Nacilbupera

The NDAA: Whodunnit and What We Can Do

2012-01-22T22:55:00.000-07:00

December is to politics as October is to stock market crashes. It's a great time for Congress to pass the junk that nobody wants because we're all in the spirit of the winter season preparing for family events, winter vacations, and spiritual renewals. Its the time of year that Congress sneaks in debt-ceiling raises and little things like Obamacare.

Last month, Congress passed a 565-page military spending bill, HR 1540 (full text) or the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The most grievous portion of the bill is located in Title X, Subtitle D, Sections 1021-2, pages 265-7. The bill, signed into law by President Obama allows permanent detention without trial of US Citizens by the military and is quite likely far worse on the violation of our rights and Constitution than even Obamacare.

The Senate held a couple of votes with final passage being 86-13 (roll call vote) with Utah's liberal Senator Hatch voting aye and conservative Senator Lee nay. I must say that if anyone believes Senator Hatch has become more conservative over the past two years as he gears up for reelection, the severity of this Constitutional violation has to knock the wind out of any argument in that respect.

Utah's house vote was equally telling: Bishop sided with Democrat Jim Matheson while Chaffetz voted against. In all the House vote was much closer, 283-136 (roll call vote). The NDAA is a clear violation of the 5th and 6th Amendments (and others) and MUST be repealed!

Video blogger ABillyRock puts the NDAA in perspective in promoting a Feb 3rd national event (Facebook) to bring attention to the repeal cause:

Also this week, Congressman Ron Paul introduced a 1-page bill, HR 3785 to repeal this most offensive section. It should be on the forefront of anyone who defends the Constitution as well as a litmus test for choosing federal representatives in primary, general, and Presidential elections. Here is the video from Rep. Paul who took the time out from campaigning in South Carolina to help preserve our liberties:

Huntsman & Daughters Stage False Flag Attack

2012-01-07T17:00:00.001-07:00

Our prior Governor Jon Huntsman betrayed Utah in the 2008 elections by insisting that he would serve his full term (nacilbupera, May 2009) but 4 months into his governorship announced he was ready to serve Obama as ambassador to China, only to in turn to dump Obama to make a run against him for President. If Huntsman were a man of his word, he would still be serving as Governor of Utah right now, not ex-Governor.

Now this mean-spirited deceiver has been found in conspiracy with his daughters to create a false flag attack in the form of a YouTube video which appears to be by a Ron Paul supporter (story at Huffington Post)

The video reaches into the Governor's personal life and is out-of-bounds; the Paul campaign promptly disavowed it. The mass media story seems to end there as it being "some crazy Ron Paul supporter" going off the deep end.

But Youtube poster anonwoohoo did the homework (along with several others including Angel Clark and TokenLibertarianGirl) which has damning evidence that Gov Huntsman's daughters actually created and released the anti-Huntsman video as a false flag attack:

Huntsman has always been a bit of a embarrassment to the values of the Mormon community and the emergence of the Jon2012Girls with this false flag attack is stoking the flames.

To devote Mormons a previous video the Jon2012Girls put out is clearly at odds with the teachings of Mormon religion in aspects of the immodest dress (Mormon women are taught to cover their shoulders) and the music to which the Jon Girls sing their political message (Justin Timberlake's "Sexyback" which refrains: "I'm bringing sexy back / Them other motherf*ckers' don’t know how to act" is an inference by the Jon2012girls that all the other GOP candidates are "motherf*ckers")

As with the plethora of other GOP candidates, I have been appreciative of Huntsman's presence in the campaign; but at this point when he is covertly planning false flag attacks as demonstrated by the end portion of the anonwoohoo video, Huntsman needs to go away.

++++

Updated: FOUND! Picture of a Iowa Huntsman supporter.

Iowa Caucus Takehome: Ron Paul Easily Defeats Obama

2012-01-04T01:16:00.002-07:00

In studying the Iowa Caucus entrance polling, Ron Paul now has definitive proof of what he has been preaching all along as supported through numerous polls: he is the candidate who could best defeat Obama. In examining both the FoxNews and CNN entrance polling we find Dr. Paul doing well in areas where the GOP has struggled: young voters, urban areas, among the poor, and among people who aren't influenced by ads. (If Iowa had any measurable ethnicities we would find he does well among races, too!)

