Saturday, December 26, 2009
AWI is by far the most profound of the three aforementioned Beck books, and it seems keeping in style with AIB the little we've tackled so far. AWI solidly lays out the Libertarian case for politics and we find ourselves agreeing with nearly all of the Libertarian agenda although admittedly as a new convert we feel a bit stretched. That we even describe ourselves as "libertarian-leaning" is an historic political shift for us personally never before experienced. Perhaps we have become more anti-Progressive rather than Libertarian; either way it's a change for good. We do appreciate the Constitutionally-based arguments which support the Libertarian agenda and we already have AWI on our "re-read" list to more deeply guzzle truth.
Though anchored in profound political debate, the book gives a generous modern-art-paint-splat of humor, comics, and sidebar notes to illustrate points. One of our favs was the two-page spread on pp. 130/1: "How to Fire a Tenured Teacher in New York City." We shared this with our sons during a discussion them how notwithstanding their mother--as an incredibly talented teacher in a state-run "public" school--even the best state-run schools lack capitalistic competition to be efficient operators. Similar to the current healthcare debate, citizens should not be forced to hand over our money for our children's education, but rather have choice with our funds where to send them. The Utah voucher bill was a great start in this direction--we support a second try again soon, this time with a smaller voucher amount so our wonderful teachers don't feel so threatened. Good teachers will find good jobs. OK, back to the review.
AWI is hardly a rant solely about education but divides chapters into hot topics including healthcare, energy policy, the Constitution, right to bear arms, illegal immigration, and others. As a student of history, we found the Chapter 10 on Progressive Presidents fascinating as it helped us to frame our previous and current studies of politics by foregoing GOP partisanship and calling out "Progressive-lites" like McCain that exist in our own political party while at the same time shuddering at the thought of the choices during 1912 elections (at least in 2008 we had Conservative Palin!): Democrat Party progressive Wilson (our nominee for worst 20th century President), Bull Moose Party Progressive-Party founder Teddy Roosevelt, or Republican progressive Taft. With choices like this it is little wonder the horrible 16th and 17th Amendments passed during that era (and with enormous braggadocio putting forth economic wonder Utah being the sole state who actually voted to reject both Amendments!)
While AWI fully delivers on substance, we have a suggestion with the format. AWI provides a wonderful plethora of documentation in the back complete with unmanageably long URL's (try typing in correctly this averaged-length URL citation from AWI: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=aRyHgTljlyFl")! Beck and likeminded authors should take note from twitterers and provided a second URL short & sweet for hardcover readers to type in. An additional option would be to publish the Citations electronically so readers could click on the references when in front of a computer. We have some concern that the URLs may be scrubbed in the future so concern for permanently linking these come into play although we were able to find all the references we checked. Also, to our dismay the book lacks an index which is always helpful. Lastly, AWI isn't edited flawlessly: such as needing the paragraph header on p. 290 "Public Use" moved up a paragraph to prevent confusion and there is no heading separating the "Bill of Rights" p. 287 from the other seventeen Amendments; such errors are non-substantive and in uniform with modern standards (and no worse than the editor of this blog, we might add!)
The final verdict
We had seen only a couple of Glenn Beck shows back on CNN prior to this year and Beck was largely an enigma to us. With the foray of Beck into Fox News in 2009, we began listening to Beck's radio show which has evolved into our fav. Thus it is with all unabashed bias found in the bestowal of a Academy Award (and yet to tackle Palin's "Going Rogue") we present to Arguing With Idiots by Glenn Beck the 2009 Best Nacilbupera "Reid" of the Year!
Thursday, December 24, 2009
We would rather come together as a nation unified around a celebratory season both as Christians remembering the miraculous birth of our Savior in fulfillment of Biblical (and additionally for Mormons new world) prophecy, this God-incarnate perfect Jesus who made everything possible for us; and as non-Christians celebrating the birthday a man who has arguably made the single most dramatic impact on the history of the world.
Instead, we are dismayed and irate at the level of corruption exhibited throughout this bill and process including this Christmas Eve vote, the first since the Civil War era. Indeed, this is prompting a new Civil War in our nation. Not one of cannons and rifles but of words, civil disobedience, and massive protest. We follow the motto of Patrick Henry: "Give us liberty or give us death." The individual mandate is contrary to the liberty we fought and died for. A new era of tea party-ism has begun.
Our fight has only begun. This bill will be hotly debated at the dawn of 2010 as the Senate and House seek to reconcile their two shameful Democare bills. A blue dog Democrat, Parker Griffith, has already switched parties; it wouldn't surprise us if there is another. We vow to fight this at every step, at every level. We will fight this in Utah as it evades our state's sovereignty. We will bring this unconstitutional bill to the Supreme Court if Obama signs it. We will seek the overthrow of every Senate Democrat and Independent who voted to take away our liberty. We will continue in protest and raise our voice and never, never, never give up.
To all our readers, friends, and even our political adversaries: to you and your family a Merry Christmas.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
(1) Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." No powers to regulate health insurance are found in the constitution. End of discussion here: states or the people have jurisdiction in the healthcare arena. The bill is unconstitutional.
(2) Eighth Amendment: Protection from "excessive fines" is guaranteed. Never before in the history of our nation have we fined for NOT purchasing something. This bill would require everyone to purchase health insurance coverage under threat of fine and/or jail. Any fine would be excessive. Joining this amendment is the Fourth Amendment which protects against unreasonable searches. To enforce their law of everyone having insurance must needs be a requirement of verification so that we would allow the Government to search our records for insurance coverage verification. If the burden of insurance coverage verification were placed in the responsibility of the people, then they would force anyone without health insurance to violate the Fifth Amendment which prohibits self-incrimination! What a mess!!! No wonder GOP Senators have declared this portion of the bill blatantly unconstitutional and have assured that it will be challenged in court. (Hertitage.org also offers a lengthy but excellent article explaining the unconstitutionality of mandating insurance purchase in detail.)
(3) Bill of Attainder: We assert the $1.2B "Cornhusker Kickback" is a bill of attainder which is prohibited in Art. 1 Sect. 9: (from Wikipedia: "A bill of attainder, is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial and includes any legislative act which takes away the life, liberty or property of a particular named or easily ascertainable person or group of persons because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment.") Reid's manager's amendment to the bill was debated in a secret, partisan manner so as to punish those states not in on the bargaining with the Medicare healthcare costs of the state of Nebraska whose Senator Nelson was in on the secret scheme. The bill was released at the beginning of the biggest holiday shopping weekend of the year and is scheduled to be voted on not many minutes from now before the weekend closes.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
"I'm a Jeffersonian" decried Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska who was the last Democratic holdout before announcing minutes ago his support for the bill. Nacilbupera is bewildered how anyone could invoke the name of Jefferson in describing insignificant abortion opt-outs for the states while mandating all Americans be forced under threat of fines and jail to have health insurance. Freedom of choice is gone in this bill; your rights as an American to manage your own healthcare have been subserviated to a government that can't balance its budget nor even pay for the laws it passes or proposes.
