Mike Lee Funds Bob Bennett

The following comment was made on redstate.com last week regarding Lee donating to the Bennett campaign:

Why did Mike Lee donate $500 to the Bob Bennett election committee October 25, 2008, just after Bennett brokered TARP? I don't know.

We fact-checked this assertion and found it to be true. Section "A" below is the actual donation found at the Federal Elections Commission website:

As for the assertion that Lee's Bennett donation came after TARP, the donation was received on the 25th of October while TARP passed on the 3rd of October, a three-week interval. While we reject the donation constitutes any evidence of a quid-pro-quo, the fact that plenty of time passed after the Bennett TARP vote means that in Lee's mind TARP wasn't a disqualifier for a substantial campaign contribution. The Wyden-Bennett health-scare scheme originated in 2007 and that, too failed to deter Lee's Bennett campaign contribution.

One additional perspective: Lee's Bennett donation didn't come after Bennett had won a Republican primary and was trying to coalesce around the nominee against a liberal Democrat: indeed it was quite the opposite. Lee's donation came at a time long before candidates normally start announcing their bids for a primary race: the effect was to say "Bailout Bob, I love you SO much for your 16 years of "conservative" dedication, socialized healthcare plans, bank bailouts and earmarks to Utah, I'm gonna give you $500 so that just in case someone decides to run against you in a primary, you have my support."

This donation makes Lee the only candidate in the Utah Senate race who has actually funded his or her opponent's campaign and makes for psychedelic politics as Lee has tried to distance himself from Bailout Bob based on Bob's inability to follow the Constitution.

Ousting the Remaining 6 GOP "Cap n Tax 8" (Correction)

In yesterday's blog we explored the consequences of not getting a conservative through the Illinois GOP Senate primary: we are now supporting Mark Kirk, one of the GOP Cap n Tax 8, or the eight GOP congressman who voted for Waxman-Markey (HR 2454) last year, thus ensuring its passage through the house; the Senate having yet to vote on the bill.

The nomination of Kirk reminds us we must redouble our effort as we have the remaining 6 of the Cap n Tax 8 all yet to face a GOP Primary (one "Cap n Tax 8"--Congressman John McHugh of NY23rd--was appointed Secretary of the Army; the special election held last fall vaulted Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman into national limelight). These 6 must be stopped in their primary elections. The video below highlights the frustration we feel from their betrayal on such an important issue:

Following is a recap of these remaining six and links to the candidates who seem to have all voiced opposition to HR2454:

• Congressman Michael Castle (DE) now in play for Biden's old Senate seat against Christine O'Donnell. Primary elections: Sept 14th
• Congressman Leonard Lance (NJ-07) running against Dave Larsen and Lon Hosford. Primary elections: June 8th
• Congressman Frank LoBiondo (NJ- 02) running against anti-Obamacare and anti-Cap n Tax Republican Linda Biamonte. Primary elections: June 8th
• Congressman Christopher Smith (NJ-04) vs. Alan Bateman. Primary elections: June 8th
• Congressman Dave Reichert (WA-08) vs. Ernest Huber. Primary elections: June 8th Aug 17th
• And lastly, Nacilbupera's former 12-year Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack (CA-45) when we lived in Riverside County, California vs. newly Nacilbupera-endorsed Clayton Thibodeau. Primary elections: June 8th

We have done a fair amount of research in endorsing Clay. He is also endorsed by the fiscally-conservative advocate group Independence Caucus which boasts a serious vetting system for candidates as well as the California Republican Assembly (a group which gives Assemblymember-turned-Senate-candidate Chuck DeVore a perfect score.) Clay demonstrated his electability by garnishing more signatures to be put on the ballot than all other GOP candidates combined (h/t Political Pistachio); additionally, Clay has written a book "Pure Patriotism" available at Lulu.com.

So remains the question on your plate as the reader: how mad are you at the remaining 6 of the GOP Cap and Trade 8? Are you mad enough to follow them on Twitter, Youtube, Facebook and other social media? Are you mad enough to do a write up about them on your own blog? Are you willing to send out emails to relatives or friends who might live in these districts? And most importantly, are you willing to put some of your hard earned money the government has yet to take away from you and give it to these noble candidates?

Repeal the Bill: A New Look at Mark Kirk

3/21, the day that Obamacare passed the House based on false promises from the President, inexorable backdoor deal-making, and voted on against the will of We the People, marks a political event that like 9/11 reshaped our thinking for America: indeed it marks the start of Medi-geddon. We have had time to reflect on what we can to do repeal the bill and return American at least to a partially-Capitalistic system we had before instead of passing through the doors of Socialism which this bill is doing to us on its multi-year journey. It seems for now that the #1 priority for 2010 elections is voting for candidates who will embrace repeal--and this really means voting Republican as every Republican currently in the House and Senate voted in unanimity a resounding "H*LL NO"!


So how would repeal work? Realistically, we'll need 60 votes in the Senate, a majority in the House, and a President in 2012 who won't veto repeal. Sixty votes in the Senate is the most difficult to achieve because it takes 6 years to cycle through a single opportunity to change a Senate vote for the bill to against the bill. Nacilbupera believes that the Senate could gain back the majority in 2010--but not if we fail to build coalitions with those who agree with us only some of the time: if repeal is a true priority, we will have to vote for Republican candidates who have won their primaries, yet are moderates. It appears that we need to win 2 of the 3 "big state" Senate seats in order to at least get the majority back in the Senate: California, Illinois, and New York (and preferrably all 3 to set us in better shape for 2012).