But most notably in the polling is the support among Independents for Rep. Paul: An outstanding 43% of independent voters--more than double any other candidate--voted for the good Congressman! One can only imagine what would happen in a general election when Dr. Paul wins the GOP nomination: not only would Obama be defeated but with this kind of support from Independents, it would be no contest. States typically off hands for any GOP candidate would come into play. I'm talking big time like Ronald Reagan time here: California, New York, Oregon, even Hawaii would have HUGE possibilities of turning Ron Paul Red. States Romney or Santorum can't even begin to waste a dime on. Ron Paul WON the California GOP straw poll. Paulians are everywhere. This isn't the Romney United States of New Hampshire and Utah. Ron Paul has NATIONAL support; he's a people's candidate loved by those who are defending us in the military and sacrifice their lives over our insipid provocations, symptomatic of a domineering American Empire consumed by a Military Industrial Complex.

I don't know whether the Party will see this or not. We don't study out issues but go with whatever our favorite FoxNews commentator is. We don't read the Constitution we embrace; we don't think for ourselves. We pick one mass media and trust it like the Bible. We're busy and don't have time to truly study out and do our own homework. I know I've been there. We are changing. Slowly. We're getting that just because Romney spends the most money doesn't mean he's the best or most electable candidate.

And what is the Party going to do with people like me who won't vote for Romney because we have watched him and know his business experience isn't running a business and creating jobs or producing cars like his father: it's mergers and acquisitions. That's not the business skillset we need to run the country, we don't need to merge with Mexico or acquire Iraq! Remember being a "businessman" is NOT by itself any better than any other profession. Indeed, Romney can't even come up with a proposal to balance the budget his first year! Sounds to me like he needs to go back to Harvard and learn some business budgeting! And if Romney can't get our own party together, let alone appeal to independents, we're looking like another four years of Obama. Is not then a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama? Is that what we are trying to do as a Party to get Obama another 4 years by nominating Romney??? If indeed a vote for Romney helps Obama, then is it not only the right but the duty of every Republican to find someone else to whom to give their sacred vote and Romney's duty to bow out of the race and endorse someone who does have a plan to balance the budget their first year?

From a purely electability standpoint, Ron Paul is a GOP dream candidate and the only GOP candidate who could produce a landslide victory over Obama in 2012.

++++

Update 1/7: More interesting analysis http://freeindependentsun.com/republic/what-the-new-ppp-3-way-race-poll-shows-only-a-ron-paul-led-republican-ticket-can-beat-obama/

Update 1/9: I'm telling you folks, if Republicans would just rally behind Ron Paul not only would we save the country, but Paul would be above 50% vs Obama and this election would be in the bag. Take a look as Paul scores 47% Percent of all Independents (CBS Poll) and yet thanks to the mass media is barely known and even less understood. If Republicans want a winner in 2012, the only hope is Ron Paul. Look, I understand some of you are going to have to hold your nose when you vote for Paul because you worry too much about the bomb in Iran, but read this: I love George Washington Except for his Foreign Policy by Michael Maharrey at the 10th Amendment Center and perhaps like myself and Michael you too will begin to see why Dr. Paul is much more right than wrong on foreign policy.

Why a Conservative Mormon Cannot Support Romney

2012-01-01T21:49:00.000-07:00

With the Iowa caucus just hours away, I thought I would elaborate on some of my feelings as to why as a Conservative, Utah Mormon I reject Romney as a candidate for POTUS.

(1) Romney equals Bush. During Bush's administration, Bush began some of our country's longest wars to deal with a situation in Afghanistan which should have only taken months. Credit Bush for the so-called "Bush Doctrine" in which we are supposed to preemptively strike on any nation we consider a threat. Bush imposed the unconstitutional federal mandate of No Child Left Behind, expanded Medicare through implementation of Part D, created a federal police force called the TSA, passed the Patriot Act in violation of our civil rights, and bailed out powerful wall street banks through TARP. Bush was a disaster to Conservatism and the Constitution. Looking back with the knowledge I have gained on political matters, I am ashamed I voted for the man.

Romney equals Bush as Romney has hired tons of old Bush staffers for his campaign. I hear Romney bashing Obama, Rick Perry, or Ron Paul but he never seems to criticize Bush. Perhaps he finds no fault with the Big-Government Bush agenda as his policies seem to mirror Bush's. He's even got Bush Sr's endorsement. Wow. I am SO thrilled. (NOT!)

