generation grew up being told that success was money, power, a college education, and a big house. Our idea of being a good American was providing a 3 car garage for our SUVs, cell phones for our 7 year olds, and $100 shoes for our teenagers. I understood at that moment that the American Patriot, under the new definition, was doing exactly what they were told was right.

A Soldier Died Today
Unattributed

He was getting old and paunchy

And his hair was falling fast,

And he sat around the Legion,

Telling stories of the past.

Of a war that he once fought in

And the deeds that he had done,

In his exploits with his buddies;

They were heroes, every one.

And 'tho sometimes to his neighbors

His tales became a joke,

All his buddies listened quietly

For they knew where of he spoke.

But we'll hear his tales no longer,

For ol' Bob has passed away,

And the world's a little poorer

For a Soldier died today.

He won't be mourned by many,

Just his children and his wife.

For he lived an ordinary,

Very quiet sort of life.

He held a job and raised a family,

Going quietly on his way;

And the world won't note his passing,

'Tho a Soldier died today.

When politicians leave this earth,

Their bodies lie in state,

While thousands note their passing,

And proclaim that they were great.

Papers tell of their life stories

From the time that they were young

But the passing of a Soldier

Goes unnoticed, and unsung.

Is the greatest contribution

To the welfare of our land,

Some jerk who breaks his promise

And cons his fellow man?

Or the ordinary fellow

Who in times of war and strife,

Goes off to serve his country

And offers up his life?

The politician's stipend

And the style in which he lives,

Are often disproportionate,

To the service that he gives.

While the ordinary Soldier,

Who offered up his all,

Is paid off with a medal

And perhaps a pension, small.

It's so easy to forget them,

For it is so many times

That our Bobs and Jims and Johnnys,

Went to battle, but we know,

It is not the politicians

With their compromise and ploys,

Who won for us the freedom

That our country now enjoys.

Should you find yourself in danger,

With your enemies at hand,

Would you really want some cop-out,

With his ever waffling stand?

Or would you want a Soldier--

His home, his country, his kin,

Just a common Soldier,

Who would fight until the end.

He was just a common Soldier,

And his ranks are growing thin,

But his presence should remind us

We may need his like again.

For when countries are in conflict,

We find the Soldier's part

Is to clean up all the troubles

That the politicians start.

If we cannot do him honor

While he's here to hear the praise,

Then at least let's give him homage

At the ending of his days.

Perhaps just a simply headline

In the paper that might say:

"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING,

A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

I just want to take a minute this evening to share some drawings with you. They were sent to me recently by a man in Texas who is as concerned about America as I am. Here is a link to his page called, Our American Freedom. Please pass it on.

This post will also be featured at MachinePolitick

By Katharine DeBrecht

In his State of the Union speech, President Obama heralded his signing of controversial hate crime legislation.  While I believe any crime is one of hate, the slippery slope of “hate crimes” has led to a dramatic infringement on the liberties of the people of Great Britain, Canada and Scotland. Worse, such anti-liberty legislation in these countries has criminalized and traumatized children.

 According to the 2009 report The Myth of Racist Kids, published by the Manifesto Club (a British civil liberties group), 40,000 children each year are being falsely labeled as racists after a 2002 rule requiring schools to document and report all instances of perceived racism to local governments.

Adrian Hart, an author of the study, wrote in the Daily Mail last year “In some cases the consequences are the stuff of nightmares – children face official police reprimands, even court cases.  Friendships fracture; animosities spring up where none existed before – and the whole issue of race is magnified. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: if someone says there is racism, it must exist.”

After a ten year old child called another child a “Paki” and “bin Laden,” he was arrested and forced to appear before a judge (the other child had called him a skunk and Teletubby). A nine year old boy, excited about his World War II history lesson, was punished for aiming his finger like a gun at another student saying “Let’s shoot Germans.” The other child happened to be Polish.  The student was branded a racist and required to appear before a deputy head and apologize in front of the class.

The attack on children’s psyches goes further. The British government-funded National Children’s Bureau published a 2008 report suggesting children as young as three years old be reported for claims of racism.  According to the report “no racist incident should be ignored. When there is clear racist intent, it is necessary to be specific in condemning the action.”  This, according to the report, should also include when children might “react negatively to a culinary tradition other than their own by saying ‘yuk’.”

Even the song The Hokey Cokey (also known as The Hokey Pokey) is now considered a hate crime against Catholics.  According to the Telegraph “Politicians have urged police to arrest anyone using the song to ‘taunt’ Catholics under legislation designed to prevent incitement to religious hatred.”