If you don't like your GOP candidate for Senate and House, you MUST get involved NOW and you MUST donate NOW to the candidate you like. Primaries are quickly approaching and in the case of Illinois, it has already happened. If you like DeVore better than Fiorina, now is election day. If you like Rubio over Christ, now is election day. If you like Hayworth or Deakin over McCain, now is election day. If you like Eagar, Bridgewater, or Lee over Bennett now is election day. And so the list goes on, state by state, congressional district by congressional district.

Illinois had its day and selected its GOP candidate Mark Kirk. Nacilbupera opposed Kirk. Indeed we indicated we would seek someone else to fill the seat. However, in light of Medi-geddon we are reversing our stance on Kirk for the following reasons:

1. Kirk voted NO! to Obamacare
2. Kirk has signed the pledge to repeal Obamacare
3. Kirk's Democratic opponent supports Obamacare and indeed is using the Socialistic bill as a means of touting a vote against Kirk.
4. The sense of urgency to repeal is so great that if we don't repeal now, we may not have our Republic in 6 years when a more conservative Republican could run against a non-incumbent and thus challenge the Democrat incumbent.
5. Kirk could end up being the difference between a Republican majority and minority in the Senate in 2010. (Election Projection currently has it at 50-48 in favor of the Dems.) This is necessary to put a check on Obama who will sign whatever Socialistic legislation Congress puts forth like amnesty, cap and tax, and endless upward debt ceiling adjustments.
6. No 3rd-party conservative opponent to Kirk has any traction. Indeed, they are looking for petition signatures at this point to merely make their name on the Illinois ballot. We fear any traction they do gain at this point will end up further solidifying the Democrat and thus put in jeopardy the Medi-geddon war.

In light of these points, we therefore officially reverse our stance of opposition last month on Mark Kirk and wish him success as we fight together the battle of Medi-geddon. This is not a refutation of the wrong sides Kirk has been on in the past, but the recognition that just as we allied ourselves with Russia in World War II to fight world takeover by fascism, we must align ourselves with Kirk in order to protect our country from Socialism. Nacilbupera will continue to monitor Kirk through the election and his victory to ensure that Kirk stays true to his word.

HR3590 Unconstitutional as a Poll Tax

It came to our mind this evening yet another way HR3590 is unconstitutional through the individual mandate: it creates a poll tax.

Poll taxes were used to keep southern blacks from their right to vote and were banned by the 24th Amendment:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

If one does not have insurance and does not pay the 2.5% tax mandated by HR3590, they would be guilty of a felony and go to jail, thus losing their voting privileges. Thus the effect of the 2.5% penalty tax is indeed a poll tax. Add this to our list of ways the bill is unconstitutional.

To President Obama: Veto HR3590

Here is the email we sent tonight to President Obama urging him to veto HR3590.

Mr President:

I strongly urge you to veto HR 3590 as passed yesterday by a small-margined, partisan vote on a day reserved by the majority of Americans as a day to worship God with all polls showing broad opposition among We the People.

With your pledge to sign this bill, you break several promises to the American people you made including:
(1) The promise to cut taxes for 95% of Americans
(2) To televise the healthcare debates on C-Span
(3) To not vote for any bill that negatively impacted the debt (the true costs of this bill are $2T+)
And perhaps most importantly you would violate your oath to uphold the Constitution. Never before have Americans been forced to purchase anything as a condition of proper citizenship. The individual mandate is unconstitutional.

Medi-geddon

Yesterday was proof we are in the midst of Medi-geddon: we are fighting for the very essence of our country, freedoms, prosperity, and Constitution ambushed in the name of health care reform. The battle lost yesterday deepens our resolve to fight harder. We are the Battered Bastards of Bastogne: for us surrender is "nuts". Or below as seen in "A Bridge Too Far": we haven't the proper facilities to take you [Progressives] all prisoner. Sorry."

As Heritage President Fuelner said today: Obama's health care legislation can and will be repealed. The American people are never permanently thwarted.

The Progressives have been working quietly, year after year to pass their evil agenda. Their fight has spanned generations. Ours has been less consistent, but no more. We will fight to the end of our lives. We will raise up our children and their children to fight for our country and our Constitution to take our places when we die so that someday our posterity might enjoy the free country untainted by socialism we never had.

We are redoubling our efforts against those who voted yesterday AYE on HR3590. We will hold accountable all 219 Representatives and 60 Senators who voted for this list. Like the 9/12 terrorist attacks, we will NOT forget our 3/21 and our 12/24.

Health-scare Passes Congress

The House just passed 219-212 HR3590, the 2,700-page Obamacare scheme despite bipartisan opposition (178 GOP and 34 Dem). (HR4872, the reconciliation bill also passed 220-211, but that goes to the Senate with the infamous Bismark Bank Bailout.) Interesting, 219-212 was the same exact vote count that cap-n-tax passed the House last year.

Stupak's Cave-in
Bart Stupak caved in on his anti-abortion language in favor of a weak executive order; every pro-life organization is dumping him. As his gang was the deciding factor we estimate the anger against him will be severe enough to jeopardize his re-election. Stupak also recently garnished $1M in airport earmarks (h/t The Lonely Conservative) for his district. This video surfaced, however, showing his true intentions were never to put protection of life above government-mandated insurance:


Summary of other votes
Jim Matheson (UT-02) joined his two Utah GOP colleagues in voting NO! North Dakota Rep. Pomeroy of Bismark Bank Bailout fame ignored his constituents and voted for the bill. Some brave patriots voting against the bill included Stephen Lynch of (MA-09), John Tanner (TN-08), and Joseph Cao (LA-02), the last having voted previously for Obamacare. Here is the link to how everyone voted on HR3590.