(2) Romney has endorsed both Orrin Hatch's current bid to extend his senatorial dynasty and ex-Sen Bob Bennett in his failed quest at a fourth term. Here in Utah, it is clear Romney has courted the powerbroking establishment at the expense of Constitutional freedom.

(3) Romney appears comfortable at applying the Bush Doctrine in Iran. It seems illogical in a financially broke, war-weary nation that one would want to do a preemptive strike against Iran under the justification of stopping them from obtaining a nuclear weapon. I grew up under the constant and real threat of thousands of warheads pointed at my nation and yet none of those in the original "evil empire" ever took preemptive strike. If we are so concerned about a nuclear weapon in the hands of an unstable country, does this mean we also have to go to war against Pakistan and Syria?

These Muslim countries are fighting against us in large part because we are in the midst of a 21st Century "crusade" against their lands. We occupy their countries and support dictators like Saddam Hussein and Hosni Mubarak and in some cases like Iran overthrow democratically elected leaders to establish tyrants like the Shah. If we would leave them alone to worship as they please, there would be much abatement to the hostility towards us. Jews and Christians which have respected Muslim worship have lived at peace for centuries in both Shi'a and Sunni countries.

As a Mormon, we believe that we have the duty to spread the message of Jesus Christ to every nation and people of the world. We know through experience that in wartime the spreading of the message is inhibited to the point of impracticality. Why then does Romney insist on stirring up the Persians to wrath against us through the implied threat of preemptive strike? Surely peace is the message of Mormonism and of the Book of Mormon from which the name derives.

I cannot support Romney in his foreign warmongering policies against the Persian people.

In all I view Romney as a Rattlesnake versus Obama as an Inland Taipan; although the Taipan is much more toxic, you want to avoid being bitten by either and both require serious treatment afterwards. The want of Conservatism is for drastically smaller government, adherence to the Constitution, decreasing the laws of the land, relief from taxation, and paying down the debt. I am fully aware and convinced that, like Bush, at the end of his term a Romney presidency will have more pages of law, more taxation, more war, and less adherence to the Constitution. I cannot foresee any circumstance of me being able to vote in good conscience for Romney or Obama even when I am told by people who claim intellectual superiority that I must choose between these vipers.

Provo City Council Meeting 12/6

2011-12-07T22:53:00.000-07:00

Here are my thoughts on last nights Provo City Council meeting:

(1) A private non-profit group called the Utah Valley Earth Forum was allowed nearly 10 minutes to promote their environmental extremism agenda under the guise of given a Stewardship Award to Mayor Curtis. The speaker touted the opt-out recycling program and the Switch-It program. The group likes Curtis so much they even promote him on their front page. Pretty disgusting stuff especially when considering citizens are only allowed 3 minutes.

(2) Pork-barrel parks scored big last night at the expense of citizen's pocketbooks. Council approved 7-0 expansion of 3850N Timpview Park taking an understandable $170K from Park Impact Fees and an unacceptable expense of $170K from the general fund. Also approved about half of a $90K appropriation for a pocket park 300W Center St. Finally they took $0.5M from the savings in the Lakeview Park and instead of returning it to the citizens in from of Iprovo tax relief threw the money at the a Slate Canyon Trailhead project.

(3) Mayor got his rebranding pork approved 7-0 to the tune of a quarter million. Mayor and some council have stated they had to spend the money in part because they felt a multicolored bar on the flag promoted the LGBT agenda. Funny, to me a rainbow has always meant God's promise to Noah. The logo update was sold as a "good investment" and the mayor commented on how all steamed he was just having visited all these major cities promoting Provo but couldn't announce his new $250K pet logo. What a waste! Take the citizen's money and flush it down the johns at city hall. Additional note: notice (left) the lack of communication in an attempt to abscond the dollar amount on the mayor's blog: I posted a comment on 10/6 asking for this information and never got it. I can post private subsequent private emails between me and the mayor in which I repeatedly asked for these dollar amounts and never got it either.

(4) Council Hall-Everett got one of the issues she has been advocating since back when the property tax hike was being discussed last summer: $250K for wayfinding signage. The amount is exorbitant and with a parking map available online a totally unnecessary expense for a city which just had to raise taxes in order to avoid bankruptcy from the Iprovo debt which fell back in its lap. (Funny how those 20yr bonds come back to haunt you. Good thing the city practices the teachings of the LDS church to "get out of debt and stay out of debt" NOT!!!)

