The Nacilbupera Guzzle

Whoever examines with attention the history of the dearths and famines … will find, I believe, that a dearth never has arisen from any combination among the inland dealers in corn, nor from any other cause but a real scarcity, occasioned sometimes perhaps, and in some particular places, by the waste of war, but in by far the greatest number of cases by the fault of the seasons; and that a famine has never arisen from any other cause but the violence of government attempting, by improper means, to remedy the inconveniences of a dearth. (Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations IV.5.44)

Saturday, May 28, 2011

Gov. Johnson's Plan to Balance the Budget Tomorrow

To his credit, one of the few fair Fox News interviews with GOP Presidential Candidate Gov. Gary Johnson on was broadcast last night on the Sean Hannity Show:

Gov. Johnson hit a nerve with me by focusing on the most important issue facing our nation:  the boldest plan I have heard from any Presidential candidate to balance the budget:
I'm under the belief that we're on the verge of a financial collapse...that's in lieu of the fact that we have $14 Trillion dollars in debt and we have no ability to repay $14 Trillion dollars in debt if we're racking up $1.6 Trillion dollars in deficit spending this year, the year prior, two years prior, and the years looking ahead.  Look, we're not going to pay back $14 Trillion dollars in debt.  So what we have to do is embark on balancing the federal budget tomorrow.
Gov. Johnson next puts forth his common-sense plan on how to balance the budget including entitlement reductions.  The plan was credible given Gov. Johnson's recap earlier in the interview of his competent financial stewardship in balancing the budget in the 2-1 registered Democrat state of New Mexico.

The latter part of the interview focuses on the drug issue Hannity and some other Republicans might take issue with.  Legalizing drugs is such a small ripple compared of the tsunami of debt threatening to destroy the entire nation, I don't worry about Gov. Johnson's views.  Besides, if some Mormon members close to me can overlook Obama's views on abortion despite their belief system that abortion is wrong--because they mistakenly believed that then Sen. Obama (with no fiscal track record) would keep our nation's fiscal house in order--then I certainly could support someone with a controversial issue that has little to do with balancing the budget.  Simply put, there is no candidate I completely agree with on every issue.

And yet as an ardent defender of the 10th Amendment, I find it impossible to justify the federal government's unwarranted regulation of drugs at a national level and feel legalization is an issue left to the states.

My prima donna issue for 2012 is to find the candidate most likely not only to balancing the budget, but in paying down the debt and if you agree, then I would assert you need to consider adding, as I have, Gov. Johnson to your list of preferred Presidential candidates.

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Dick Morris' Propaganda Poll Hides Ron Paul Vote

Tonight on the Fox News' O'Reilly Factor Show, Commentator Dick Morris offered up a "Dick Morris/GMRS" poll which Mr. Morris touted as showing presidential candidate Mitt Romney up in the lead over other candidates as follows (Palin was excluded from the survey which was done after the exit of Huckabee and Trump):

Romney = 30%
Gingrich = 15%
Bachmann = 7%
Cain = 7%
Pawlenty = 5%
Santorum = 3%
Huntsman = 1%

I find a couple of problems with this poll which was uncontested by host Bill O'Reilly:

(1) The numbers don't add up; in fact they add up to just 68%.  That means almost a third of the votes were "thrown out".  There simply aren't enough missing candidates (people like Ron Paul, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Gary Johnson) that would fit underneath Huntsman's 1% which means that at least one of the missing candidates got higher, and in all probability in the double digits.  I wonder who this missing candidate could be?  Perhaps this video on the "last of seven candidates for president" by Morris just might shed some light:

Morris, a former Clinton advisor and now Republican cheerleader, defames fellow Republican Ron Paul as someone who "would be a total disaster as president" citing two policy disagreements with Paul: drug war and foreign intervention.  How Ron Paul who appears to be the most fiscally conservative and anti-debt candidate of anyone running is in Mr. Morris' mind a "total disaster as president" serves no purpose but to slam Conservatives who are stone-cold-sober about reducing our debt and saving our country.