Nelson, the former Nebraska Governor who once enjoyed the highest approval rating of any Senator in Congress is now on record as supporting a bill 67% of Nebraskans oppose. And this isn't just any bill; it is easily the most significant bill of 2009. Nacilbupera feels that Corn Huskers will now unite against Ben Nelson to remove him from office in 2012 when his term expires, if not before; in short, Nelson will follow Reid out of office. According to an anonymous Senate aide, Nelson was exhorted by the White House that if he didn't vote for this bill, Offutt Air Force Base would be put on the BRAC (base closing) list. Nelson was also seeking undisclosed large amounts monies for his state in order to effectively sell his vote out (like Mary Landrieu!)
Unbelievably, we find ourselves agreeing with MSNBC liberal Keith Olbermann who denounces this bill because it takes away his freedom to be self insured. Perhaps Nacilbupera will get to share a jail cell with Mr. O. (and a bunch of other patriotic dissenters) when we excise our right to choose our own "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" when it comes to healthcare. Under our God-given right we refuse to participate in a unconstitutional Federal edict to have health insurance. We never ever gave government the right to require us to be insured; it is simply illegal and we decry ALL SENATORS who will vote for this coal-in-the-stocking Christmas "present."
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Zo grew up in the “da hoody hood” of San Bernardino, CA, and developed into a…(deep breath) rock-hard Christian conservative. He is terribly funny and has a knack and talent for presenting the message in a funny, ebonistic-jive, down-to-earth sort of way you won’t get from Limbaugh or Hannity. He is a professional comedian, musician, political commentator, and proficient at the martial arts. Don’t call him African-American however: he prefers the term “Nubian” (read pages 95-6 for more info).
We were rather befuddled by the seeming lack of formal organization of the book at first but if you think of the book as the title indicates “writ of rants” and maybe even read aloud, if you’re like us you’ll soon become endeared. The memorable quotes from the book started coming in so fast that we actually had to write them all down to remember them starting from the first paragraph: “We should be able to drop kick liberalism into the land of missing sock makes.” Or this one later in the chapter: “The Second Amendment is our emergency tool to protect our Constitution, in the event the First is no longer effective in maintaining it.”
We would love to share with you all our fav quotes but don’t want to spoil the book so we’ll limit our sharing to one more: “Many people think [speaking in tongues] is strange but don’t think it strange when jazz singers scat, or when rock singers yell out a bunch of ???????...Christians however, are seen as weird for speaking in tongues. That’s messed up.”
To us, this isn’t a book for little kids; after all, this is funny yet serious political commentary for an adult audience. Whoa! We’re not talking “adult” in the porno sense here; just we wouldn’t let little kids watch SNL either. Simply put, Zo speaks his mind, and that’s Zo at his best. Even if you're apolitical, the book is worth its weight if nothing but the wonderful jive (ie: "daaaaaaang guuuuurrrrlll!')
To order Zo’s book, visit his website at: http://www.machosauceproductions.com/merchandise.html We picked up the book for a bargain under $15 which included postage.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Utah conservative GOP-er Diedre Henderson has a new blog entitled The Daily Dose with some powerful and concise information on the socialized medicine bill debate. In her post "U.S. Senate to Commit Harry-Kerry" she describes the sly tactics used by the Democrats to force this unpopular bill through the Senate. In her post Shadegg's One Man Revolt she describes how Congressman John Shadegg (AZ-03) recognized the Stupak Amendment as a way for Pelosi to shepherd votes for Obamacare knowing full well the amendment would be stripped. Shadegg posted his own thoughts on his website.
The whole process is reminiscent of the significant corruption that exists in our country as exhibited in this famous John Murtha Youtube video:
Nacilbupera has pondered much whether with the government takeover of automakers, banks, railroads, and mortgage companies along with massive entitlement/welfare programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, America remains a capitalist country or if we have slouched into socialism. We believe passage on debate of the public option socialized healthcare bill before the Senate today will almost inevitably lead to the public option becoming law. Should healthcare which represents 1/6th of our economy become socialized through this public option, Nacilbupera will no longer be able to accurately describe our economy as capitalist; it is the last leaf.
We support those sacrificing their time in today MillionMedMarch and wish them well. Consider this post our cyber-walk with you!
To the dwindling number of Obama supporters, when you weigh in this massive government expansion, perhaps you can understand the rationale of why many of us fully consider Obama a radical socialist.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
If a fundraising dinner is too much commitment at this time for you, here is the complete list of events for Utah and Salt Lake counties that day (note: paying for your own meal is part of the conservative philosophy of not trying buying your vote--unlike Bailout Bob who will and has bought your breakfast before):
- Buy Your Own Breakfast with Joe the Plumber 7:30 - 9:00 a.m. @ IHOP Restaurant (850 S 1250 W, Orem -- across from UVU)
- Clean Up Washington with Joe the Plumber Town Hall 9:30 - 10:30 a.m. @ UVU, Center Stage 12:00 noon - 12:30 p.m.: News Conference, Utah State Capitol Rotunda
- Clean Up Washington with Joe the Plumber Rally 12:30 - 1:30 p.m. @ Utah State Capitol Rotunda, Salt Lake City
- Delegate Training & Constitution Class to be held right after Rally at the Capital 1:45 - 2:45 @ The Utah State Capital
- Salt Lake County: Dinner with Joe the Plumber - Eagar for Senate Fundraiser 6:00 p.m. Reception: $100 7:00 p.m. Dinner: $100/plate; $150/couple; $600/table@ Grand Building Ballroom, Utah State Fair Park (155 N 1000 W, Salt Lake City)
Additional statewide tours dates and places are available at http://www.eagarforsenate.com/. If you are unable to attend the events, Nacilbupera asks a personal favor to stop by www.eagar4senate.com and make a donation of any size during the month of November to her campaign. (A suggested donation of $9.12 is great as it sends a message well noted by Cherilyn; yet even $1 would send a huge message about the number of supporters there are out there!)