(5) Mayor Curtis tried to pull a fast one by touting the fiscal responsibility of the city because of the poor condition of the carpet in council chambers. In my comments I mentioned that this was not fair because the council has already appropriated the money for a huge upgrade to the council chambers. Other members of council got fed up with public comment and either directly or indirectly insulted the citizenry for not having facts to back up their comments or for not attending all the budget meetings that they had (of course they're paid to do so, we're not). One council member did apologize privately afterwards. No one including new council Garrett showed any spine for taking a fiscally conservative approach to government; every single appropriation passed unanimously.

It's a sad day when the city government in Provo is as liberal as New York City. Maybe it will help when we elect a new mayor who doesn't promote the agenda of his former Party: big government, big spending, and massive tax increases.

Values Voter Summit Picks a New Presidential Staw Poll Winner

2011-10-09T21:20:00.013-06:00

Ron Paul gave an amazing speech (transcript) at the Values Voter Summit, an organization of social conservatives. It was unique among speeches I have heard from Rep. Paul, being structured around 1 Samuel 8 and how the people of Israel were admonished to not choose a king because they would lose their personal liberties. Rep. Paul related that chapter to the king we currently have in Washington. Rep Paul talked repeatedly about protection of the family as well as other social themes such as respect for life and avoidance of both personal and national debt.

As a social conservative and a defender of liberty, the speech resonated with me; I felt like I was listening to a good Sunday sermon by a noble preacher or an LDS Conference talk. Apparently the voters at the Summit felt the same way giving Dr. Paul a first place finish with 37% of the vote, an amazing comeback from his dismal 16th place finish last year.

So what was the headline from the leftist media on the straw poll winner? Unbelievably it's "GOP Values Voters say they’d back Mitt Romney". Gov. Romney finished a dismal 6th place out of 8 with less than 5% of the vote. Go figure.

Unrelated to the Summit but a recent speech which outlines Rep. Paul's core constitutional principles which I enjoyed was that to the National Press Club:

Provo City's Unconstitutional Citation Fees

2011-09-15T22:26:00.000-06:00

Not long ago, I received a parking violation for parking I what I thought was my own driveway with my Geo Metro on a Sunday night. The '95 Metro hatchback--belonging to the shortest of classes of cars--was covering the thoroughfare of the sidewalk on our cul-de-sac in a quiet suburban Provo neighborhood. The next morning to my astonishment, I discovered that even though passageway around the car had been left, a ticket had been issued at 2am at a time when no one walks the neighborhood. The police officer issuing the citation did not attempt to notify me of the violation (I was home) nor was I aware of the Provo City code 9.31.010 (1) prohibiting such behavior.

Rather incensed, I decided I would protest the ticket in person but couldn't do so because my work schedule had me commuting out of the county for a couple of weeks. When I took my ticket in to protest I discovered that my $30 parking violation had morphed into a $90 bill! You see, according to Provo City, parking violations are designed to double after 5 days (days, not even business days mind you) and triple in 11 (see: Penalty Schedule).

In the 8th Amendment of our Constitution we are protected against "excessive fines". I would assert that Provo's doubling and tripling of a fine so quickly is the very thing against which the Constitution was written for to provide us protection.

In essence, fines should be commensurate to the crime. By doubling any fine, the city is de facto arguing that the crime committed by not paying a citation in 5 days is equal to the crime itself. By tripling the fine in 11 days, the city takes the stance that it is twice as bad not to pay the citation in 11 days than the original crime. The stances Provo city is forced into by such an unconstitutional position is absurd.

Let's contrast the city's unconstitutional practice with other city practices of late fees which do not seem excessive (see Provo City Consolidated Fee Schedule):

Items checked out at the Provo library are not due for 3 weeks. After that a 10-cent per diem charge incurs.
A Provo City Business license is obtained for $150-$475. The late fee is $25.
Provo youth sports vary in cost but $30 is typical. The late fee is $5.

In all the above cases, the resident has ample time to respond to the original charge whereas a traffic citation is due in 5 days. What would be reasonable and indeed constitutional is to allow a citizen 30 days to pay a citation and then to impose a collection fee to cover the city's costs of sending out a collection notice.

Other than other localities which abuse their citizens with similar unconstitutional excessive citation fees, there is no other example of any late fee doubling after 5 days. Could one imagine doubling your income tax bill after 5 days? Your property tax bill? How about tripling your credit card late fee on the 11th day? What if softball cost $90 because you were 11 days late? Your triple your utility bill or the late fee on your rent? These are so repulsive and intrusive into the freedoms we cherish.