How interesting it is on Bill O'Reilly Factor Fox News website this very candidate--Dr. Ron Paul--missing from Mr. Morris poll is the leading candidate by far on the current O'Reilly Factor "No Spin Poll":

(2) The Morris poll is closed to outside review.  The complete findings of the poll are not available for review including such important things as if the candidate order presented was randomized, the rankings of ALL candidates, and the number of votes received.  Nor can you make comments on Morris site unless you pay him money.  Furthermore, information about what "GMRS" is is totally blocked from view.  A Google search of "GMRS survey" returns nothing of use.  In all, this poll serves nothing but to further the Morris propaganda that he hates Ron Paul and will distort the truth to further Morris' dogma.

I believe if you are going to have a "No Spin Zone" then abide by a policy of no spin and call out Mr. Morris for putting a huge amount of anti-Ron Paul spin on the show.

Sunday, May 22, 2011

Engaged In Any Sexual Solicitation Lately?


If you live in Utah, you've probably already committed multiple acts that could be considered sexual solicitation under Utah's newly passed, two-page, broadly-worded HB121 which sailed through the legislature and governor's desk without opposition from either party.  As background, consider the May 20th Tribune article "Escorts: Utah law makes acting sexy illegal".  The article, while commendable, stops short of analyzing the full repercussions of the new law.

The broadness of HB121 originates from lines 46-8 which reads:
(2) An intent to engage in sexual activity for a fee may be inferred from a person's engaging in, offering or agreeing to engage in, or requesting or directing another to engage in  any of the acts described in Subsection (1)(c) under the totality of the existing circumstances.
That is to say if one as much as "engages in" any of the activities in Subsection (1)(c), they may have their behavior inferred to mean "an intent to engage in sexual activity for a fee" subject only to a vague, undefined, open-to-interpretation-by-a-judge phrase "under the totality of existing circumstances."

The activity in Subsection (1)(c) is defined as:
(i) exposure of a person's genitals, the buttocks, the anus, the pubic area, or the female breast below the top of the areola;
(ii) masturbation;
(iii) touching of a person's genitals, the buttocks, the anus, the pubic area, or the female breast; or (iv) any act of lewdness.
Thus in theory, if you have touched or exposed your genitals, buttocks, anus, pubic area, or female areolas, (and thus "engaged in" sexual activity by definition of lines 46-8) your actions may be inferred to constitute an "intent to engage in sexual activity for a fee" and thus sexual solicitation subject to interpretation by a judge.

The absurd broadness of this law could lead the following actions to be considered sexual solicitation (even if done in private):
  • Going to the bathroom (exposing and/or touching one's genitals)
  • Bathing, taking a shower or undressing (lewdness, exposure)
  • A physician who requests you to remove clothing (exposure, lewdness)
  • A TSA agent looking at your nudy backscatter image or giving you an aggressive patdown
  • Breastfeeding (exposure of the female areola)
  • Consensual intercourse (exposure of genitalia)
  • Applying sunscreen on your buttocks or other areas (touching prohibited here)
  • Scratching of the groin or other areas due to jock itch, etc (again, no touching)
  • Dozens of other possibilities
I predict this one won't make it through the courts, but until lawmakers come to their senses or judges rule, keep your clothes on and don't touch.  And just maybe blogger Connor Boyack isn't so off target in his Invitation to Repeal bad and excessive legislation.

Saturday, May 21, 2011

Honor Armed Forces Day Today by Bringing Home the Troops

Although not even published as a holiday on my credit union's wall calendar, today marks the 63rd celebration of our nation's Armed Forces Day.  We have the best, most noble Armed Forces in the world:  a military of paid volunteers defending our Constitution and protecting our country and performing one of the few Constitutionally-mandated responsibilities of the Federal Government.  Their service and sacrifice make me proud to be an American!

Yet on this rightfully celebratory day, I reflect upon the many lives which are lost in far away lands on expensive missions authorized by presidential edicts.  It seems our American President (including but by no means limited to President Obama) lacks the courage to bring the troops home when our mission is accomplished. 