Some tea party groups are planning candlelight vigils for the seniors and the unborn who will die because of Obamacare as Obama is expected to sign the bill in the next few days.

Aborting the Constitution Through Executive Order: More March Madness

Here we are on Christian Sabbath Day trying to defend the Constitution and to protect the babe in the womb.

As the Slaughter Solution appears to have been slaughtered, the latest tactic seems to be to get Rep. Bart Stupak & gang to sign on by having Obama sign an "executive order" defunding abortion after Congress would vote to fund it through passage of Obamacare. (The Hill, Life News). We decry this latest foul trickery.

Executive Orders have a tainted history of abuse in violating the Constitution separating the power of the Congress to legislate law and the executive branch to enforce the law. But this proposal goes further: Obama would pre-promise to reverse a law passed only perhaps minutes or hours stating the complete opposite. There is no historical example of this EVER being done before in the history of our Republic.

Secondly, an executive order is much weaker than a law passed by Congress. Any president can reverse any executive order at any time for any reason. All it would take is for Obama or another future Progressive President to wave their magic wand and all that Stupak, Hyde, and We the People have fought for in keeping federal funding of abortion prohibited would be washed away.

Stop this March Madness abortion of our Constitution!

+++ Update:
Although you can't contact Stupak outside of Michigan through his congressional email, you can use this email from his facebook: rep_stupak@new.rr.com

How to Contact Holdout Rep. Pomeroy (ND)

North Dakota's sole member of Congress, Rep. Earl Pomeroy is hiding.

He is one of the Democratic undecideds going into tomorrow's health-scare vote. Actually, if we were going to have to stand up and answer questions about why the Bank of North Dakota is singled out for favoritism in the student-loan government takeover in the reconciliation bill while at the same time holding out an undecided vote in a bill 64% of North Dakotans are opposed too, we'd probably play a silent version of the kid game "marco-polo" too! Apparently this isn't the first complaint of only listening to North Dakotan Democratic "yes-men":

Pomeroy isn't on twitter so you can't tweet him. Apparently he's on facebook but we really loathe facebook. If you try to email him with a zip code outside of North Dakota, you'll be blocked. And forget trying to comment on his Youtube videos because it is set up for comment approval or something.

Yet there is a way to contact him as we discovered: through Youtube email! Here's the message we sent to him. (We'll let you know if we get a response.)

Congressman: Congrats on your new appointment. [Nacil: we're trying to be
nice here--he just got a big promotion a week ago to be Social Security
subcommittee chair. Hmm. More payoffs for his vote???] Will you
now please defend your oath to uphold the Constitution by voting NO on Obamacare
and show the American people that a mandate to purchase insurance is an
"excessive fine" never before established in the history of our nation and
prohibited by the 8th Amendment?

Also, will you explain your stance and what involvement you played in the "Bismark Bank Job" to cut a special deal for the Bank of North Dakota while having sweeping changes to every other student loan lender in the country?

We'd be willing to gander that if everyone were to try and sneak in the same door, it'd shut down pretty quick...

Salt Lake City Code Red Rally

Nacilbupera had the great honor of joining with like-minded patriots on the steps of our great state capitol in Salt Lake City in a last-minute-announced CODE RED rally against the abominable health-scare bill.

We had 200-300 Patriots gathered from all walks of life. We met a patriot (http://twitter.com/evorgsum) who made this fantastic sign (we overheard others commenting on it as well):

We exchanged thoughts and Nacilbupera quickly realized how likeminded and informed she was.

Another great patriot we met was Kathy (above) of Latterdaybanners.com who created this beautiful masterpiece flag just a few months ago. As way of explanation to our non-Mormon readers this flag is of particular symbolism to Mormons: 2,000 yrs ago Captain Moroni was a great military leader who when faced with a hostile takeover of his country by some people wanting to overthrow their judicial system and establish a king, tore his coat and wrote the above saying on it. Captain Moroni then further made everyone swear allegiance to the cause of freedom and a free government else be put to death. Think of Captain Moroni as a General Patton without the profanity: both were die-hard preservers of freedom and devoutly religious.

Speakers at the rally included: Jared Law of the 9/12 project, Diedre Henderson of the Jason Chaffetz campaign, Rep. Craig Frank of District #57 (Pleasant Grove), and Utah US Senate GOP candidates Mike Lee and Cherilyn Eagar. (US Senate candidate Tim Bridgewater was also present, but did not speak.) The speakers freely discussed neighboring issues such as state sovereignty and the crowd expressed opposition Bennett's reelection when solicited.

Jared Law urged us to call Governor Herbert and have him sign HB67 (sponsored by Carl Wimmer and co-sponsors including our Rep. Keith Grover): to have federal health-scare mandates passed after March 1, 2010, not apply to Utah and HB251: to have employers use E-Verify. HB67 has a growing number of states with similar legislation (see current map) across the country and is one Nacilbupera urges Gov. Herbert to sign. Jared also urged us to "fast and pray"--as our founding fathers did many times--that the bill be defeated.

Mike Lee quoted from James Madison's Federalist Paper #62 which was extremely appropriate considering the crypticness of an unwieldy, 2700-page health-scare bill before Congress:

It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow.

Cherilyn Eagar spoke exclusively on health care, talking about the American Medical Association's (AMA) support for the bill and how the AMA only represents a mere 17% of physicians. She urged us to instead support the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) and to sign the petition at http://www.takebackmedicine.com/ When Nacilbupera next seeks a physician, we will be looking for one that doesn't belong to the AMA and preferably belongs to the AAPS. Eagar also spoke about her father, a physician, coming home after Medicare first passed and saying: "today is the first day of the end of quality medicine in America." How true those words have turned out to be!