Why then do we allow Provo City to shame the 8th Amendment to the Constitution and unecessarily place us in bondage through unconstitutional law?

Paul Schools Santorum on Iran in GOP Debates

2011-08-14T19:08:00.014-06:00

During Thursday's Ames, Iowa GOP debates, Rep. Ron Paul was questioned about his views on Iran. He advocated lifting sanctions and letting Iran defend its borders instead of fighting endless wars and provoking through our actions other countries to war with us. It was a classic noninterventionist, conservative argument, one our Founding Fathers would surely endorse.

But that wasn't good enough for Rick Santorum who verbally jumped out of turn in front of Herman Cain to defend his anti-Iran policy. During Santorum's defense he claimed we had been at war with Iran since 1979; in turn Ron Paul corrected him claiming 1953.

As a student of history, I found it appropriate to share with you the truth in Dr. Paul's words. For the vast majority of adulthood, the history lesson we remember and are told begins with the violent overthrow of a pro-American Iranian leader, the Shah, with the subsequent hostage taking of Americans at our embassy. I remember those days well. Yet most of us aren't quite old enough to remember a complex story of American interventionism gone awry. Nor were the secret events of 1953 fully elucidated to the American public as they have been in more recent times. Lets examine some history together and learn how events all across the globe impacted our relations with Iran.

During WWII, Venezuela passed the Hydrocarbons Act of 1943 which asserted that profits made from foreign oil companies had to be shared 50/50 with the state. This precursor to oil nationalization was copied in 1950 by Saudia Arabia in its dealings with Aramco as King Ibn Saud achieved a similar agreement under the threat of nationalization. Seeing successful profit-sharing results in other oil producing nations, the idea of nationalization grew wildly popular in Iran with regards to Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC, whom we know today as British Petroleum or BP) and its Abadan refinery at the time responsible for 20% of the world supply (Abadan is my sweetheart's birthplace so there is personal familiarity). While the British slowly reacted to the profit-sharing demands, a group of radical Iranians terrorists lead by Navvab Safari and his secret society Fada'iyan-e Islam with a history of assassinations since 1946, assassinated the Prime Minister Haj Ali Razmara while praying in a mosque on March 7, 1951--just days after Razmara had spoken out against AOIC nationalization. Razmara's assassination vaulted the issue into the Iranian parliament which days later voted for nationalization and a new pro-nationalization Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh.

This expropriation naturally resulted in an outcry from the British who blocked the Persian Gulf and succeed in dropping Iranian oil production by 95%. After a period of time realizing that Mosaddegh would offer no recourse to the stolen assets, the British planned a coup using MI6. As historian John W. Limbert points out in Chapter 3 of his work Negotiating with Iran: Wrestling the Ghosts of History (2009) with the UK under Socialist Party rule they hardly held the moral high ground:

Prime Minister Clement Attlee's socialist government, which had nationalized much of British heavy industry, could not well oppose the Iranian oil nationalization on principle. (p.72)

During 1951-2 both the UK and the US would change the party in control of leadership, first the UK choosing Prime Minister Winston Churchill and followed by US Churchill's wartime ally, Dwight Eisenhower. Churchill began to lobby the US to assist in the coup playing on American fears that the UK might withdraw from the Korean War:

"Britain was supporting the Americans in Korea, [Churchill] reminded Truman, and had a right to expect Anglo-American unity on Iran." (Wikipedia, 1953 Iranian Coup D'état quoting Stephen Kinzer: All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror, John Wiley and Sons, 2003, p.145)

With the election of Eisenhower and installation in January of 1953, the new president authorized using the CIA to cosponsor the coup codenamed "Operation Ajax". The coup then occurred on August 19, 1953. Whereas pro-American Mosaddegh had been democratically elected, the result of the coup was to install a king, the Shah, who ruled with tyranny as an American puppet over the nation. The Sharia-law loving Islamic fundamentalists, angered both by the coup and the secularism of the Shah, staged their own revolution in 1979. The CIA created the word "blowback" specifically to mean the unintended consequences of this anti-democratic American imperialism.

