Getting To Know GOP Chair Candidate James Evans

James Evans is a former Salt Lake County Chair and State Senator who along with Aaron Gabrielson and Marco Diaz are running for Chair of the Utah Republican Party.  Evans is a self-described “conservative” (Facebook).  Elections are now less than two weeks away on May 18^th. 

VOTING RECORD—SPONSORED BILLS

One of the strongest indicators of one’s political views is one’s voting record and Evans had a term as a State Senator during 2003-4.  An examination of his voting record is much more insightful into Evans’ political leanings rather than a trite label of "conservative."  In a careful examination of all of Evans sponsored bills as a Senator there are a number of bills which seem rather neutral, but I find none that in my estimation I would consider fiscally conservative, that is tending towards any of the following:  reducing government spending, lowering taxes or fees, reducing government regulation and bureaucracy, or reduction of bonds and debt.

Conversely, there were four that egregiously seemed to stand out as antithetical to fiscal conservatism:

·         (2003) SB129 Criteria in Awarding Bids Failed to pass, but attempted to restrict government contracts over $100K to companies with 15+ employees, an apprenticeship program, and health insurance.   More unnecessary regulation and anti-small-business.

·         (2003) SB140 Prescription Drug Assistance Program  More regulations for pharmacies to require promotion of public freeloading on drug programs.

·         (2004) SB135 Center for Multicultural Health, with help from Democrat House member David Litvack, this appropriated $100K for a pork-barrel style spending for the creation of an unneeded Multicultural Health Center.  In 2011 the legislature incorporated the Center into the Utah Office of Health Disparities while the appropriation was continued.

·         (2004) SB230 Reading Achievement Program Evans tried to appropriate $30 million, but in the fourth substitute successfully appropriated $15 million for a new reading program.

SB230 was in my estimation the most damaging of all the Evans-sponsored bills.  It grew the public education bureaucracy without accountability and is a classic case of money being thrown at education and hoping it stuck.  Additionally, it also authorized school districts to raise property taxes for this program so yes, it is fair to say that everyone including Evans who voted for SB230 voted to both increase spending and raise taxes.

 In a peer review by the US Dept of Education the lack of program accountability was exposed:

"Although the overall objective of the state’s K–3 Reading Improvement Program is to ensure that all Utah third graders “read at or above grade level,” this term and its measurement have not been specifically defined."

In other words, we threw $15M at reading without ever defining a measurable goal. The report concluded:

"After the implementing legislation was passed in 2004, the K–3 Reading Improvement Program was immediately embraced, with all 40 of the state’s school districts signing on. As a result, no control group exists for comparison, and it is impossible to contrast participants and nonparticipants. Thus, any relationship subsequently identified between the program and student achievement outcomes is correlational at best and does not imply that the program caused the results."

While I grant Evans freedom to use whatever label he desires in describing his ideology, based on the purest form of measurability we have--bills Evans voluntarily sponsored and initiated--I can see no iota of fiscal conservatism or financial restraint from his actions as a Utah State Senator with which I would ever voluntarily apply the term to him.

VOTING RECORD IN GENERAL

A pair of conservative Utah watchdog groups compiled their own measurements of Evan’s record which examined not only bills Evans sponsored but his record as a whole:

·         Grassroots.org in 2004 ranked Evans third-from-bottom GOP lifetime.

·         UT Taxpayers Association in 2004 named Evans in a list of ten most Liberal Republicans.  They also ranked Evans below average in 2004 with a 69% vs. an average GOP 71%.

CHARACTER & LEADERSHIP

One could certainly make a point that electing a GOP State Chair has less to do with one’s philosophy and much more to do with the talents, abilities, and leadership which comprise one’s character.  To best judge Evans’ character & leadership I chose to examine Evans’ record as Salt Lake County Chair 2005-09, the closest-fit position to the one he currently seeks.

During this time as Chair, Evans compiled a lengthy list pointing to a person of irascible character and tactics in dealing with his opposition. 

·         Evans played the race card in 2006 asking the SLC council to censure SLC Mayor Rocky Anderson of a “racial remark” when the Mayor used the term “slavish” to describe partisan, blind obedience to leaders including Evans who supported policies in violation of fundamental human rights. (Deseret News)  Funny, I feel Obamacare is slavish, yet I love the skin color of our President.