Second item. Earlier this month Cherilyn was interviewed by Art Wayland of 912 Project Truck, a perfect example of the 912 grassroots project we are proud to associate with. Art praises her as being a "highly conservative, very well versed, amazing American Patriot." We concur! Here is the video from the interview:
Thursday, November 12, 2009
The NY State Board of Elections now has the race with Hoffman trailing Owens by only 3,000 votes or 46.5% to 48.7%. Considering the 10,200 absentee ballots issued have not been counted it is within the realm of possibility that Hoffman could still be declared winner. We believe that the ballots will break for Hoffman, but the question remains by how much?
Meanwhile as Hoffman conceded victory to Owens predicated on false return summaries, Owens was sworn in by Pelosi and voted for Pelosicare the next day. We believe that this vote alone will not be forgotten by NY-23rd voters and should Hoffman not prevail when all the votes are counted, voters will unite Republican and Conservative parties in 2010 to replace Owens.
One final thought before leaving this race: considering the fusion party politics of New York, as Scozzafava dropped from the race and the Republican party endorsed Hoffman, wouldn't that render the vote for the Republican a count for Hoffman? That is, in fusion politics aren't you essentially voting for the party not the candidate? If so, Hoffman would pick up the 5% from the Republican candidate and run away with the race. We don't know fusion-voting politics well enough to make this case, but it seems logical. Perhaps someone might want to challenge this idea in court?
With all this in hindsight, it seems really too bad Hoffman conceded but Nacilbupera does formally recall our earlier post declaring Owens a victor and will not declare either candidate in this race a victor at least until this race is certified.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
All over the political news across Utah today was Attorney General Mark Shurtleff's withdrawal from the 2010 U.S. Senate race. Shurtleff cited the need for family time particularly during a time when his adopted daughter had acute mental health needs. Having familial mental health experiences, we strongly sympathize and wish the Shurtleff family God bless.
Fellow pundits and media outlets have already begun to speculate as the stock of other candidates in the race. Although they raise interesting points, Nacilbupera will refrain for the moment from public comment on the impact of the Shurtleff announcement on other candidates out of respect for the Shurtleff family.
Notwithstanding Nacilbupera’s endorsement of another candidate, Shurtleff has gained our respect both through this commitment to family and through his willingness to recognize that running a U.S. Senatorial race is not done by jumping in late in the game hoping to get one’s name into the ring. We suggest a way of supporting our great AG through this time of distress might be the reading of Shurtleff’s newly-released historical: "Am I Not a Man, the Dred Scott Story” though we confess we haven’t done so ourselves. We reiterate our stance that Bennett is wrong for Utah and stand by our previous endorsement in this race as a strong alternative to Bailout Bob.
- John Curtis' gracious acceptance video for Provo Mayor
- David Harmer loses by 10pts. There are two positives in this loss. First, the loss is that this is slightly less than the Cook PVI of D+11 with a Republican neophyte making a great showing against the top ranking Democratic executive in the state. More importantly, Democrats will likely lose a Lieutenant-Governorship with Schwarzenegger having an opportunity to appoint a fiscally-conservative Republican to fill Garamendi's vacated position. With Schwarzenegger being term-limited, this appointee stands to receive a tremendous boost in the upcoming gubernatorial elections. Finally, a Schwarzenegger appointee would add a rare Republican to a near Democratic monopoly in California on executive-branch offices.
- Poll: Do you support parental notification of abortion? http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/chi-teen-abortion-law-02-nov02,0,6313456.story
Yesterday, twitterer @RightKlik posted a URL to a sample ballot in NY23 which we post below:
So how in the world does a non-candidate get listed TWICE, your opponent get listed TWICE, but your name is listed once? Welcome to the world of fusion voting where political parties get power not candidates.
If you happened to know that Mr. Hoffman was running on the "Conservative Party" ticket, he is much easier to find. The problem is that Hoffman was often described as an "Independent" in the media which can be confused with the "Independence Party" which endorsed Scozzafava (and later Owens). When Scozzafava withdrew, the Republican Party endorsed Hoffman, so one might also think that one could find Hoffman under the Republican Party line. What a mess, indeed!
The solution for solving these problems under con-fusion voting rules lies in the creation of multiple parties cross-endorsing the desired candidate to provide maximum exposure. For example, you could create the "9/12 Party" which could cross endorse Hoffman and bingo! Hoffman has his name twice on the ballot like everyone else. But we wouldn't stop there. Let's get the "Tea Party" Party on there with a "Rush Limbaugh" Party and a "Matt Drudge" Party and heck, lets just throw in the "Obamanation" Party for good riddance! Now we've got Hoffman's name on the ballot six times and you'll have to hunt for anyone else running in the race.
The point is fusion voting is ridiculous and while we won't blame Hoffman's loss solely on a terrible ballot we need to be alert in all our states for nonsensical voter reforms such as New York's.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Race tonight was a wild one as PR36 with a 41% best-of-all-voter-precinct-turnouts dumped in early voting 4:1 for Clark giving Clark a huge early 60%/40% over Curtis. This was Clark's stronghold and as Clark had represented these voters as State Rep. in District 63. But Curtis came back winning comfortably in the end with 53% of the vote and winning 35 out of 49 precincts. Our PR20 had a respectable 26% turnout with Curtis losing by a mere 6 votes. Yet for PR20 this is a Curtis victory as residing in our boundaries was former mayoral contestant Don Allpin (and posterity) who came in 3rd in the primaries and endorsed Clark on Oct 24th.
Maine votes down same-sex marriage!
Leading 53% to 47% with 87% reporting, voters in Maine gave a voter veto to a bill passed by their legislature that would have allowed same-sex marriage in the state. No matter how liberal the state, whenever the decision has been put to the voters instead of a few liberal judges, same sex marriage has been defeated and tonight was no exception.
Bob McDonnell elected VA gov in landslide; Republicans sweep trifecta of seats!
With all precincts reporting McDonnell won 59% to 41% bringing with him a Republican Lt. Gov. and A.G. in a state that went for Obama just 12 months ago. Just last week, Obama had "campaigned" for McDonnell's opponent Deeds by saying: "He may not be perfect -- my wife reminds me I'm not. (Applause.) She is, just like our spouses are perfect, but we're not. (Laughter.) You know, Creigh, sometimes his tie gets a little askew, and you know, his hair is a little -- (laughter)..." (Yahoo News) We don't think the patronizing of Deeds by Obama helped Deeds at all.