The protest carried over to Matheson's office a couple of miles south where, if we are not mistaken, there has been a protest going on virtually every day this week. Although we weren't able follow the protest, it seems we may have helped make an impact: Matheson formally announced his plans this afternoon to vote NO on Obamacare!

Code Red Rally Saturday Morning!

As we said yesterday, this last stand against socialism and the health-scare bill comes inconveniently comes down to this weekend before the our caucus elections on Tuesday.

Tomorrow morning, March 2oth, at the Utah State Capitol from 10am-noon there is a Code Red Rally to protest this unconstitutional bill. This event capstones other rallies this week held at Matheson's office and parallels the massive national CODE RED rally being held in DC.

Kill the Evil Bill Slotted on Christian Sabbath Day (Update)

Sometimes the most urgent fights come at the most inconvenient times. So it was last year, the Democrats rallied around a Christmas-Eve vote to push through the worst bill--a heath-scare scheme with (some samples, there are plenty others):

• a Cornhusker Kickback for citizens of Nebraska, courtesy Democrat Ben Nelson (Obama lied about this being removed in the Baier interview yesterday: it only is out if a second healthcare "reconciliation" bill passes both houses which is unlikely.)
• a Louisiana Purchase for citizens of Louisiana courtesy Democrat Mary Landrieu (Obama said this was for states "affected by a natural catastrophe" like Louisiana and...Hawaii???)
• a Gator Aid for citizens of Florida courtesy Democrat Bill Nelson
• a union bribe to get out of a Cadillac healthcare plan tax increase
• tax increases on medical devices
• an individual mandate to throw non-insurance holders in jail a bill which throws tax increases years before benefits to eek out some sort of 10-year disguise of being fiscally responsible
• a violation from the President that the debates would be held on C-SPAN
• federal funding of elective abortions, overriding the long-standing Hyde amendment

No, weren't not kidding. This is evil and sets up the framework for a socialist America. Americans know this and stand solidly against this bill. Time after time we have shouted from behind our signs, on our blogs, on our phones, emails, and letters for the Congress to start over. The bill is so bad, the House Rules Chair Louise Slaughter is proposing "deeming" the bill to have passed rather than voting on it--a direct violation of Act 1 Sect 7 of the Constitution.

Even after the unlikely election of Scott Brown to the Senate in deep blue state Massachusetts as the 41st vote against healthcare and thus ensuring a GOP filibuster, after several Democrats have announced their retirement, after not a single poll shows the support of the American people on this issue, Obama announced in his State of the Union his continued push for this bill.

So the bill which the Senate passed by 60 votes (and which they don't have the votes for now with the election of Scott Brown) is now being rammed down the throats of every Democrat in Congress.

Take for example Utah's sole Federal Democratic Congressman, Jim Matheson. We're not huge Matheson fans but we did send Matheson a thank you for voting against the two worst bills of 2009: the 2,000-page House version of health-scare (HR3962) and Cap n Tax (HR2454) which have not been passed by the Senate. Yet the Obama administration has attempted to sway Matheson in favor of the Senate version of health-scare (HR3590)--which has its own interesting, corrupt history as a gutted military home ownership bill--by nominating his brother to the Federal bench.

We shouldn't have to be having this debate right now. Kennedy--who couldn't live long enough to forever filibuster the Massachusetts seat from Bay Staters, should not have had a vote as by Massachusetts law and the seat should have been empty during the vote (unless you mess with the law)--yet he got two votes: Kirk's and Byrd's!

The word is out that a vote could come Sunday--Christian Sabbath Day--and a rare day for a Congressional vote. But that's OK because Obama has attacked Christians before. The time is not convenient, but if there is ever a time to protest, to call, to email, to speak up, and to pray, the time is NOW!

+++ Update: We understand intuitively that the bill is fiscally irresponsible, yet tricks allow Obama to declare it will help reduce the deficit. One of the most easy to understand graphs in understanding this trick comes via The Weekly Standard:



One can easily see how the benefits of the bill don't fully kick into place until about 2016 and the price tag then is around $200B/yr. If these benefits were amortized over 10 years, we'd be looking at an economy-breaking $2T+ bill.

Provo Lakeview North Neighborhood Meeting Report

Tonight we had a good-sized turnout (maybe 50 residents plus dozens of scouts from the local Boy Scout troop) at our Meeting. Notables included Don Allphin, our retiring neighborhood chair, our city council Sherrie Hall Everett, and our Mayor John Curtis.

Most notably on the agenda was the election of our neighborhood chair. Two were nominated: former city-wide council candidate Carl Mayo of Cobblestone Village subdivision and Brandon Seamons of the Reese Estates subdivision. Each chose a co-chair to run on their ticket. The vote came out an even tie: 20 votes each which resulted in a call to the city attorney by Louise Jorgensen of Provo City who was there to conduct the election. Three options were given for us to choose a winner: a coin flip, a second vote, or a vote in two weeks. Attendees expressed concern they were being unduly limited to those options, but the discussion was quickly cut off by Hall Everett and Jorgensen who insisted on the neighborhood voting for one of the three options. In the end, the neighborhood settled for a second vote in two weeks; so if you missed the meeting tonight, stay tuned for another opportunity to vote!