·        Evans pushed a heavily edited video on the media right before the Sheriff’s race in 2006 to imply the Democrat candidate wanted to “do an ass-kicking or shoot someone” when in reality the Sheriff was trying to model bad behavior.  (KSL) The tactic backfired and the Democrat won in a landslide as a result of Evans’ lie to the public. (SLTribune)

·         Longtime Utah GOP activist and former candidate Mike Ridgway demonstrates with recorded documentation that Evans played a role in lying to police to get Ridgway arrested. (YouTube)

·         Evans filed a frivolous complaint to the IRS asking for removal of the NAACP’s tax-exempt status after the NAACP protested certain remarks of GOP Senator Buttars and expressed interest in seeing his defeat in an election.  One blogger correctly predicted that “zero, zilch, nada” would become of Evans' complaint and quoted the law that such organizations “may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity.”  The blogger identified the impression left on the community as the result of Evans' frivolity:  “[Republican] gutter politics” (WCForum)

·         In the rumor & gossip column it has been speculated rather humorously that those who removed all of a major Democrat candidate’s signage in a single night had ties to Evans (One Utah).  Certainly there does not seem to have been any offer on the Salt Lake County Republican Party to help compensate their Democratic counterparts for the theft of their property (signs).

There are definitely more complaints registered about the character of Evans available for discovery on the internet and traditional media; I have tried to sample the flavor rather than provide an exhaustive list.  In contrast to Evans’ leadership style is that of outgoing current Chair Thomas Wright.  Wright has publicly made a point to extend graciousness and exhibited a sense of fairness towards his Democratic counterpart Chair Jim Dabakis in avoiding ad hominem attacks.  While I do not regard Wright without flaw, going from Wright to Evans in the area of character would be moving the Party in the wrong direction.

MEASURABLE RESULTS

While political philosophy and character are important, the bottom line for some is:  can Evans get Republicans elected?  Obviously philosophy is important because if one is viewed as not conforming to Republican values, it will be hard to motivate the party to do the work.  Likewise if someone is viewed either internally or externally as of a bombastic or bulldoggish character people will not be attracted to such behavior.  So what results did Evans’ style as Salt Lake County Chair produce?

After three years of Evans, the 2008 election was a disaster for Salt Lake elections.  A Democrat President won Salt Lake county for the first time in memory while picking up a trio of Utah House seats in Sandy and a Senate seat while the GOP challenger to County Mayor was defeated. The Salt Lake council whom Evans had lobbied over “Rocky-gate” picked up a seat flipping to majority Democrat. (SLTribune)

CONCLUSION

Some supporters have claimed Evans is a new man.  I have not seen this.  I have not seen apologies go out to the people who Evans has lied about or persecuted.  Nor I have witnessed any involvement in Evans in working towards a changed attitude about adopting fiscal conservatism.  I believe with such a deep-rooted past record—one which Evans himself touts—I would need to see irrefutable, tangible evidence of changed philosophy, character, and results over a documented period of time before I could accept such dubious claims of a new Evans.

I'm Not Gonna Take It Anymore

I'm through with the American Empire.  Wake up people.  This isn't an organization you want to admit you support.

I've had the opportunity to see the truth and changed my views to reflect these truths I have uncovered wherever they were to be found.  Over the past few years I've studied the issues, the news sources, the political parties, the politicians, the bureaucratic mess we call law, and the founding documents including the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.  Our elected officials are out of control funded by corporate donations in turn for corporate bailouts and instead of repealing law to get us out of this mess we get the Patriot Act, Medicare Part D, and Obamacare.  Instead of cutting government, both parties argue over some miniscule reduction in future spending increases called the Sequester with one party wanting more taxes and the other more war.

Just about every bill of right we esteem has been grossly violated.  We don't have pure freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to bear arms, protection from warrantless searches, and rights are not retained by the people nor the states.