Doug Hoffman loses to Bill Owens
Tonight was a huge bounceback from the losses suffered twelve months ago. It also shows where we need to shore up support and educate on the evils of Socialistic ideas in getting ready for 2010, which officially starts....well, now! For starters, we can begin by rallying at the Utah State Capitol on Saturday, Nov. 14th, for a combined 9/12 and Utah Tea Party rally. Let us use our victories to motivate us to replace Bennett, throw out Harry Reid, and get some good Conservative Republicans back in both houses of our Congress in 2010.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Anonymous: Thanks for stopping by; you are welcome to remain anonymous, but we feel it would have empowered your premises had you (1) revealed the status of your citizenship in Provo (2) if you are tied into the authorship (IE “RMC”) of the anti-Curtis blog you cite TWICE and (3) if you are a member of the Clark campaign or family. Understandably, we have our suspicions though you are welcome to refute these thoughts of ours (emphasize thoughts rather than accusations.)
As a five-year Provo resident, sole author of this blog, and a vocal supporter and endorser of but not part of the Curtis campaign, we shoot straight here which gives us a bit more authority in the debate than someone who hides behind an Anonymous posting. Although we already have “pulled the lever” for Curtis in early voting, we owe it to our readership to respond.
First, your accusation that we have not “really educate[d] [my]self beyond one-worded campaign slogans” goes right along with the mudslinging of the Clark campaign. Even RMC who you quote TWICE hoped the debate would not be about “slinging mud” (bottom of page; first post by RMC). Let us elaborate upon the “literally hours upon hours of listening to Curtis” we have done. Coming into this election we hadn’t a clue who either candidate was; we aren't related to anyone in Provo (does the wife count? LOL) and admittedly had never heard of Action Target. At some length even before the primaries, we met both candidates personally and asked them direct questions one-on-one eye-to-eye. We attended our neighborhood’s meet-the-candidates night at Amelia Earhart Elementary, attended a number of open houses and the first mayoral debates at the Provo city center, and been in communication via email until our concerns were satisfied. We reckon (pardon the Missouri-ism here) based on the effort of eligible voters to stay informed, we rank in the top 1%. Your accusation of us not being educated is simply baseless, biased, and demeaning to a private citizen doing their civic duty.
We will however, address your two underlying premises of debate. In reading the posting on the anti-Curtis blog you point to, we believe you are bringing up non-relevant, partisan material into the campaign. Gee whiz (sorry, our age is showing...), Glenn Beck grew up a drunk Democrat; David Horowitz was a commie—and while Curtis was neither but simply trying to bring some “common sense” back to the Democratic Party—do we really care? Is past partisan politics relevant in a non-partisan local election? The point is this isn’t a partisan race but Clark (who if you want to bring partisanship into this race in our opinion is more Democratic than Curtis sponsoring bills like HB290) is trying to make it one with these campaign fliers (see newest below). As Republicans we denounce AG Eric Holder’s forced reversal in Kinston, NC, of the non-partisan status of their local elections; but you tolerate--even advocate--Steve Clark repeatedly bringing up partisanship into this race? Hogwash.
To your second point on the green sweater comment: perhaps Curtis “lost his cool”; don’t know, wasn’t there, but Curtis did apologize. So we concede the point. Yet you know it seems a bit double-standard: like Clark attacking Curtis for not owning dogs? Clark also seemed to be losing his cool when we asked him one-on-one what he was going to do about our city’s “sanctuary city” label. So wow, both candidates have human emotions; passion is better than apathy and both these men are decent in their hearts and neither at all like Democrat Harry Reid.
On funding, Curtis has consistently said that for special projects the voters should have a say, not forced upon us like Iprovo. If we want a new rec center or whatever, are we willing to support that with higher levies? Curtis’ plan for four officers on gangs instead of one is deficit neutral; directing police who are told to “go write tickets” to actually fighting crime. As a businessman, he is keen to eliminating inefficiencies in government so that we can balance our budget as well as making Provo more business friendly to grow our tax base. Clark on the other had wants to add a layer of government by having “mentors” assigned to developers; to us growing the scope of government is not a desirable ideal.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Much has been said of late concerning liberal Democrat and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's(*) stance in the Mormon church vis-à-vis his political philosophy. For those not familiar with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the church maintains political neutrality. Every election cycle members of the church--via letters read in meetinghouses across the nation from the ranking "First Presidency" of the church--are advised be responsible and informed citizens in their communities, but not to use the Church in any means for direct political advocacy.
Nevertheless, the question has been raised this week by the Salt Lake Tribune of how the Church can allow a member with such blatant Socialist philosophies such as Harry Reid to be allowed full privileges in the Church. This is because the church has consistently allowed membership to be predicated on personal testimony and adherence to moral guidelines and excluded the promotion of Socialism from that list of requisites for worthy membership. Unless the Church reforms its membership guidelines, we recognize Harry Reid as a worthy member of the Church though we stand strongly against the vast majority of his efforts and political tenants.
This is not to say the Church has been silent on the evils of Socialism. Indeed Ezra Taft Benson, a past President and Prophet of the Church, was one of the most vocal leaders in his denunciation of Socialism. Last month, a favorite blogger of ours--True Politics USA--had these well-sourced articles on these past denunciations by LDS (or Mormon) leaders: Ezra Taft Benson describing socialism, Conference definitions of socialism, and Prophetic Quotations on Politics. True Politics even had a enlightening discussion with us on Why don't LDS prophets discuss socialism more today?
Although Church leaders do not denounce the word Socialism today, there is much talk on the "evils of a dole." For example in an April 2007 discourse in the Church's worldwide General Conference, Presiding Bishop H. David Burton who oversees the temporal affairs of the Church, quoted past Prophet Heber J. Grant (founder of the Church's respected welfare program) as saying: "Our primary purpose was to set up … a system under which the curse of idleness would be done away with, the evils of a dole abolished, and in-dependence, industry, thrift and self respect be once more established amongst our people." Indeed, a search on the Church's online "Gospel Library" for the term "dole" reveals 91 citations of the term, none of which are done so in a favorable light (...and none refer to "Bob Dole" either, ROFL). Included in these "dole" articles is one by James E. Faust, who as a member of the high ranking group "Quorum of the Twelve" sustained as prophets of the church and as a former leader of the Utah Democratic Party stated in an October 1982 General Conference address: "It [giving a full day’s work for a full day’s pay] will also help us avoid accepting government doles which rob us of our dignity and our self-respect."
To us it is evident that the Church is manifestly against government handouts or doles and Socialistic ideals. Surely Harry Reid's proposed healthcare bill in Congress is a dole and a Socialistic ideal to give a handout, grow government largess, and does not promote independence and self-reliance. The bill includes taxes taking money out of our hands, our neighbors hands, and our current and future posterity's hands to support it--$1T worth of money! We furthermore decry the lack of constitutional support for such a nationalized healthcare plan! Although the Church hasn't spoken out directly against the bill (and would likely not do so), it indubitably would be in keeping with the teachings of the church if it so chose to do so.