According to the latest available Department of Defense statistics (Dec 31, 2010) we have tens of thousands of troops in other lands fighting or preparing to fight other nations' conflicts, and I'm not just talking about Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Consider the Korean War which ended some 58 years ago:  over these many years we have provided our close ally, the Republic of Korea, with an average of 40,000 troops (Heritage Foundation) arising from a mutual 1953 defense treaty.  Isn't it about time to bring these troops home?  Yet in 2008, then ROK Defense Minister Lee outlined the Korean expectation for "the U.S. [to] continue to provide bridging capabilities until Korea acquires sufficient defense capabilities." (  All this despite Korea's  own military force of 680,000 to defend its borders! (US Dept of State, 2010)

Maybe the Koreans are right:  58 years is just way too soon for these feeble, namby-pamby Korean troop allies to defend their own homeland.  For example, in Europe we boast 55,000 troops in Germany and 10,000 troops each in Italy and the UK left over 66 years ago from WWII!  And the debilitated Japanese force home to the once mighty Samurai gets only 35,000 American troops.  So just when will these countries be mighty enough to bring troops home?  Well if enough politicians feel the way McCain does, it could be 100 years! (Youtube)

And then there's the pointed question of just how in the world does a fiscal conservative justify the expenditure of troops in foreign countries for decades with no exit strategy when our own economy is ready to tumble under $14T of debt?

We do have an war going on our southern border:  human and narcotic trafficking are out of control.  If any asset or ally should be defended right now, it is our own neglected border.  Let's honor our armed forces today by having them fight for American soil and American blood.  After being attacked on 9/11, we were right to fight Al-Qaeda the Taliban, but it is now past time for the troops to come home from Afghanistan...and many other places from around the world.

Friday, May 20, 2011

Invasion of the Body Scanners

It appears for now Dr. Bennell has stopped the Pod People from reproducing nudy body scanners at our airports.  In an Andrew Taylor AP article (Daily Herald), the House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcomittee denied this week the Obama administration request of $76M for 275 additional nudy scanners to the existing 500.  (See also "Appropriations Committee Releases Fiscal Year 2012 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill") 

While this is a victory, the fight must be waged until all the Rapiscan scanners are removed from our airports and we stop giving innocent men, women, and children a choice between public nudity coupled with radiation exposure and public molestation.  With this choice facing flyers, there leaves little doubt that KSM and Mohamed Atta come out victors and have through their actions put the American people into bondage to their own progressive government.

These nudy scanners at our airports represent three gross negatives: 
  • A pork barrel waste of precious tax dollars.  The AP article above cites Homeland Security spokesman Adam Fletcher as boasting "nearly 210 prohibited, illegal or dangerous items" discovered since the body scanner invasion last year.  This statistic is simply saying that with an $8B annual budget, it is costing the American taxpayer an amazing $37 Million dollars per contraband item discovered by the scanners.  And not a single one of these 210 items was an explosive device nor a thwarted terrorist attack, but in all probability small things like a penknife left in someone's pocket.  We don't have that kind of money to waste.
  • An intrusive and immoral scan of our private bodies.  I am among those who has chosen to avoid flying whenever reasonably possible due primarily to the belief that it violates tenants of my religion to keep my body covered.  I am further bewildered by a church who readily lobbies in the area of illegal immigrant, but won't speak up to protect the denuding and molestation of its members, let alone its missionaries who must fly in order to complete their voluntary service.
  • A clear violation of the of the 4th Amendment by a government agency (TSA):
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (Full text of 4th Amendment, US Constitution)
Just remember the warning:  the scanners are here already! You're next! You're next!