In Great Britain hate crime laws have expanded to include religious aggravation, homophobia and something called “transphobic” offenses.  In The Australian last year, Hal G. P. Colebatch wrote in his piece Thought Police Muscle Up in Britain, “There are no concentration camps or gulags, but there are thought police with unprecedented powers to dictate ways of thinking and sniff out heresy, and there can be harsh punishments for dissent.” Colebatch cites several instances where a citizen’s mere speaking of his/her mind has resulted in serious consequences. New government legislation is also on deck to punish someone who cracks a politically incorrect joke with up to seven years in prison, according Colebatch.

Ministers in Great Britain are now being accused of encouraging their citizens to turn in each other for hate crimes.  According to the Telegraph, ”Police officers are also privately complaining that they are now being required to investigate ‘trivial’ spats between people as hate crimes, when they would prefer to deal with more serious offences.”

Is this the direction we are headed?  Newsweek recently published an article claiming white babies are racist.  A nine year old Arizona boy was suspended for a hate crime when a school employee claimed he used the phrase “brown people.”  A seven year old boy was sent to the principal’s office for using the word “gay” when explaining the marriage of two women.

Will Americans follow the lead of its allies in tolerating the exploitation, manipulation and destruction of our children’s minds under the guise of political correctness? Perhaps we should ponder what British author and researcher on family life, Patricia Morgan, told the Daily Mail regarding the current policing of children’s minds in Great Britain: “It smacks of totalitarianism…Who would have ever thought that the anti-racism crusade would go so far?”

On the day that would have been President Ronald Reagan’s 99^th birthday, I thought I’d share three of my favorite gems from our 40^th president.

• “My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.” (said while preparing for a radio address)

• “I have left orders to be awakened at any time in case of national emergency, even if I'm in a cabinet meeting.”

• “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

Do you have a favorite Reaganism?

By Burt Prelutsky

When I was just a kid, I saw the stage musical, “Peter Pan,” starring Mary Martin in the title role and Cyril Ritchard as Captain Hook. It is to this day the only version of that old war-horse I ever liked. I still don’t know why that story has retained its popularity since 1904. Even Walt Disney couldn’t work his magic on it.

What I remember best about the show, the tunes aside, is that at the point when Tinkerbell’s light was flickering, and she was supposedly at death’s door, the audience was urged to start clapping in the hope that our applause would somehow save her. Suddenly a woman seated behind me leaned forward and said, “Little boy, you aren’t clapping. Don’t you want Tinkerbell to live?”

“I know the story,” I told her. “She’ll live even if nobody claps.” 

You can see that, as young as I was, the die was already cast. Even back then, I had zero tolerance for baloney. That is one of my many problems with Barack Obama and his crew of cronies and stooges. They’re trying to make me clap for crapola like cash for clunkers, cap and trade, trillion dollar stimulus bills, AmeriCorps, ACORN, unlimited funds for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, socialized medicine and global warming.

On top of all that, look at the cast he’s rounded up for this tacky production. People used to say they wouldn’t buy a used car from Richard Nixon. Well, I wouldn’t buy a used hubcap from the likes of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, Alan Grayson, Christopher Dodd, Barbara Boxer, Charles Rangel, Rahm Emanuel, Cass Sunstein or David Axelrod. Furthermore, I’ve seen guys selling “genuine mink coats” out of the trunk of a ’94 Buick I’d trust more than Robert Gibbs.

It struck me the other day how beneficial a nickname can be. For instance, would Magic Johnson have been quite as magical if people had called him Earvin? Would Tiger Woods, however good his golf game, been quite as effective a pitchman if we’d all called him Eldrick? And would Barack Hussein Obama been able to pull the wool over so many eyes if he hadn’t been called the Messiah?

Barack pretends to be George Bailey, everyone’s best friend, but from the way he pushed ObamaCare through the Senate by using any means necessary -- including bribes and intimidation -- it’s obvious that behind the nice guy façade, he is actually Henry F. Potter, weaving his web like a giant spider, plotting to turn beautiful Bedford Falls, otherwise known as America, into the nightmarish Pottersville. 

Two centuries ago, King George III was told that President George Washington, who had eight years earlier turned down the opportunity to be the king of the United States, was planning to give up the presidency at the conclusion of his second term and return to his farm in Mount Vernon. The astonished monarch, who had lost a war to General Washington, said, “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.” 

Washington did, and he was.

Does anything more clearly illustrate how far we have fallen in 210 years?

By David Paulin

Conservatives who bemoan the coarsening of America's manners and morals over the years can perhaps find reason for hope in what happened in Texas on Wednesday. There, a young lawyer began a jail sentence for contempt of court -- all for making a "masturbatory gesture" to an Austin judge in her courtroom last March.