Mayor Curtis spoke on the shortfall of the city budget due mainly to the decrease in sales tax revenue: we still need to cut $600K from this year's budget ending FY June 30th. He asked for patience from the neighborhood in getting the $1M Lakeview Park built under these financial conditions. When completed, Lakeview will have tennis courts, a playground, and restrooms.

Dave Graves spoke about the Lakeshore Bridge (you can see the etched lines for the road connecting Lakeshore Drive to 3110 W at Center St on this Google Maps.) The Lakeshore Bridge caught many residents by surprise including chair Allphin (see SL Tribune articles: 01/20/2010 and 03/03/2010). A driving impetus for the bridge at this time seems to be the unexpected low bid cost of $1.8M--a projected $1M savings from a few years ago when the construction industry was booming. The bridge is being funded through impact fee ($1.3M) and gas tax (balance); these are restricted funds and cannot be used to balance the city budget. The bridge will be the same width as Lakeshore Dr. and have a pedestrian sidewalk. Traffic on Lakeshore is expected to increase dramatically from currently 1,000 vehicles per day to 6,000 or similar to the current traffic on 620 N. When the northwest connector is eventually built, traffic should alliviate to 3,000 vehicles.

Dave Gardner who is building Lakeview Fields subdivision at the very north end of the Lakeview North Neighborhood along 2000 North proposed changing the development agreement to allow basements to be included in the homes. Basements are a hot commodity in Utah and should allow the homes to sell quickly as they are built in twos in two different phases for a total of 51 homes. Gardner has put in a storm drain system to alleviate concerns of flooding. The city must still approve his request as water tables fluctuate. Chair Allphin held a raised-hands vote noting that the majority of those in attendance were in approval of Mr. Gardner's request.

Near the conclusion of the meeting, the owner of TKO storage spoke up and voiced his concern that while his business was in the geographic boundaries our neighborhood, he had no voice or vote as he wasn't a resident of the neighborhood. He seemed to have a valid point that was noted by council Hall Everett.

In his concluding remarks, Allphin noted how the government was illegally forcing cap-and-trade on us through EPA regulation and encouraged us to stay involved, particularly locally where we could make the greatest difference.

Important Provo Neighborhood Meetings

• Tonight, Wednesday, March 17 - If you live in the Lakeview North Neighborhood (everyone living in Provo - North of 940 N and west of I-15) there is an important Neighborhood Meeting at 6:p.m. at Lakeview Elementary (2899 West 1390 North). Items on the agenda: welcome, election of new Neighborhood Chair, neighborhood information and issues, schedule next meeting. Please let your neighbors know about this meeting and attend!
• Tuesday, March 23 - Caucus Meetings. The Republican Caucuses for our area will be at Lakeview Elementary (2899 West 1390 North). The Democrat Caucuses (mass-meetings) will be held at Independence High (636 Independence Avenue, Provo). Both start at 7p.m.

These are some of the most important meetings you can attend and have the most influence.

Bridgewater and Eagar Debate: Who won?

After listening now thrice to the Utah U.S. Senatorial debates on Wednesday's Lonsberry Show (debate during show's final hour), we have had enough thought and time to form our opinions. Here our our results in four areas:

1. KNOWLEDGE, ARTICULATE: Both candidates represented themselves well. We felt both candidates knew the issues well enough to speak thoroughly on the subject and neither came across like a "deer in headlights": either would measure up to the job of representing Utah knowledgeably. Result: TIE
   
   
2. PERSONALITY: Bridgewater approached the questions more like a diplomat trying to preserve good relations as a second-choice for those delegates who might not pick him as a first. Eagar was a General Patton out to defend, protect, and ready to take on the Commies once the war with the Fascists was over. These personalities are true to the personalities they exhibit elsewhere on the trail. Many would argue we need diplomats and view disagreement among allies as counter-productive. Our view is we need both though when push comes to shove, we'll keep Patton. Measuring against the 3,500 delegates whose opinions may or may not be the same as ours, the result is: TIE
   
   
3. MODERATION: We were delighted Mr. Lonsberry arranged this debate and our kudos to him. Lonsberry's lack of professional moderation came through when he digressed into addressing initial questions to Mrs. Eagar as "Ma'am" during the middle part of the debate while not equally applying the term "Sir" to Mr. Bridgewater. Mr. Lonsberry deserves some forbearance for serving in the military and having the "Sir" and "Ma'am" terms ingrained into him. We thought Eagar showed good restraint in not pointing out this relatively-minor inequality and thus garnished some points with the listeners unlike Bully Boxer of California:
   
   
   
   Lonsberry exhibited other minor biases by (1) during the debate pointing out in complimentary fashion a photo he had seen on Mr. Bridgewater's website while lacking a compliment to Mrs. Eagar (2) his interruption of Mrs. Eagar mid-sentence using the term "Ma'am" thrice to redirect her discussion of debt was distracting as well and (3) he directed a complex three-questions-in-one to Eagar but not to Bridgewater. We could find no instances of biases against Bridgewater towards Eagar. As such, Lonsberry came across moderately biased towards Bridgewater although we have no reason to believe that he actually is, doubt he meant to come across this way, and recognize the biases were relatively minor-to-moderate. The overall moderator score: NOT BAD.
   
   
4. BEST QUOTE: Many times debates are won over memorable one-liners. The winning quote in our mind was this humorous quote by Eagar nearer the conclusion of the debate:
   

   We are to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s--and right now Government thinks it’s God.

So who won overall? Perhaps Eagar for the best quote, but really we'd have to pick all three: Eagar, Bridgewater, and Lonsberry all came across as genuine Patriots fighting in the cause for principled constitutionalism as the opinion of each was raised in Nacilbupera's mind.