Utah's Little Tent Party

I don't profess to be an expert on fellow Utah Republican Mike Ridgway's history with the Party, but I have met him briefly and highly esteem his work.  That's not to say I agree with Mike's every position; yet part of his important mission is to try and keep our Party free from corruption, something important to me as a Republican--for when corruption is eventually exposed (as all evil eventually is) it results in a diminishing of our Party.  Mike has been through so many trials it amazes me his dedication to Party and principle.  Just one of many examples:  while running for the 1st Congressional seat in Utah, Ridgway amazingly was denied the opportunity to speak at the Salt Lake County GOP Convention despite other candidates having the opportunity (Youtube)

Blogger Right View Mirror revealed today that at Saturday's State Central Committee meeting in a closed door meeting (meaning no votes recorded by person) voted to ban Mike from virtually all GOP activity:
The SCC also voted to retreat into an executive session in order to consider a resolution (submitted by Thomas Clay) which would banish Republican Mike Ridgway from “attending, participating in, or running for URP office in any meeting of the URP, including URP Conventions, URP State Central Committee meetings, URP Executive Committee meetings, URP gatherings or events sponsored or hosted by the same.”  The resolution was originally submitted in January and debated for a while before being sent back to committee; it reappeared at Saturday’s meeting, where it passed.
What a small tent day it was indeed for a party so threatened by a fellow party activist that they had to in secret ban one of their own.  We've had elected Republicans in Utah skinny dip with minors in a hot tub and get thrown in jail for DUI's but they've never received equal punishment.  We've had RINOs who pay little attention to the platform they are to uphold not receive such banishment.  Why pick on a self-funded, lowly activist and patriot named Mike?  This resolution just makes me groan in disgust.

These secret actions Saturday by Utah's GOP leadership have the reverse effect of what they intend: in their excessive castigation they prove Mike's hypothesis that the party is indeed corrupt: for the state GOP central committee cannot tolerate the voice of a sole whistleblower anywhere remotely associated with them.  I do pray for a bigger tent Republican Party.

Monday, May 16, 2011

New EPA Regulations Proving More Costly

By Guest Journalist Ryan Halston

A new set of EPA regulations could prove again to be costly for American industry leaders. The March act slated to cut toxic air emission by 91 percent could end up causing a major burden for the economy.

The EPA toxic air rule has had shown an estimated $11 billion cost to industry, as well as hurt around 3 percent of American coal generation. The power industry is starting to feel a bit of unease with regards to the regulations, as testing is taking place on the amount of hit that business leaders could take.

The timeline of the recent regulations has also been called into question. The chairman of American Electric Power has openly criticized the timeline of the regulation as a “train wreck” primarily because the swiftness would hurt the economy. An estimated difference of $5 billion in economic hit could ensue as a result of a swift timeline, as opposed to something that’s more drawn out. Without a change in the actual law, there would be no legal way to affect the timeline as well. Power industry leaders are in favor of a 2020 deadline, while the regulations currently call for an end time of 2015.

The toxic air regulations are just another in what seems to be a long line of initiatives from the EPA in 2010 and 2011 that are rubbing many the wrong way. A common complaint involving the EPA’s work in the past year has been the view that the agency is becoming a power hungry organization. With the levy of constant costly regulations and lack of responses from the EPA, this connotation could be proving true.

The EPA has somewhat gone off track from some of its major goals in recent years. The constant barrage from the GOP has possibly forced the agency into constantly defending greenhouse gas emission regulations, possibly taking some their own focus away from other areas. When you look at it, the EPA just seems to be a bit off course. They have taken some of their resources away from programs like the fight on water contamination and work against asbestos exposure in exchange for more time devoted defending and levying regulations that work to cost companies major money.

Perhaps the most unfortunate thing about this battle is that the EPA may end up causing major hits to itself in the end. If the agency continues to defend costly regulations that have little to no effect on health, business leaders and GOP officials will most likely continue doing what is necessary to right the ship. This could include further EPA budget cuts and more legislation firing back at the environmental agency.

Sunday, May 8, 2011

Republican Political Courage in Partial Obamacare Repeal

According to a Pete Kasperowicz The Hill article on Wednesday, the House voted 235-191 (roll call vote) to pass HR1214 (full text), a small Obamacare repeal of $100M in grant money for construction of School-Based Health Centers (SBHC).  While the dominant mood of the Republicans voting for HR 1214 was to turn around the out-of-control spending binge by the Democrats, liberal-leaning The Hill failed to present the controversial nature of SBHCs as ensurers of teenage access to contraceptives and abortion services providers (read more about SBHC's at Human Life International).  HR1214 is a simple, three-paragraph, easy to understand repeal of irresponsible SBHC spending backed by all but four Republicans and supported by three Democrats.