*A genealogical footnote: For the record we have no traceable genealogical link going back several generations to Harry Reid (or for that matter two other notable Mormons with that surname: Andy Reid and Roger Reid; indeed historically, our Reid progenitors were hardshell-Baptist and likely anti-Mormon having migrated into lands immediately vacated by the Mormons fleeing Missouri Governor Boggs'(D) infamous extermination order).
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
In doing further research on this plan, we discovered that three Gulf-of-Mexico counties near Houston (Galveston, Brazoria, and Matagorda) opted out of the Federal Social Security plan for their county workers just before such an option was closed with the 1983 Social Security reforms.
In 2005, the National Center for Policy Analysis gave a thorough analysis of the results of this program and found it to be highly successful; we highly recommend the reading. "Workers' contributions were put into conservative fixed-rate guaranteed annuities, rather than fluctuating stocks, bonds or mutual funds" yielding an impressive 6.5% annualized yield over 24 years (and much higher than the Federal Gov't as shown in the Beck video above).
With such a successful program, we are left wondering why we are stuck with such an awful leviathan that Social Security is today and what we can do to start such a program in our own county--not only for public workers but for private ones as well.
The Carters really hit the issue on the head. Curtis has worked day and night to try and bring our city together around a pro-business (grow our sales tax base), fiscally responsible, and city safety agenda. He listens and cares deeply about our city and brings a tremendous amount of executive experience. Below is the copy of the mudslinging campaign mailer we received in the mail from Clark and surely representative of the one referred to by the Carters:
Recently, we received a campaign mailer from Steve Clark. If we hadn't known better when we read it, we would have sworn the Provo mayoral race had become partisan. Clark claims he's showcasing Curtis' inconsistencies, but it appears he's really appealing to the Demophobia rampant in our county. (Demophobia: fear of all people and ideas belonging to the D party, a fear that Democrat equals liberal.)
His mailer tries to paint Curtis as a liberal. However, the label fits neither man. Both are Republicans who espouse conservative principles. As Republicans, we are disappointed with Clark's attempt to turn a non-partisan race into a partisan one.
As for consistency, that is exactly why we are voting for John Curtis. He has consistently demonstrated an attribute we find sorely missing in our society: an open-minded, non-partisan nature. He possesses a unique quality: he is neither afraid nor ashamed to change his mind when warranted. He understands that clinging to a weak idea will never make it strong, even if it is his own. Imagine that -- humility in a leader.
•Troy and Angie Carter, Provo">
In case you are not familiar with the Democratic Party Platform of Utah County, the platform is surprisingly moderate including pro-life and marriage-between-one-man-and-one-woman stances and maybe not pro-gun but at least acknowledging gun ownership rights. In fairness the Democrats are liberal on government social issues, although tend to be quite ethical. The epitome of a Utah County Dem is recently-deceased Bill Orton who represented Utah County several years ago. We think Curtis is a Conservative who happens like many of us to see some faults in the Republican Party and are willing to consider alternative approaches when the party fails us (as it is doing right now in not condemning Tim Bridgewater's FEC violations).
For Clark to openly insinuate that Curtis does not espouse Conservative or Republican ideas--even amidst a non-partisan race--is frankly, a farce and demeans the accuser. We love Republicanism but we hate this putrid and vile mudslinging over non-issues. Do we really care if Curtis was a Democrat for a brief period during his life: NOOOOO! Do we care that Curtis has a plan for ridding ourselves of gang violence while Clark denies we have a problem? YESSSS!
We have had ample opportunities to meet with Curtis even one-on-one and found Curtis to be extremely respectful of his opponent as Curtis tried to sell us on the positive he had to offer us. After literally hours upon hours of listening to Curtis, we cannot remember a single negative thing Curtis has ever said about Clark: that my friends tells you the high caliber of this candidate for mayor and why we have been proud to financially contribute in a modest way to the Curtis campaign.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Provo City Council citywide: no endorsement; although we have a candidate in mind, we don’t feel strongly enough to endorse.
***NATIONAL (in order of need for help)***
New Jersey Governor: Chris Christie (R) Pro-life tax cutter; his election will rescue the NJ economic disaster under Corzine’s reign. Maybe not as strong 2nd amendment as we are but no RINO either. Nail biter in 3-way race.
Virginia Governor: Bob McDonnell (R) Believes in marriage, life, guns, cutting taxes; expected to win again in rematch against opponent.
We believe a win in 3 out of 4 of these races will send a strong message that our movement is snowballing and will have Democratic strategists reeling. Should God bless us to win all four, the blue dogs in Congress will have ample ground to justify any opposition to nationized healthcare.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Here are links to articles online:
(1) Salt Lake Tribune Article: http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13611222?source=rss#
(2) FEC candidate brochure on testing waters: http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/candregis.shtml
(3) KSL GOP convention story and video http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=6810199
(4) Tim’s current facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=71608052128
(5) FEC candidate filing search: http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norcansea.shtml
One might ask why we are pointing out the bad about a Conservative candidate. Believe us when we say in the hours of doing research and putting together these videos for you, we asked ourselves that question many times!! But the reality is that if any conservative candidate is to stand against a powerful incumbent senator, they are going to have to be solidly vetted. As we don't see any news organizations doing investigations into these obvious FEC violations, we felt it our duty to do so. Indeed we might just be saving Mr. Bridgewater a ton of his money on a race he isn't going to win when the truth gets out.
In the end, this is a stand for truth and principle rather than standing behind a businessman we like and share values with.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Caitlin Bronson published a great article today in the Daily Universe (BYU's student newspaper) on Cherilyn Eagar.
In the article, Eagar attached herself to voluntary term limits, (a position that should be adopted by every member of congress):
"If elected, Eagar said she will limit herself to two terms, unlike Bennett, who is currently [seeking] his fourth term. “He’s drunk the Potomac poison,” Eagar said. “But I think being a career politician is a shameful thing.”
Cherilyn also made the cot pledge (sleeping on a cot saves taxpayers money--albeit a small amount--the cot has become a symbol of commitment to the citizens to follow a path of fiscal conservatism), following in the Chaffetz tradition:
Eagar also said she will follow Chaffetz’s example of using a cot to sleep in her congressional office. “Only mine will be a queen-sized cot,” she said.
It would be a cold day in Obamaland for Bailout Bennett to sleep on such a cot; and yes, any Bennett supporters out there, you have been challenged!
From the KTKK achives
Here are links to talk shows Cherilyn has hosted or participated in on K-TALK, courtesy KTKK archives. You can get a real sense of Cherilyn's adherence to principles and values through her discussions as well as her wisdom and currency on a vast range of issues important to Utahns. The links point to mp3 files which can also be downloaded to your computer.