Conservatives & Teaparties March into Utah (Update)

Three great, nonpartisan events are scheduled towards the end of this month for Utah conservative and teaparty patriots:

Tuesday, March 23
Lord Monckton is coming to Utah Valley University (UVU), as fate would have it on Caucus night, March 23rd. Lord Monckton is an outspoken voice of reason in the Global Warming doomsday hysteria. The event is sponsored by Utah Climate.org at noon and 7pm at the McKay Events Center, and is free to the public.

Tuesday, March 30 (Update)

The Tea Party Express III bus will be stopping at Provo at the Old County Courthouse (Center and University) at 10am and Salt Lake at 2pm at the State Capitol. (St. George stop on the 29th.) This is the first appearance of the bus along the Wasatch Front. Past tour stops have betimes been highlighted on Fox News. (h/t: Focus on Freedom)

Wednesday, March 31

Conservative talk radio host Sean Hannity heard afternoons on KSL will be available at the Murray Border's Bookstore to sign his new book "Conservative Victory" at 6pm. The event is free and Hannity released the book in paperback to drive down the cost below $10.

Baring the $150K Man & Minor "Skinny Dip" (Update: Garn Resigns)

The 2010 Utah "Best Managed State in the Union" Legislative session has been one of historic highs and lows; unfortunately we must end the session with another low. After losing our Senate Majority Leader Sheldon Killpack to DUI charges two months ago, the House Majority Leader Kevin Garn has now effectively ended his political career with a House floor stunning revelation of a "hot-tub" encounter 25 years ago with a 15-year old girl, Cheryl Maher* and his $150K "hush money" he paid to keep Maher quiet. (Kevin Garn's Statement, Headline Story)

Garn himself admitted in his own statement that this revelation came after Maher went public ("Today, she went to the press and reported all of these events.") and excluded the fact that they were nude. Further examination of Garn's admission was that it lacked vital details that have since emerged so as to minimize the negative impact, namely:

• Garn was both the employer and a one-time spiritual advisor to Maher
• Their relationship was "long-term" rather than a heat-of-the-moment event
• Alcohol was involved (not fully clear that alcohol was given to a minor, but this is implied)
• Maher--believably--asserts that this is not Garn's sole indiscretion
• Maher alludes to contact in the form of massage being involved

Additionally, Deseret News editor-in-chief at the time, John Hughes, and managing editor Rick Hall were involved in a cover-up when they found out about the incident in 2002 just before Garn's US Congressional election (UT-01).

We feel that multiple law violations may be involved here including: extortion, campaign finance law violation, providing alcohol to a minor, and sexual misconduct with a minor. We further feel that Garn owes the citizens Utah a full account of all details relevant to this and any other "inappropriate" incidents involving minors. Surely a formal investigation will be happening in the months to come.

Meanwhile with a March 19th filing deadline approaching, Chris Crowder wasted no time in getting involved in a race to unseat Garn.

Holly on the Hill has done a superior job of covering this story and Nacilbupera enjoins with Holly in her call for Garn to resign. In the end we are glad that we are ridding ourselves of this kind of leadership which acts as an acid in souring enthusiasm for the great work done and call upon any GOP leader who needs to bring out the skeletons to do so now. Killpack had the honor to resign, will Garn?

*Footnote: Serendipitously, Maher now resides in New Hampshire, ranked "worst managed state" in the Pew report.

+++ Update 3/13:
Garn did the right thing and resigned today. Nacilbupera now will stand and applaud that decision. We hope he will do the right thing: confess, forsake, and make legal amends for any and all crimes committed. We will pray for him and his family.

Top ten reasons NOT to vote for Cherilyn Eagar (Update)

A discussion today in another forum prompted the idea for this post as well as garnishing the coveted top reason NOT to vote for Cherilyn Eagar. We have compiled a list of actual, mostly-sexist arguments made by different people over the past months why one shouldn't vote for Eagar. After the reason, we give our comment in italics which in some cases might be meant to be taken humorously. Enjoy.

TOP 10 REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR CHERILYN EAGAR

(#10) She attacks other candidates on issues.

--Now Cheri, go be a good girl and give Mikey, Timmy, and Bobby a hug and tell ‘em you’re sorry and you’ll never ever say anything bad about their positions again!

(#9) She’s been engaged in undefined “very unseemly behavior.”

--How dare she! Say, btw, where's that "TheSugarBeet.com" bookmark anyhows?

(#8) She wears too much makeup.

--Don’t worry: NuSkin & Neways are picking up the tab and Bennett will teach Cherilyn how to slip them a big earmark.

(#7) She’s been married “multiple times” with “multiple divorces”

--Whoot! “Big Love” Sister!

(#6) She’s “dumb as a rock”

--Stupid Delicate Arch! Stop trying to act like so smart!

(#5) She is endorsed by an “egg club” and a plumber

--Yeah and what’s worse is the egg club doesn’t even produce Omega-3 brown eggs!

(#4) She spent time in jail for forging a bunch of voter registrations

--She bared her forearm tattoos, too, during a recent teaching moment at school!

(#3) She says you should vote for her because she is a woman

--And husbands, the wives say if you don’t vote for her, there might be a LDS missionary shortage in two decades.

(#2) A woman’s place is in the home / women don’t belong in politics

--Sorry, can’t comment. Too busy putting on the ‘ol wifebeater right now.

AND FINALLY....

(#1) A GOP website hyphenates her surname “Bacon-Eagar”

--Cherilyn’s true feminazi nature is at last revealed! Someone quick! Call Gayle Ruzicka and get the phone tree going—there’s a demonsheep about!