Quite simply, Americans were fighting their first war--the Korean War--under the banner of the United Nations and leaving behind the notions of both non-interventionism and with Truman declaring the it a "police action" circumventing the constitutional requirement for a congressional declaration of war. Because Truman had illegally intervened into Korea, the pressure was augmented for the US to support its longtime ally. Additionally, the Korean War removed the moral high ground of non-interventionism and may have help signal to Churchill that such actions by the US were now acceptable leaving the door open for Churchill to petition the US into a second instance of interventionism when clearly this was a dispute between--at that time two friends of the US: Iran and the UK. Ron Paul obviously knows his history and were we all to study Iran would learn of a classic case of interventionism gone awry and a warning echoed by Paul for us not to intervene.

Additional reading: TotallyFreePress, Iran’s History, the CIA / MI6 & Operation Ajax

Five Tiers of 2012 Presidential Picks

2011-08-03T22:14:00.000-06:00

As we get close to next week's August 11 Washington Examiner/Fox News Iowa debates, now the 3rd round of GOP Presidential debates, and having observed the behavior of the various candidates over the jejune debt ceiling compromise fiasco, I am better formulating whom I would vote for in an abundant choice of Presidential candidates. I remain uncommitted as to whom I would vote for, but instead grouped the candidates into tiers by preference as of this moment as follows:

(Tier 1) Ron Paul, Gary Johnson
(Tier 2) Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Chris Christie, Donald Trump
(Tier 3) Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain
(Tier 4) Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty
(Tier 5) Thaddeus McCotter, Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, John Bolton

Tier 1 candidates are stone-sober debt cutters. I don't worry about them being neo-cons who are willing to cut everything but the military industrial complex. They have great track records of providing leadership in dealing with our economy. They read the Constitution and abide by it. They represent my preferred candidates.

Tier 2 candidates have much truth in their positions. They tend to be aggressive fighters who will get things done in getting our economy back on course. This group has extraordinary charisma and enthusiasm that will lend them towards success.

Tier 3 are candidates who have the potential to do a fine job. I'm sure they would do much good and they strike me as having a high degree of personal integrity which we could sure use in a POTUS.

Tier 4 and Tier 5 candidates would really need to couple a person like a Tier 1 or Tier 2 in a presidential ticket to really get me enthused about their POTUS prospects. To be clear, I'd strongly take any of the five tiers over a Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton; I am after all talking about a presidential GOP primary.

What are your thoughts?

The Upcoming New Face of the Provo City Council

2011-07-16T13:41:00.005-06:00

Top Row L to R: Kay Van Buren (Dist 4), Yancee Hardy (Citywide), Jim Pettersson (Dist 4)
Middle: Gary Winterton (Dist 1), Howard Stone (Dist 4)
Bottom: Bonnie Morrow (Dist 1), Gary Garrett (Citywide), Lindsay Wiblin (Dist 4)
Note: Six Candidates for District 3 not pictured; Collage arranged in artistic manner not to favor any candidate

Friday marked the end day of filing season for four Provo City Council seat vacancies from a total of seven council seats including Districts 1, 3, 4, and a citywide seat. We had a remarkable number of filings despite the recent stiffening of filing requirements by the current council. Perhaps the remarkable number was due to all four council incumbents up for reelection chose not to run again. Whatever the case may be, because the outcome of the Nov 8th elections will determine a majority of council seats, there is perhaps not better time than to get involved with city elections. (See official Candidate List)

District 1 voters will choose between Bonnie Morrow and Gary Winterton on November 8.

District 3 voters will have a primary on Sept 13 to chose from the list of six candidates:

Tom Jarman

James E. Kallbacka

Jeff Marvell

Hal Miller

Glen K. Thurston
Richard E. Wood

District 4 voters will have a primary on Sept 13 to chose from the list of four candidates:

Jim Pettersson

Howard Stone

Kay Van Buren

Lindsay Wiblin

All voters will vote on Nov 8 between the two citywide candidates, Yancee Hardy and Gary Garrett. (Note: Find which district you're in on the Provo District Map)

In looking at the group as a whole, it is going to be an exciting election. Some of the candidates have run before, while others are first-time-ever candidates for office. I really appreciate the willingness of all the candidates to step forward and to provide us with differing options for change as we try and promote liberty among our citizenry. I also salute the lame duck members of the council for their service with one final plea: do not raise our property taxes up to 16% as you are now considering (Daily Herald, Jun 16) in contradiction to Mayor Curtis' proposed budget.