Adam Reposa, 33, was originally scheduled to start his 90-day sentence on Tuesday night, having exhausted his appeals. But on Wednesday, during a hearing in an Austin courtroom, Reposa -- wearing stripped prison garb and hand restraints after a night in jail -- listened as his lawyer convinced a judge to reduce his 90-sentence to 10 days and a combination of home confinement and weekends in a work-release program. He'll have to wear an electronic ankle bracelet.

Reposa also will be allowed time off to attend to the "medical needs of his girlfriend, who is pregnant," according to the Austin American-Statesman.

The more lenient sentence came after several judges testified during Wednesday's hearing that Reposa had behaved himself in court since the contempt charges.

Reposa's troubles started last March while defending a client in a DUI case before Judge Jan Breland. During some legal discussions with the judge and prosecuting attorney, Reposa, according to Judge Breland's contempt judgment, "made a simulated masturbatory gesture with his hand while making eye contact with the court in response to an objection by the state to his interference with the court plea bargain inquiry."

The gesture, she explained, constituted, "intentional and contumacious conduct." (For anybody wondering what "contumacious" means, here's a definition.)

Breland, who until then had never cited a lawyer for contempt, included a hand-written note at the bottom of her contempt judgment: "No bond without my approval."

However, Reposa was out of the lock-up in a few hours on his own recognizance, thanks to another judge who ruled that Judge Breland's handwritten edict had exceeded her legal authority.

"I'm not the strictest teacher in the schoolhouse, but there's a line," Judge Breland testified at Reposa's trial in mid-April.

Some moments of that trial before a judge were truly bizarre, according to an account by the legal publication Texas Lawyer:

(Judge) Breland testified that the incident that led her to finding Reposa in contempt occurred after she asked Bill Swain, an assistant county attorney, to state for the record the plea offer that prosecutors were offering Reposa's client. According to Breland's testimony, Swain stated on the record that Reposa was whispering in his client's ear while Swain was talking.

Reposa, who was standing with his client a few feet from the judge, held his right hand "in sort of a fist" a few inches from his waist and moved his hand quickly up and down, Breland testified.

"To the best of my knowledge, that is simulated masturbation," Breland said. "It's something boys do to insult one another. ... Under no circumstances should that ever happen in a courtroom."

"Obviously, a simulated masturbatory gesture is a good way to describe it," Reposa said during his testimony... However, Reposa said he did not make the gesture at Breland but at Swain.

When asked by Randy Leavitt, first assistant Travis County attorney, if he thought the gesture was contempt, Reposa jumped up from the witness chair. "I think there's a huge difference between this," Reposa said as he made the masturbatory gesture down by his crotch, "and this," he said while making the same gesture off to the side.

Reposa, according to an old website of his, specializes in DUI cases, and he goes by the self-described nickname of “Adam 'Bulletproof' Reposa," according to the State Bar of Texas website. "IF YOU WANT TO BEAT YOUR DWI CHARGE YOU ARE A FOOL NOT TO CALL ME!!", declares his old website, duibadass.com.

Interestingly, readers comments left at the Austin American-Statesman about the controversial case suggest that Reposa is at the center of a culture war, with some defending him as a "stellar lawyer" who takes no guff from conservative legal elites, while others describe him as an uncouth man unfit to be a lawyer.

One reader's comments were especially telling in respect to a decline of American manners over the last three decades:

I remember when my father was an attorney in the 1960’s. When they moved to a new city, my mother called to have utilities started up. They asked for his name and employment information. When she said he was a lawyer, they replied “oh, then we don’t need a deposit." Those were the days that attorneys were officers of the court and had ethical standards they all adhered to. Times have, indeed, changed.

On this day in 1789, George Washington was elected our first president under the Constitution. 

Of April 16, 1789, the day Washington left to take office, the Mount Vernon website notes, “In his diary that day, he did not write about winning the election. Instead he wrote about his worries about doing the job well. He also wrote about his belief that he should serve ‘my country in obedience to its call.’”

Washington’s first inaugural address, given before a joint session of Congress, bears reprinting. It’s not long, and I sincerely encourage you to read it. Not simply for the historical treasure it is, but for a glimpse into leadership characterized by humility and service – indeed, the type of leadership we need more of today.