09-12-2008 Eagar and Duncan discussing Marriage Law hr1
09-12-2008 Eagar Discussing community organizing hr2
03-06-2009 Maryanne and Eagar on Glenn Beck 9/12 meetups and PTA's/PTO's hr1
04-24-2009 Eagar & McClory on Tea Parties hr1
04-24-2009 Eagar, Lockhart & Evans on Tea Parties & Beyond hr2
05-29-2009 Eagar on campaign hr1
05-29-2009 Eagar discussing US Senate hr2
06-12-2009 Gayle on Eagar's campaign hr1
07-17-2009 Eagar, McClory and Ruzicka discussing Eagar's campaign for US Senate hr1
07-24-2009 Eagar and Thompson on Conservative Republicans hr1
Saturday, October 10, 2009
We typically listen to Rush Limbaugh on another station at the same time Doug Wright is so we're kind-of torn here: do we hear a Utah perspective or a national perspective? Hmmm, tough choice. Maybe we favor the national because our state is heaven compared to the problems the federal has created for itself. At any rate, we didn't catch this show until more recently so the show is a bit dated.
But our point doesn't seem dated. Though it is hard to follow a show without published transcripts as Utah radio shows tend to be, we have yet to uncover any newer discussions on the Senate race than found in this video we created on Doug's Sept. 15th show:
We're at a real dilemma now with one radio show host (Bob Lonsberry) that feels that Cherilyn Eagar "isn't bright" without an iota of supporting evidence and another (Doug Wright) that promotes "3 good MEN" one of whom really isn't running at all (Tim Bridgewater). We are beginning to feel like their might be some sexism going on here. Why didn't Wright say "3 good Republican candidates"? That would have abated the thoughts. But he said "3 good MEN" knowing their was a female candidate in the race he "didn't know personally." We are not accusing anyone of being sexist--after all we have had women in statewide offices including former Republican governor Olene S. Walker--and certainly there is a lack of evidence to do any sort of accusation. We also think highly enough of Wright and Lonsberry to dismiss the ideas of sexism--yet it wouldn't hurt for them to clarify their remarks either. Maybe it's a bummer having people pay close attention to what you say when you're on air.
We're not vying for endorsements from either. Wright probably endorses Bennett; Lonsberry endorses Shurtleff (or Chaffetz who isn't running at this point). But we think it important to treat the frontrunner in the race with more respect than just "whatever," "not bright," or to shirk on your responsibility as a media member by dismissing with an "I don't know her." Be fair like you preach to your audience; be Responsible Republicans yourselves.
One of the things we have learned through much research and applicable to our out-of-state like-minded readers is to study and follow your own officials. Campaign slogans such as Bennett's "Utah's Conservative Choice" can be more propaganda than descriptive--"Utah's Middleman" or "Utah's Compromiser" are more apropos in his case.
Friday, October 9, 2009
First we were somewhat pleasantly surprised to hear Bob Lonsberry actually talk about Eagar on his show Thursday morning after really an unfair treatment in the beginning of her campaign. Although we do not expect an endorsement let alone an apology for this unfair treatment, Lonsberry--who twice reiterated his disinclination for Eagar--showed some genuine admiration for the tenacity for those of us who have rallied around Cherilyn:
I am noticing right now if there is a campaign going on the only one who seems to be engaged in it is Cherilyn Eagar...and I respect people who make an effort (full program here or watch clip below)
We welcome Lonsberry's praise albeit limited; at least we are ignored no longer.
Even better was today's announcement that Joseph Wurzelbacher better known as "Joe the Plumber" will be touring our state next month with Cherilyn. Watch the announcement below.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Bob has endorsed Jason Chaffetz for Senate both in writing and on his radio show. Nacilbupera shares Lonsberry's admiration for Chaffetz but instead of seeing Chaffetz run in 2010 against Bennett, would love to see Chaffetz go up in 2012 against Hatch (presuming Hatch foolishly decides to run again). Additionally, Chaffetz has given no indication of running against Bennett but wisely--more of of not to be tied to one's words rather than seriously debating a run--he has not ruled out running.
In an Aug 29th straw poll (yes, straw polls aren't necessarily the most reliable but they're what we've got), both Cherilyn Eagar and Mark Shurtleff garnished more votes than the incumbent Bennett. This was a newsworthy item published throughout the state media and picked up by the political sections in the national media as well. However, on Lonsberry's very next show held on Monday, Aug. 31th, Lonsberry began the show never mentioning Cherilyn Eagar's name or the significant percentage of vote she received in the poll.
On that Monday, Lonsberry described for his listeners the 2010 Senate race in the Republican Party as between incumbent Bennett and Mark Shurtleff both of whom Lonsberry mentioned he would like to get on the air to be heard. Everyone else (including Cherilyn Eagar) got this stinging rebuke:
To be honest with you not one of them has a snowball's chance in Elko of getting anywhere near the general election. All of them in the convention and primary system will be cyphers; they will be non-entities...(archived program here).Lonsberry further indicated that everyone outside of his estimation of the two serious contenders were doing "ego-exercise" and were "gum[ming] up the works." Pretty harsh words for citizens trying to do their patriotic duty and serve the country.
Although Lonsberry is entitled to his opinions, it seemed unfair and disingenuous to (1) omit the used of Eagar's name completely from discussion of the race and (2) omit the fact of the straw poll the broadcast-day after its occurrence. Perhaps Lonsberry was constrained by his employer not to mention Eagar's name as she has substituted for a competing talk radio show. We sent Lonsberry a nice email (click on image to read) which he never did respond to. (Lonsberry, you're still welcome to respond to our email or this post.)
Fast forward to 8am this morning when Lonsberry hosted a "Who do you back for Senate in 2010?" call-in where viewers could discuss the "prominent contest between Bennett and Shurtleff" or Jason Chaffetz, Lonsberry's pick (show archived here; discussion begins at 1:48:50). Again no mention of Cherilyn Eagar. Then came the tidalwave flood of Eagar calls into the station; sincere citizens pointing to the alignment of Eagar's values to theirs. (Interesting sideline: Eagar also compares herself ideologically to Chaffetz.)
Lonsberry, obviously dismayed by the plethora of pro-Eagar calls, began reading from an Action Alert (copy of Alert published by blogger True Politics USA) he had received the previous night from the Eagar campaign encouraging supporters to call in. Instead of acquiescing that Eagar has large and growing support in Utah, he made it seem that all the callers were from out of state since the Action Alert had mentioned 8am mountain time show topic broadcast time and if Eagar wanted in-state supporters she would have omitted the time zone in the Action Alert.