+++ Update 3/13:
The utgop.org website that had listed Cherilyn's surname as "Bacon-Eager" [sic] in reason #1 above has now correctly updated her surname to "Eagar." Someone got the message. Btw, no one has complained yet but to be clear in advance no negative is meant to be conveyed in the use of Ruzicka's name who is a true patriot and Nuskin/Neways who are huge employers in our county and provide a great tax revenue for our county. This is political satire, folks.

Bridgewater and Eagar to Debate; Lee not so eager

With the strange phenomenon in Utah of candidate Mike Lee running from Conservative talk radio, Bob Lonsberry of KNRS radio has lined up a debate tomorrow morning between two leading candidates, Tim Bridgewater and Cherilyn Eagar. Lonsberry discusses below:



An anonymous email to the Lonsberry program (no, it wasn't Nacilbupera and no, we don't know who it is either though we were in attendance at the referenced GOP delegate training meeting) is read in the above clip:

"I asked Mike Lee why he didn't show up to the debate on your radio show. He told me that he was scared to be seen as fighting amongst the candidates when the real goal was taking down Senator Bennett... He told me he's willing to debate anytime, but just not on the air."

This statement still begs the question of why Lee agreed to last week's scheduled Eagar/Lee debate in the first place if he felt this way. Did someone say "flip-flop?" It is also interesting to note the words "scared" and "fighting." We wonder if a candidate is "scared" about debating fellow conservatives, will they not also be "scared" to debate liberals and progressives or worse "scared" to stand up for principle as Bailout Bob Bennett has so often been plagued with? If a candidate immediately thinks debates are about "fighting" is that because the candidate bears animosity towards his opponents? And if indeed it is so-called "fighting," is fighting about particulars necessarily a bad thing?

Nacilbupera is reading Skousen's 5,000 Year Leap. In Part I under "Fundamental Principles" Skousen reveals some of the "fighting" our founders had:

On particulars, of course, they [the founders] quarreled, but when discussing
fundamental precepts and ultimate objectives they seemed practically unanimous. They even had strong criticism of one another as individual personalities, yet admired each other as laborers in the common cause... One of George Washington's most vehement critics was Dr. Benjamin Rush, and yet that Pennsylvania physician boldly supported everything for which Washington worked and fought.

But what really muddies Lee's argument is that he would be willing to debate off-air. So...if we understand correctly: Lee is "scared to be seen as fighting" on air, but not "scared to be seen as fighting" off-air. Sorry, we don't get it. Maybe someone can explain it better since obviously we're not near as smart as the good Attorney.

The Stop Bennett War (Update)

The fiscally conservative Club for Growth has eyed picking off Bailout Bob Bennett for some time and has now put their resources behind it as well. They included their anti-Bennett targeting on the front page of their website (CFG article permalink here):

Jessica Taylor at the Politico reports Club for Growth is "buying everything that Fox News in Utah will let us buy." While we personally haven't seen the commerical(s) air, we might not be watching during airtimes that they are buying as the advertising is extremely targeted (Utah market). Here's the ad:



Club for Growth also started a website: http://www.stopbobbennett.com/ which encourages us to attend our caucus meetings on March 23rd and to vote for delegates who will:

1. Stay at the convention and vote in all ballot rounds for United States Senate,
2. Support only fiscally conservative challengers to Senator Bob Bennett, and
3. Not at any time cast a vote at convention for Senator Bob Bennett.

As not only having committed to attending our caucus, but also now a declared candidate for state delegate in our precinct, we unhesitatingly signed this petition and publicly commit to our precinct our unabated efforts to defeat Bailout Bob--which efforts the reader can examine for themselves going through the "Bennett" tags on Nacilbupera.

On Facebook, the Club for Growth started the "Stop Bob Bennett" group on Tuesday and a few minutes ago posted its announcement that its fans now outnumber Bob Bennetts:

STOP BOB BENNETT fans now outnumber Bennett fans! 1492 to 1489. It took just 5 days. Keep sharing and inviting your friends. We need to outnumber them on March 23rd at your caucus.

Nacilbupera predicted back in August that Bennett would not be elected Senator because we felt the mood overwhelmingly against him and that mood hasn't changed. We also predict that if state delegates are true to the words from their lips, Bennett will be defeated at the May 8th convention (rather than a primary).

+++ Update 3/11:

GOP Chair Dave Hansen rebukes CFG efforts. (Politico)

Videos of the Week: Obamafeld! (Update)

If this were on Youtube, our guess is it'd go viral. But if you have to register with PJTV (for free!) to view, it is well worth it!

As is, the video featured in Creative Minority Report, Sound Politics (WA), Instapundit, and the list keeps growing...

+++ Update 6pm:

Found this video on BigGovernment.com too which we love:

Nacilbupera has never really enjoyed rap that much--not for the rhythms, but for the explicit lyrics and progressive themes (comes to mind a particular Eminem song which tune we love but we can't bear to listen to because of the shamefully-awful lyrics.) We love the Wolverine's beat, the vid is great, and the lyrics are hilarious! If only rap were more like this...

OTP, Man!

Mike Lee's Questionable Endorsements

Recently, a reader asked our opinion of the FreedomWorks & Dick Armey's endorsement of Mike Lee. While FreedomWorks is a conservative organization, it is not one we would personally embrace due to its policy on promoting a Bush-esque "guest worker" illegal immigrant policy. Nacilbupera views a "guest worker" program as a form of amnesty: why should you be allowed to have a job if you are in violation of our immigration laws?

