Well, he was in the _presence_ of George Washington's Inaugural
Address at the National Archives. He... oversimplified... a little.

Compared to his statements on substantive political issues, this is
small potatoes. But, yes, at least this one may be verified and
checked in a manner that admits of very little wiggle room. But will
it shake the confidence of his supporters, or will they just think
that their spokesman is being unfairly persecuted on a trivial matter?

I despise Glenn Beck, but, unfortunately, I _also_ despise the hard-
line liberals who are his loudest critics.

I would have thought that there is a "silent majority" of Americans
who, like me, believe that common sense, and not the extreme positions
taken by the party faithful in the Democratic and Republican parties
(let alone the positions of parties to the left of the Democrats or to
the right of the Republicans) are the way to go.

However, this silent majority is _so_ silent, its silence, if it
existed, could only be explained by death squads and terror. Since the
American people do not show signs of being as intimidated as, say, the
Muslim world, I can only conclude that this "silent majority" I'm
hoping for is as mythical as Spiro Agnew's.

John Savard