We live in a state where the government steals our property every day (taxation); creates endless war and bullies other nations disallowing them to defend themselves with the same weapons we have; doesn't allow us to hold signs of protest in front of the President; censors sex in the bedroom with gays, prostitutes, and polygamists; regulates everything people want to take into their body from peyote and marijuana to raw milk and soda pop; stops citizens from travel at checkpoints and airports including subjecting non-suspects to nude body scanners and molestation; reserves the right to wage war and kill without trial its own citizens through drone attacks.  The list is legion; it is comparable to the list Jefferson made when he justified the overthrow of the tyranny of England in the Declaration of Independence.  Indeed we as a people have suffered a long train of abuses designed to reduce us under absolute despotism.

I do not advocate a violent course.  I admire Ghandi and encourage my fellow citizens to never ever give your consent to these tyrants.  Decry and expose the tyranny of the United States.  History will look back and wonder why we accepted this despotism and consented to the deprivation of our and our neighbors' liberty.

For me, showing my rejection of consent means I'm through with flying the flag and pledging my allegiance to this awful abyss of tyranny we call the USA.  If the government lacks my consent, then according to the Declaration of Independence, it has lost the moral authority over me and indeed it has!  Think about it:  would you pledge your allegiance to the tyrannical empires represented by the swastika or the hammer & sickle?  Would you march under the Roman standard & aquila or wear the headress of an Aztec king of a bloodthirsty nation?  God forbid save under duress or torture.

Twister Sister got it right.  Just apply the words to the government:

Oh you're so condescending

Your goal is never ending

We don't want nothing

Not a thing from you.

Gary Johnson for President Crowd Surfs

Word is starting to roll out about Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson's Salt Lake City Crowd Surfing Event yesterday.  What started out as a free, public, packed, standing-room-only, Townhall of 200 attendees ninety minutes and one innocent inquiry later may have witnessed the only known POTUS Candidate Crowd Surfing event EVER.

As Gary spoke for the first half hour, you could feel his enthusiasm for liberty and ending government largess in a plethora of areas: war, debt, drugs, marriage, and spying.  He comes across pragmatic in his approach dealing with liberty-oriented solutions and pround of his veto record as the former twice-elected Governor of New Mexico. 

He mentioned one bill he veteod was to force pet shop owners to exercise their pets.  While he personally favors pet exercise, he doesn't want to pay for the pet exercise police.  It is this passion--even insatiability--for reducing spending that caught my attention early on when Gary was in the GOP debates prior to his exit last December to run on the Libertarian Party ticket. 

The balance of the time was spent in answering questions from the public on topics A to Z with a line that never ended. (Excerpt video)

This is an exciting time for Gary as the two monopolistic parties have candidates very similar in ideology.  Whether Gary is the next president or not, with every percentage of vote Gary gains, he wins.  He commented that he was in this commitment through 2016 so while not a formal announcement, you can expect that Gary will not be absent four years from now.

SLC Townhall With Presidential Candidate Gov. Gary Johnson



Don't worry--you won't have to pay $1000 to meet with a candidate on the ballot for President.  In fact, it's free!  How fitting for a candidate who so unabashedly promotes freedom.

For those of you who don't know Gov. Gary Johnson (website) well, let's cover a bit of ground quickly.  Gov. Johnson is a former two-term Republican Governor in the blue state of New Mexico.  As Governor, Gary cut taxes & spending using both veto and line-item veto hundreds of times so the man not only has electability but chutzpah.  Indeed unlike Romney or Obama, he's promised to submit a balanced budget to Congress in his first year!  Awesomeness!!!

Gary's great on protecting our Constitutionally-protected civil liberties, ending the drug war, bringing home the troops from Afghanistan, and not instigating a war with Iran.

With Romney falling in the polls, those who seek to rid our country of the tyranny under Obama should take heed of this rare opportunity.  He's one of only four candidates nationwide that are on enough printed ballots to win the presidency (Green Papers--the four candidates are highlighted in yellow) and yes, he's on the ballot right here in Utah under the Libertarian Party ticket.

The Gary Johnson townhall tomorrow (Tuesday) night 7-9pm at Challenger School off 13th East in Salt Lake, just east of the Bees Stadium.  Facebook lists the public event under "Gov. Gary Johnson - Salt Lake City Townhall".