A Disappointing Vote:  Rep. West
Today, in a Russell Berman The Hill article, Mr. Berman pointed out the irony in the Allen West (R-FL22) vote.  Rep. West, a tea party favorite, had voted along with all the other Republicans in favor of a different partial Obamacare bill the day prior (HR1213) but cited the importance of focus on international issues including Libya as a reason for his "no" vote.  The Hill went further and pointed out that two SBHC applicants were within Rep. West's district, implying and perhaps rightly so, West's vote was influenced by the two applicants.  While I respect Rep. West's natural leadership and his voting record to date, this particular one I cannot accept.

True Political Courage:  Rep. Dold
While The Hill wasted no time in bagging a tea party member, they failed to present a true hero in the HR1214 vote:  Rep. Robert Dold (R-IL10).  Rep. Dold, a fiscal-conservative social-moderate freshman congressman who replaced Mark Kirk (Sen. Kirk won the Senate seat previously held by Obama), sits in "the most Democratic district of any Republican in the country" (National Journal) with redistricting controlled by Democrats.  Add to that, according to a Democrat-complied list of all applicants for the SBHC grant a whopping 13 applicants were within Dold's district--nearly double the number of applicants in any other congressional district!  To vote to deny the pork within one's own district takes a huge amount a political courage and Dold earned my admiration.  Too bad Mr. Berman at The Hill could only make a case against an aberrant Republican Congressman and not balance it with the Congressman who demonstrated true political courage.

Utah's Take
Utah's three Congressmen all voted party-line.  By his vote, liberal Matheson demonstrated his continued support for outrageous spending and Planned Parenthood referrals.  It was, however, nice to see on the SBHC grant list that Utah was devoid of applicants for the pork-barrel federal spending.

Thursday, May 5, 2011

Obama's Ultimate Insult to Government Transparency (Update)

In the past legislative session in Utah, HB477 aka "GRAMA bill" sparked a bipartisan outrage at the proposed modifications to government transparency which led to its repeal.  From day one of passage, I spoke out against HB477 and more recently set personal example by running an extremely transparent GOP leadership campaign (which I did not win.)

Yet President Obama's lack of transparency concerning the death of Osama bin Laden pales in comparison to the issues presented above.  First, despite $625K in annual speechwriting fees and up to $100K in teleprompter assistance (Washington Times, h/t American Thinker) Obama provided scarce details in announcing the death of Osama.  No mention of the four helicopters including a downed one, the number of people killed or captured, the ritual cleansing of the body, the Islamic funeral mocking the death of those who died in 9/11, nor the burial at sea.  These things had to be sorted out by the media over the course of the past few days and was entirely inappropriate for the Commander in Chief not to mention.

Now we are told that we are not going to have any opportunity to review video or pictures of the event.  Indeed we haven't heard from a single eyewitness of the event, nor have we been privy to the DNA test results or the facial recognition results.  In other words, Obama has simply said "trust me."  For a government accountable to "We the People" this is unacceptable. 

We paid for these operations from our tax money and we have a right to witness ALL the evidence of Osama's death.  It's not that we necessarily disbelieve what we are told, we just want to exercise our constitutionally-guaranteed right to information.  Indeed Monday the AP filed a FOIA request to get access to the information owed the American People (CBS).

The reason given by the Obama administration for not releasing the information was that it "could" incite Muslim fanatics to violence.  In this arrogant decision the President is neglecting his duty to We the People and the Constitution.  We owe no allegiance to Muslim terrorists, but the President is to work for us, the American people. 

This insult is just the latest in a series of events marking Obama as perhaps the most un-transparent President ever to take office.  One of the things I will be looking for in a new President in 2012 is someone who will commit release all the Osama death images, video, and evidence to the People.

++++ Update 9:30pm

After watching the first presidential debates tonight on Fox News, four (Paul, Pawlenty, Johnson, Santorum) of the five raised their hand in support of releasing the OBL pictures.  Having been impressed with Cain, I was highly disappointed he alone did not support releasing the pictures. (National Journal)