Lonsberry is flawed in his attacking Eagar's use of the words mountain time for two reasons: (1) a time zone is giving for convenience of listeners of the program who are Utah voters who may be temporarily out-of-state on business or vacation. We know all of Utah is mountain time, but it is easy to get distracted with time zones when you are out of state. (2) Lonsberry should have tracked the area codes of the callers if he felt the callers were out-of-state--after all, we only have two Utah issued area codes and Lonsberry could have screened callers with only the 801- and 435- prefixes were he to be so flooded with out-of-state calls. Indeed, Lonsberry failed to mention a single example of anyone who called in being from out-of-state.
Lonsberry also accused Eagar of being dishonest and "trying to create a false public perception" by requesting supporters to call in. Wrong! Lonsberry had multiple public announcements on his program prior to the phone-in event and all candidates could have, should have, or perhaps actually did encourage their supporters to phone in just as Eagar did. How does Lonsberry know that Action Alerts weren't also sent out by other campaigns? Lonsberry discounted the idea that perhaps Eagar supporters are more vocal because we were slided from your mention earlier and wanted to have our voice heard (for the record: Nacilbupera did not call the Lonsberry show today). Lonsberry: how were we to voice our opinion as you asked us to do without trying to "create a false impression." We could either call in or not call in. Ironically if these noble souls hadn't called in, then you could have accused Eagar of "creating a false public perception" by hiding true existing public support for a leading candidate.
The only reason Lonsberry gave for his dismissal of Cherilyn Eagar was as follows:
I just don't believe she's competent to be United States Senator...I believe this is an exercise in vanity.Lonsberry failed to have a serious discussion of her business experience or experience as a conservative activist. He also failed to reason with the audience what it is that he feels makes her "incompetent." If you label someone, then you need to discuss the supporting facts for that label. Perhaps Lonsberry feels that prior political office is requisite; we answer give us someone with principles and integrity and they will be a thousand times better public servant than an established, polished politician.
Nacilbupera feels Lonsberry has pre-emptively dismissed Eagar. In the end, we Eagar supporters need to prove to Lonsberry he misjudged Eagar. We need to get her through the convention and show that she is for real. Lonsberry seems rather set in his ways but we always hope that someone we respect so much in so many other discussions will at last come to the table of reason and respect for the principles Eagar stands for and the great Senator she will be for our state. We don't need Lonsberry support to win our case with the good people of Utah, but it sure might be nice if Lonsberry were to be honest about the facts with his listeners, quit the labeling, and show some common decency for our candidate and campaign.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Nacilbupera doesn't really care about ABC, CBS, or NBC because the stories they break are irrelevant. They are biased Democratic cheerleaders in media decay. We had to depend on the National Enquirer to tell us of a Presidental candidate (John Edwards) lying about an affair and an out-of-wedlock child.
We have pointed out on this blog some of the biases that exist on the media and find these progressive, liberal, and sometimes socialistic views outside of main stream America. As Goldberg points out how can you possibly call that branch of the media MSM? Goldberg with good reason called for a renaming of MSM.
We have noticed other commentators using alternative terms to describe the liberal likes of MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and many newspapers like the NY Times. Bill O'Reilly often uses the term "establishment media" while Rush Limbaugh likes "drive-by media."
Commentators on Goldberg's blog had all good ideas, perhaps the closest to our sentiment was a proposal by Steven Friday to use the term "legacy media." We like the term because it conveys the sense of the outdatedness of those medium: newspapers and pre-cable television both of which have experienced tremendous declines in followership. We don't like the term however because the word "legacy" often conveys a positive residual, such as when one leaves a legacy for their posterity. These leftist media organizations are currently leaving little in the way of positive residual for us to be proud of.
So thus it is we have decided for the purposes of this blog to use a phrase we coined--"old school media"--to describe the out-of-mode leftist media that has fallen out of fashion with most everyone except the progressive elitists. And yes MSNBC, you are so old school.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
His nomination was filibustered by the Republicans, but both of our Senators--Hatch and Bennett--voted for cloture being among only six Republicans to do so. If this weren't bad enough, both Hatch and Bennett joined the Democrats in confirming him 57-40.
Nacilbupera feels betrayed. In his quest for a third term Bennett declares himself as "Utah's Conservative Choice." Yeah, right! we answer.
Since when is any of the following radical ideology promoted by Mr. Sunstein considered part of the conservative agenda?
- Giving animals "rights"
- Abolishing hunting (he recanted this in his confirmation hearing that is not his view)
- Advocates the Socialist/Communistic ideals of FDR's 2nd Bill of Rights
- Views political discussion on the Internet as a possible threat to democracy (good thing we got MSNBC and the NY Times to tell us the truth, huh Cass?)
Nacilbupera feels like challenging Bennett on his conservative position and yell out in honor of Joe Wilson: Bob Bennett You Lie! You tell us you are a conservative but you dishonor your cause with your votes. Own up to the truths of Wyden-Bennett you advocate.
My fellow Utahns and Americans, let us honor Bennett with the old chant of of the radicals Bennett confirms: Hey, hey! Ho, ho! Robert Bennett has got to go!!
Just another reason to vote for Cherilyn Eagar in 2010.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
(1) Parents of concerned children--afraid of indoctrination from a President who unapologetically appoints a radical Communist to his leadership--are mocked for their worry. This is unfair because what the parents were most afraid of was the content of the followup/discussion questions such as, "What can I do to help the President?" It was only AFTER concerned parents spoke up that the controversial discussion materials were removed. Nacilbupera feels these parents are paying attention to their child's education and praises them.
(2) In a story highlighted by Greta Van Susteren, Greta points out the unfair standards of the previous speech by Bush 41 to children: the Washington Post front page after Bush's speech front page story suggested the speech was staged for the president's political benefit. This turned into a Democratic witch hunt and an investigation was conducted to examine why $26K (read here $26K not $26M not $26B not $26T) was spent by the Bush administration "in an era of scarce resources" (Gephardt).
In contrast, today's front page Washington Post (see image, left) no such accusations of political malfeasance are made. Nacilbupera condemns such outrageous media hypocrisy.
(3) Final point: it is not the role of federal government to intervene in state affairs. The President could have addressed both parents and children using the internet, radio, or television; the point is he had other options. Nacilbupera feels that pending an immediate catastrophic national emergency (IE nukes from North Korea or Iran are on their way) really, an address to the schoolchildren of the state should be done by the state's chief executive, the governor. Obama's speech to the children is a mis-education in the proper separation of powers between our state and federal government.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Sunday, September 6, 2009
It interested Nacilbupera to note that despite all the coverage, Obama did not take any step to fire Van Jones nor did Obama censure him at any time. This is supported by today's Meet the Press interview with David Axelrod,
Q: "Did he [the President] personally order that [he]Van Jones be fired?