2012 Convention Exposes Corruption of GOP, Romney Campaign

Found in the backpages of the mainstream press, a profound act of blatant tyranny in our elections occurred yesterday at the Republican National Convention. My goal is to explain the event using a simple analogy the complex corruption miring the hands of both the GOP and the Romney campaign.

Imagine if you will for a moment a NCAA football team trying to qualify for a bowl game. Let's furthermore pretend that the rules say that in order to qualify to play in a bowl game, you must have at least 5 wins. Your team works extra hard against pundits who claimed your team was so bad you wouldn't even win 1 game. Some of the games played--most notably one game played in Maine, but others as well--you were clearly the winner but the NCAA told you you lost the game because they didn't like the outcome. The NCAA's decision so outraged the Governor of Maine, he actually boycotted the games despite personal invitation to attend.

And all this notwithstanding, by some miracle grace of God your team wins SIX games! It serves as an amazing victory for the team and reason for celebration. Yet just in the act of winning the last win at the completion of the season, the NCAA votes to up the ante to EIGHT games in order to qualify. Thus has been the treatment yesterday at the convention with those within the GOP who support nominating at the convention someone other than Mitt Romney. Here is evidence of the 225 votes cast at the RNC yesterday for someone other than Romney: video tally count

The problem facing the GOP is not only is this corrupt, but illegal. While the GOP is a private organization, it received $18 Million in taxpayer funds for the purpose of holding a fair convention. Changing the rules at the final moment from 5 states to 8 states is antithetical to the democratic process and should disqualify the GOP from being considered a venue promoting fair, democratic process. Just as the birth certificate issue clouded the validity of Obama's election in the minds of many, the abrupt rule change now clouds the Romney victory. That is, how can Romney legitimately now claim to be the GOP nominee when the rules were changed at the last minute to disallow the nomination of another candidate at convention?  Would we allow a last minute change in the voting process?  What if we changed election rules at the last minute in 2000 and tell Bush that we were no longer counting electoral college but popular vote?  The nation would be in outrage.

 In an article of interest, US News quoted one of the Maine delegates as saying:

"We would have probably stood in line and voted for Romney in November, but not if he's going to do this for us," he says. "Not if he's going to disenfranchise the voters of the state of Maine. If you're going to do that, I will not stand with this party. This is ridiculous. These people were elected by the state and they're not allowed to be on the floor."

This video highlights the contention, including the shouts to seat the Maine delegation.  Does the Romney campaign and Mitt Romney himself really believe that using the tyranny of the majority to squelch dissent and disenfranchisement is the means to victory?  Can there be freedom or Constitutional government when the rights of the minority are disrupted?

Romney has been negligent in standing for freedom. Most likely through his heavy-handed campaign, he has been complicit in the disenfranchisement of the non-Romney delegates, although when questioned by Fox News' Ben Swann, he claimed ignorance. Ignorance-at-best is hardly a trait we can afford from a country quagmired in debt and a far cry from the leadership Romney professes.

Both the RNC and candidate Romney have lost the moral highground. There can be no long-term victory for them when this happens. Indeed it reminisces of the salt works scene from the movie Ghandi. The beating of those in favor of someone besides Romney has gone on and on. The bodies of the wounded have been carried off and whatever moral ascendancy the GOP held was lost today.  The tyranny at the GOP convention yesterday will be remembered always.

The Urgency to Rethink North Korea

As Mikhail Gorbachev took control of the Soviet Union and proceeded to make somewhat friendlier overtures to the US in the 1980's, I was skeptical of a wolf in sheep's clothing; indeed too skeptical. After all, the US government had spread fear of nuclear annihilation throughout our Republic during the cold war.

Yet in this history lesson we see that it is easy to prejudge an individual based on their associations. Even Gorbachev's ghastly appearance with that blood-red scar on his head made him appear to be Jack the Ripper incarnate at the time.

Here we have now in North Korea a new leader, Kim Jong-un, allegedly the world's youngest head of state with his age estimated in his late twenties. He has a pretty new bride from his wedding last month and seems to bring freshness to his country.