WASHINGTON'S INAUGURAL ADDRESS

OF 1789

A Transcription

                                                                                    [April 30, 1789] 

Fellow Citizens of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

    Among the vicissitudes incident to life, no event could have filled me with greater anxieties than that of which the notification was transmitted by your order, and received on the fourteenth day of the present month. On the one hand, I was summoned by my Country, whose voice I can never hear but with veneration and love, from a retreat which I had chosen with the fondest predilection, and, in my flattering hopes, with an immutable decision, as the asylum of my declining years: a retreat which was rendered every day more necessary as well as more dear to me, by the addition of habit to inclination, and of frequent interruptions in my health to the gradual waste committed on it by time. On the other hand, the magnitude and difficulty of the trust to which the voice of my Country called me, being sufficient to awaken in the wisest and most experienced of her citizens, a distrustful scrutiny into his qualifications, could not but overwhelm with dispondence, one, who, inheriting inferior endowments from nature and unpractised in the duties of civil administration, ought to be peculiarly conscious of his own deficiencies. In this conflict of emotions, all I dare aver, is, that it has been my faithful study to collect my duty from a just appreciation of eve ry circumstance, by which it might be affected. All I dare hope, is, that, if in executing this task I have been too much swayed by a grateful remembrance of former instances, or by an affectionate sensibility to this transcendent proof, of the confidence of my fellow-citizens; and have thence too little consulted my incapacity as well as disinclination for the weighty and untried cares before me; my error will be palliated by the motives which misled me, and its consequences be judged by my Country, with some share of the partiality in which they originated.

    Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station; it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own; nor those of my fellow-citizens at large, less than either. No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency. And in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their United Government, the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities, from which the event has resulted, cannot be compared with the means by which most Governments have been established, without some return of pious gratitude along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me I trust in thinking, that there are none under the influence of which, the proceedings of a new and free Government can more auspiciously commence.

    By the article establishing the Executive Department, it is made the duty of the President "to recommend to your consideration, such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." The circumstances under which I now meet you, will acquit me from entering into that subject, farther than to refer to the Great Constitutional Charter under which you are assembled; and which, in defining your powers, designates the objects to which your attention is to be given. It will be more consistent with those circumstances, and far more congenial with the feelings which actuate me, to substitute, in place of a recommendation of particular measures, the tribute that is due to the talents, the rectitude, and the patriotism which adorn the characters selected to devise and adopt them. In these honorable qualifications, I behold the surest pledges, that as on one side, no local prejudices, or attachments; no seperate views, nor party animosities, will misdirect the comprehensive and equal eye which ought to watch over this great assemblage of communities and interests: so, on another, that the foundations of our National policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; and the pre-eminence of a free Government, be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its Citizens, and command the respect of the world.

    I dwell on this prospect with every satisfaction which an ardent love for my Country can inspire: since there is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists in the oeconomy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness, between duty and advantage, between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity: Since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained: And since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.

    Besides the ordinary objects submitted to your care, it will remain with your judgment to decide, how far an exercise of the occasional power delegated by the Fifth article of the Constitution is rendered expedient at the present juncture by the nature of objections which have been urged against the System, or by the degree of inquietude which has given birth to them. Instead of undertaking particular recommendations on this subject, in which I could be guided by no lights derived from official opportunities, I shall again give way to my entire confidence in your discernment and pursuit of the public good: For I assure myself that whilst you carefully avoid every alteration which might endanger the benefits of an United and effective Government, or wh ich ought to await the future lessons of experience; a reverence for the characteristic rights of freemen, and a regard for the public harmony, will sufficiently influence your deliberations on the question how far the former can be more impregnably fortified, or the latter be safely and advantageously promoted.

    To the preceeding observations I have one to add, which will be most properly addressed to the House of Representatives. It concerns myself, and will therefore be as brief as possible. When I was first honoured with a call into the Service of my Country, then on the eve of an arduous struggle for its liberties, the light in which I contemplated my duty required that I should renounce every pecuniary compensation. From this resolution I have in no instance departed. And being still under the impressions which produced it, I must decline as inapplicable to myself, any share in the personal emoluments, which may be indispensably included in a permanent provision for the Executive Department; and must accordingly pray that the pecuniary estimates for the Station in which I am placed, may, during my continuance in it, be limited to such actual expenditures as the public good may be thought to require.

    Having thus imported to you my sentiments, as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign parent of the human race, in humble supplication that since he has been pleased to favour the American people, with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquility, and dispositions for deciding with unparellelled unanimity on a form of Government, for the security of their Union, and the advancement of their happiness; so his divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend. 

This transcription was taken from the original document in the Records of the U.S. Senate, Record Group 46, in the National Archives.

(Source: National Archives and Records Administration)

Agreement on Core Values Necessary but Insufficient

Many people are of the mistaken notion that candidates endorse one another strictly based on agreement with a given set of core values. Core values are a necessary but insufficient factor in the calculus of candidate endorsements, especially in primary elections. Candidate endorsements cause a fair amount of angst, because the non-endorsed candidate and his or her supporters naturally feel slighted. The problem is most people see the necessary side of core values, but fail to see the insufficient side.