ALIPAC put together this video of Armey's encouragement of illegal aliens breaking the law comparing it to a misdemeanor traffic violation.


Were we to run for office, we would place Armey's endorsement as low priority; to us, it would bespeak our desperation for an endorsement were we to put it on the front page of our website as Lee has done. Sometimes you can't help who does endorse you and in such a case the candidate should be held guiltless (remember Obama denouncing Farrakhan's endorsement? Maybe this isn't a good example, but you get the picture.) Conversely, when you go soliciting endorsements from Shurleff et al as Lee did during his campaign announcement, you assume responsibility for those endorsements. We do not know if Lee solicited Armey's endorsement or not.

There remains one more responsibility candidates have: if you are endorsed by a group or person with questionable principles it is your responsibility to speak up and clarify (IE "hey Utah, we got a great endorsement from Armey; although we differ on our opinions about illegal immigration, Armey has done a great job in blah, blah, blah"). We have yet to see Lee clarify his endorsement from Armey and solicited AG Shurtleff endorsement (let us never forget Shurtleff's infamous 2006 speech to the illegals: "as the chief law enforcement of Utah I should be arresting you. [That's] not going to happen.") Therefore we conclude Mike Lee either (1) agrees with Armey and Shurtleff or (2) is too timid to speak his mind (or "wrestle a girl" as Lonsberry caller Lisa aptly expressed today.)

Either alternative is egregious. Eagar's positions are stated publicly and more profoundly than any candidate we can ever recall and her endorsements are from unquestionably reliable Conservative organizations. Indeed she is the only candidate scoring 100% on 80 Independence Caucus vetting questions. While Lee is good, we deserve better.

Surprise! Mike Lee Drops Out of Lonsberry Debate (Updated x2)

Giving no explanation, U.S. Senate candidate Mike Lee unexpectedly dropped out of a scheduled debate with fellow candidate Cherilyn Eagar on The Bob Lonsberry Show (KNRS 105.7 FM), Utah's premier Conservative Talk Radio Show. Below is today's excerpt dealing with the unexpected exit.



We feel this last-minute exit will not portend well for Lee whose Constitutional assertions are already being questioned by his actions as he has been endorsed by GOP elites and illegal-immigrant-advocates Shurtleff and Armey rather than Conservative, teaparty grassroots organizations.

Shunning a debate is typically an anathema to the candidate who refuses. Consider what happened to Coakley in Massachusetts after she initially brushed off a debate with Brown because she thought she was so far ahead. We doubt Utahns like their candidates closeted; indeed our experience shows us they enjoy engaging and listening to their candidates' ideas--and even more so in a hot political climate such as we have now before us. Utahns want brave, bold leadership; not hide-under-a-rock abdication.

By his withdrawal from the debates, Lee demonstrates a weakness we had not previously noted. Perhaps Lee's entry into the race so late lead to campaign disarray and contributed to this misstep.

+++ Update 3/4:
Nacilbupera's post captured the attention of veteran UPI newspaperman Glen Warchol of the Salt Lake Tribune in his post tonight "Staying Right with the Far Right". (We're honored, Glen!)In his post, Glen reveals a phone call to Lee yielded what we deem the first official "official" explanation as to why Lee declined the debate: Lee wanted all candidates to be represented at the debate.
Lee's answer, of course prompts a pair of followup questions: (1) Why did Lee not insist prior to agreeing to the debate with Eagar that all candidates be represented? That is, what prompted this sudden change of heart? (2) Why does Lee communicate through the Left-leaning Tribune and not directly to Conservative media including: his would-be generous host Bob Lonsberry, an email or comment to Nacilbupera, or even through a public announcement on his website? Conservatives await further elucidation...

+++ Update 3/5:

• Cherilyn posted her feelings on the Lee duck at Redstate.com today; her response was funny. She claimed "Lee had a sudden attack of the vapors and backed out" and chided him: “to stand up like a man and debate me.”
• Campaign spokesman Dan Hauser claimed on Twitter that Lee had debated Eagar (he's referring to the Utah County Republican Women event) while dodging our question of why Lee withdrew. Maybe Dan should "stand up like a man" and answer Nacilbupera's questions, too!

Utah's GOP Senators Support PAYGO

Maybe it's because it's an election year. Maybe it's because Bennett realizes that frankly, we've had it with his "demonsheep Conservatism" and passing off of principles for compromise...and Hatch knows he's next up to bat in 2012.

But whatever the reason, Bennett and Hatch were numbered among 19 lowly GOP senators who voted in support of Jim Bunning's (R-KY) brave stance in correctly pointing out that a $10B proposition to extend unemployment benefits (read: welfare subsidies now as these folks are long-term unemployed) should be paid for by the recently-passed PAYGO provisions. Brian Darling of the Foundry at Heritage.org summed it up this way:

Basically, liberals in Congress love the idea of PAYGO, yet they refuse to enforce the statutory requirements that all new spending be offset. They do this by designating all new spending as an “Emergency Designation.” This is feel good politics at its worst, because the left can claim they are for PAYGO, yet PAYGO has yet to restrain any spending. Furthermore, the vote on PAYGO in the House helped pave the way for a $1.9 trillion increase in the debt limit. Therefore one can argue that PAYGO actually increased spending in the Congress.

Although we have been quite critical of Bennett on this blog (and quite justifiably so!) we do need to praise our elected officials when they do the right thing--and in this case, so it was. There are 79 Senators out there including every single Democrat and Obama who signed the bill who still has yet to get the teaparty message about reigning in spending.