America in contrast, is stuck in a quagmire. In 1950, President Truman started our first major unconstitutional war by declaring "police actions" in the Korean peninsula without Congressional declaration of war. In the 62 years, we have maintained a perpetual presence in Korea including participation in the DMZ. Who can fathom the billions of dollars of our current debt that arise from this action? It is past time for the Korean peninsula to be occupied by Koreans, not by Americans.

Let's announce the beginning of a new slate, and a withdrawal of US occupational forces from Korea. Let's get some friendly trade and exchange going between us and the North Koreans. They are not an evil people, but a repressed one. And who knows? Perhaps Kim Jong-un isn't the evil leader as the American media projects of North Korean tyrants. Just perchance Kim Jung-un when not breathing down the barrel of the world's mightiest military--cornered and threatened by our own unconstitutional policies and warmongering--might not that dissimilar to Gorbachev. It's entirely plausible. This seems to be a once-in-a-lifetime chance to promote liberty and truth among a noble people. I call upon President Obama to personally meet with Kim Jong-un and let's see if we can't get things a bit back to normalized with this impoverished nation of North Korea. Think of the potential: if Obama plays his cards right, this could be a feather in his cap like the Soviet Union was to Reagan. And goodness knows after all the warmongering Obama has done if he doesn't need such a "feather".

Of infinite more value than a feather in the cap of our own authoritarian President are the lives and souls of the North Koreans who deserve our friendship and brotherhood. Why not try a George Washington be-friends-to-all-nation approach? Who knows, and what have we to lose? We'll save a ton of dough which we desperately need anyways. Time is precious here; the freshness of new leadership quickly fades under the incessant threat we pose as the mighty American Empire.

Chaffetz' Proposed Changes to Former Presidential Benefits

Currently, our former Presidents are entitled to a pension of $199,700 plus an office, staff, and other perks established by the Former Presidents Act of1958.

At the root of the problem is the spending, as always.  In an article by Jonathan Karl this week,  the perks per president are now, at least in the two most recently retired presidents, above the $1M annually.  Politico chimed in with a chart showing the net worth of the ex-Presidents while both mentioned Clinton's and Bush's income in the $10M+ range.  It seems clear that our ex-Presidents do not need the people's money for their retirement, something I think George Washington and many others after would have countered.

History of the Presidential Pension

The idea of a presidential pension was floated in Congress after ex-President Truman "rejected several business proposals" offered him and seemed unable to maintain his lifestyle.  Thus in passing the 1958 act it was argued that “to maintain the dignity of that great office” Congress needed to use the people's money to prevent the ex-president from “in business or [an] occupation which would demean the office he has held or capitalize upon it in any way deemed improper.” (Congressional Research Service, 2008)

These arguments in favor of a presidential pension fall flat.  It seems to evoke two classes of labor: "dignified" and "demeaning."  I would really like for someone to put forth what constitutes "demeaning" labor for an ex-president who by law has no rights beyond what any citizen of the US possesses.  We fought a revolution against the aristocracy and kings and the entire concept of a presidential pension establishes a "King Noah" (Book of Mormon) dependent on the labors of others for his or her sustenance.  The 1958 act ought to be repealed.

Chaffetz proposed reform

Instead of repealing the measure outright, Chaffetz seeks to "modernize" the act with his Feb 2012 introduction of HR4093.  The bill gives the pension a $300 annual boost to $200K even and puts reasonable limits on these office expenses, capping them at $200K subject to income. (Jason Chaffetz Press Release).  These are quite reasonable accommodations and while again I think further progress is needed in eliminating the pension and allowance altogether, I have revealed my position by calling this "progress."  Indeed Rep. Chaffetz says this would save $3M annually.

 Where I really start to get a bit frustrated is that HR4093 quintuples the ex-presidential spouse survivor pension from $20K to $100K.  There has been no demonstrated need for this nor is there any foreseeable need.  We elect a president who is smart enough to lead a nation but can't prepare for their spouse's needs when they die?  Does the spouse of a deceased ex-president really need or deserve $100K of the people's money forced from the people under the threat of imprisonment?

In all, HR4093 as it currently stands is a disappointment from what it could be with some minor adjustments.  At least its six pages it is in keeping with the spirit of keeping bills short and readable.