A: "Absolutely not. This was Van Jones' own decision."
Q: "But was the President offended by what he [Van Jones] said?"
A: "I haven't spoken to the President about this."
Q: "You find it what he [Van Jones] said objectionable?"
A: "Well I haven't read all his comments either."
What???? You haven't read Van Jones' comments? What kind of a lazy, misinformed public bureaucrat are you? Do we need to send Katie Couric over there to ask you what newspapers you read, David Axelrod? Do you think you could read the highly publicized comments of a radical appointee in your administration and maybe you could get back to us and let us know if you find it objectionable for a 9/11 truther, self-proclaimed communist, who calls Republicans "a**-holes", to be advising the President of the United States? Is it beyond your job description to do this????
As Van Jones was an Obama appointee one can only surmise lacking any sort of denunciation, that Obama agrees with the radical ideology of Van Jones. Nacilbupera cannot have confidence in an administration that doesn't know a radical from a patriot and doesn't read highly publicized comments about their own appointees. And Axelrod wants us to trust this administration--who is so thorough with all their appointees--with our health care? Absurd.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
In the above broadcast segment this week Rachel Maddow of MSNBC reports:
"...New government provisional statistics show that in 2008 Massachusetts had the lowest divorce rate in the country. Ta-Da! The rate of divorces in Massachusetts was 2.2 per thousand when gay people started getting married in Massachusetts. The rate of divorces per thousand is now down even further to 2.0 per thousand. That's the lowest divorce rate in the county. In fact Massachusetts divorce rates are now down to pre-WWII levels--1940. So awkwardly, turns out gay marriage is a Defense of Marriage Act."
Maddow's conclusion that gay marriage stifles divorce didn't maks much sense to us so we broke it down to see if she were correct and came up with the following four points with which we take issue:
Point #1: Maddow's conclusion that the MA divorce rate is 2.0 per thousand is false.
As Maddow premises without pause or caution for the listener, the 2008 Massachusetts divorce statistics are provisional. These statistics are published by the CDC and are found here. The graphic below is taken directly from table 2b near the bottom of the link page:
From this table, we gather that Massachusetts had 12,992 provisional divorces in 2008. The divorce rate is calculated by dividing that number into the population of MA from the 2000 census 6.3M and multiplying by 1000. The resulting divorce rate figure (12992/6.3M x 1000) is 2.o46 or rounded down to the "2.0 per 1000" as Maddow quotes.
The footnote #1 cautions: "Figures based on monthly counts and may be underreported." Indeed it cautions:
There is considerable variability among the states in the procedures that are used to submit the counts of marriages and divorces to NCHS and in the extent to which the states update their counts of marriages and divorces as new information is received. Therefore, counts vary in their completeness. Marriage and divorce counts, unlike other provisional data, may be updated after the end of a data year if final counts are provided by the state.
Thus the CDC, unlike Maddow's glaring omission, cautions in saying that the number could be larger, but that is the count they have so far. What is concerning is the huge disparity in MA divorces between the provisional December 2008 figure of 147 and the actual December 2007 figure of 1006--a difference of 859 divorces or reduction of 85% versus the prior year. No other state figures such a prominent decline for December year-over-year (check for yourself!) begging the questions:
Are the Massachusetts provisional divorces for December 2008 underreported?
If so, could the impact of underreported divorces impact the entire year?
Although we don't know for sure the answer to the first question, the second is answered with a resounding "yes." If the actual December 2008 divorces were, for example, equal to December 2007, the total number of divorces in MA would climb to 13, 851 (12,992+859) the MA divorce rate for the entire year would equal 2.2 per 1000--which is coincidentally, the same exact MA divorce rate Maddow correctly cites as the divorce rate before legalized MA same-sex marriage.
Point #1 concludes that although Maddow correctly cites the word "provisional" in her premise, her conclusion is flawed because the condition is dropped. Maddow could have correctly concluded "If the provisional statistics--which the CDC notes may be understated--are correct, the divorce rate in MA will drop to 2.0 per 1000."
Point #2: Divorce is slightly on the decline nationally
Let's examine the national divorce rate:
2004 = 3.7 (see CDC report here for 2004-2006 figures)
2005 = 3.6
2006 = 3.6 or 3.7 (measured two ways)
2007 = 3.6 (see table A2 here)
2008 = 3.5 (provisional)
A logical conclusion from this data is that divorce nationally has been on a small decline during the time since MA legalized same-sex marriage. All things equal, MA should realize a decline as well. In order to support Maddow's conclusion that MA same-sex marriage contributes to the decline of divorce rates, additional data would needed to show how MA declined more than other states.
Point #3: Massachusetts historically has the lowest divorce rate in the nation.
Maddow's "Ta-Da" fact that Massachusetts had the lowest divorce rate in the country for 2008 is trite news. In fact, it would be noteworthy "Ta-Da" if Massachusetts didn't have the lowest divorce rate. By examining historical statistics, MA is clearly stingy on divorces compared to any other state perhaps foremost due to the massive numbers of Catholics in the state. Legalized same-sex marriage has nothing to do with Massachusetts' 2008 divorce rate viz-a-viz other states.
Point #4: Massachusetts divorce rate actually increased after passage of same-sex marriage.
Again, by examining the CDC's historical statistics on Massachusetts' divorce rates we find the following divorce rates per 1000 population:
2004 = 2.2
2005 = 2.2
2006 = 2.3
2007 = 2.3
Thus we see that the divorce rate actually increased in 2006 and 2007 from its 2.2 level Maddow cites. But Maddow neglects to mention this increase and focus only on the 2008 number which is, as we stated (point #1 above), provisional. The latest non-provisional--and therefore wholly accurate--numbers is for year 2007 and indicate that while the country is seeing modest decreases in the divorce rate (point #2 above), Massachusetts is experiencing modest increases in the divorce rate!
In conclusion, could it be that Maddow, herself openly gay (wikipedia), has misrepresented the facts to support the gay agenda of legalized same-sex marriage? Is in reality the exact opposite happening that same-sex marriage isn't defending or preserving marriage but contributing to divorce? Because of blatant misrepresentations of fact such as this by Maddow, Nacilbupera does not rely on Maddow nor the MSNBC network for accurate reporting. But what say you?
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
It was also our first introduction to Qik. The vid is well worth the 25 minutes and we could have gone 60.
The video can also be accessed here.