Candidate Endorsements is Chess, not Checkers

Those who endorse candidates typically have a significant amount of political capital or influence, or their endorsements would be completely worthless. Endorsing winning candidates is a significant part of maintaining that influence. A string of endorsed losers will squander the endorser’s political capital in rapid order. The endorser has a clear and present interest in ensuring that her endorsements are winners, for a track record of endorsing winners builds her influence and political capital.

Thus, a key factor in endorsing candidates is whether the endorsed candidate is running an effective campaign. The notion that “it’s not about the person, it’s about the message” is prima facie fantasy. A significant plurality, if not a majority of this country can describe itself as Reagan Conservative. So, any of us with those values should be able to run and win if it’s only about the message. The bottom line is, some people are better able to enunciate that message and execute it via legislation made or signed. That is why these individuals campaign to represent our interests in this representative federated republic.

To Go With the Party….

Complete agreement on core values is worthless if the candidate is running an ineffective campaign and has little chance of winning. This is almost always the case with third party candidates, or weak candidates within one of the major parties. The endorser would be squandering her endorsement on such a candidate. The path to victory is not always linear. It involves many maneuvers and many tools. This is why Rand Paul secured an endorsement over Bill Johnson in the KY primary. Paul has a far better chance of beating the Obama liberal, Trey Grayson. We don’t sacrifice kings and queens in chess to save a bishop, knight, rook, or pawn.

Disconnection between Perception and Reality

Speaking of Rand Paul, sometimes, there’s also a disconnection between an endorser’s actual views on an issue and people’s perception on an endorsee’s views on that same issue. For instance, the endorser is pro-life. Many would construe that to mean the endorser is an ideologue who wants to regulate abortion at the federal level – by outlawing it. That’s the picture liberals paint.  Thus, some conservatives are shocked when the endorsed candidate has espoused the libertarian view that abortion should be a state’s rights issue. These people forget that the endorser has a long and proud history of favoring states’ rights over federal intervention – what could be considered a libertarian aspect. They forget that the endorser never once called for outlawing abortions; but she has expressed the desire that people would choose life instead.

To Buck the Party….

Conversely, there are instances where core values are the over-arching value over mainstream party backing. We saw this with NY District 23 last year. The GOP candidate, Dede Scozzafava was a RINO in the truest sense of the term. In fact, Scozzafava was arguably as liberal as the Democrat Bill Owens! The Reagan Conservative Doug Hoffman had the right (pun intended) combination: agreement with the endorser’s core values, and he was running an effective campaign – though not effective enough: Owens won that race. The ACORN-backed Scozzafava showed her true colors when she backed not Hoffman, but Owens! This was a clear instance where the endorser’s going against the Republican Party machine was the right thing to do.

When to Endorse and When to Stand Down

Knowing when to endorse is also key. For instance, if a conservative is running in a liberal state, a complete public endorsement by another well-known conservative would likely backfire and cause the candidate to lose. The astute endorser knowing this will withhold and provide measured support, ensuring victory. Once the victory is secured, the endorser will ramp up the publicity. This is exactly how Scott Brown was able to secure his Senate seat in an otherwise very liberal state.

Loyalty to a Friend

When someone who is an unknown is elevated to the world stage, there is some loyalty due to the person who did the elevating. This is true, even if you don’t agree with everything that person stands for, because that person got you where you are today. Thus an imperfect conservative -- like Senator John McCain – arguably a RINO -- secured an endorsement from a Reagan Conservative, because he introduced the endorser to the world. To have endorsed another candidate – who by the way has not a prayer of a chance of beating Senator McCain – would have been a major back-stab, and a foolish move.

Lesser of Two Evils

I am an ordinary person, but I was “endorsing” — Michael Bloomberg over his liberal opponent, Bill Thompson for Mayor of NYC in this venue and others. There were no other credible candidates running against him. I hate what Bloomberg did with gutting term limits. I had voted for term limits some 20 years earlier. I hate his personal vendetta and full-out assault on the Second Amendment. He won’t fix the roads. He exemplifies the term “RINO.” But…his opponent was an ACORN-backed, SEIU-backed Obama flunkie. He gave me flashbacks of Dinkins, Koch, and Beame…the days when NYC was a crime-infested toilet.

So…I held my nose and pulled the lever for Bloomberg and advised my friends to do the same.

Chess

We’re back to the chess board and seeing the big picture. We don’t sacrifice kings and queens...