Many Provoans are finding themselves frustrated with their city government on a plethora of issues ranging from attempts to impose a daytime curfew, incessant tax hikes and fee increases, backyard pavement regulations, and building unnecessary roads and bridges on the west side. Yesterday, I sent out the following questionnaire to my District 4 candidates to find out where they stood on these many issues. I expect to have a similar one developed shortly for city-wide candidates. The questions cover a number of different hot-button topics. There is also a movement within our district to get a forum scheduled for the candidates before the primary to increase voter awareness of the candidates. Here is the questionnaire:

Did you support Prop 1 (Rec. Center bond)?

Do you support Opt-In or Opt-Out for curbside recycling?

Do you support the implementation of a RAP tax?

Should city property tax be eliminated, lowered, held, or raised?

Do you support the building of the Northwest Connector?

Do you support the council’s recent changes to campaign filing requirements?

Do you believe that a council member should resign if called to active military duty?

Do you support the current ticket policy whereby a fine doubles in 6 days and triples in 11?

What ideas will you bring to balancing the budget?

What has been your political party affiliation(s) for the past 10 years?

What future projects should the city fund?

Do you support tax increases and bond issuances being subject to a 2/3rds supermajority of voters?

What are your ideas for increasing revenue through growing the sales tax base?

What percentage of a backyard should a landowner be allowed to pave?

Do you support a daytime curfew for minors?

Do you support the redistricting of the city as to eliminate city-wide council positions?

Do you support the creation of a third interstate interchange for Provo?

Great Men Pray: Is The LDS Church Advocating POTUS Candidates?

2011-07-10T21:51:00.041-06:00

Imagine as a Mormon going to church this week and finding the image on the right, poster-sized on the framed, ward display case bulletin board. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Barack Obama--all US Presidents--are seen with their heads bowed, eyes closed, hovering angel-esque above a LDS ward congregation also intent on prayer. To the immediate right of the presidential portraits proclaims the caption: "Great Men Pray." In the youth classes, each youth is given a wallet-sized "Pass-along Card" with the same depiction as well.

Would such a poster cause you pause to think about the neutrality of the political position of the church? Would you wonder why a poster of a sitting President who was actively campaigning for re-election decorated the same hallways as Jesus kneeling in Gethsemane or healing a leaper? Would you ponder the singularity of such an event when no such other depictions of US Presidents adorned the hallowed passageways?

Although the LDS church created no such poster and the image is a photoshop of my own hand, it is however based on a similar 1956 poster depicted then with President Eisenhower instead of President Obama. As in the case today with Obama, Eisenhower was running for re-election in 1956.

Elder Ezra T. Benson of the Quorum of the Twelve who was concurrently serving as Secretary of the Agriculture under President Eisenhower had this to say about the actual "Great Men Pray" poster (below) in the Sunday Morning (largest audience) Session of the October 1956 General Conference:

I was pleased, my brethren and sisters, as I read the report of the April conference and the remarks by Elder Mark E. Petersen, speaking as directed by the First Presidency, in announcing the series of new Church posters and cards for the benefit particularly of our young people, to note that one of them was going to be devoted to prayer. I wish there were time this morning to read the account of this particular card and poster on prayer. One will show the picture of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and President Eisenhower in the background, and then in the foreground a family group. At the top we will read: "Great Men Pray," and again at the bottom: "Be Honest with Yourself." (scriptures.byu.edu)

Mormon-themed Blogger Keepapitchinin puts into perspective the distribution and church emphasis on distribution of the original posters and wallet sized cards from the series of BHWY advertising directed at the youth: "Be Honest With Yourself: The Background." In fairness, at least the wallet cards attempted on the reverse side to explain the Presidential depiction of then current President Eisenhower by alluding to his time as a General in WWII:

Washington at Valley Forge — Lincoln before Gettysburg — Eisenhower on D Day — Joseph Smith in the Sacred Grove — Jesus at Gethsemane and at Golgotha — all these have prayed (full text available h/t tinypineapple.com)

By announcing the poster before the body of the church just a month before elections, could the poster have served as an over-zealous attempt by the church to influence its membership while staying technically neutral? Furthermore, the governorship for the state of Utah was in chaos in a tight three-way race with incumbent Gov. Lee running as a Republican-turned-independent against strong Democrat and Republican contenders. Both Lee and Republican Clyde both sought Eisenhower's endorsement, with Clyde (who would win) receiving a more current endorsement than Lee. The issue of Eisenhower appearing in the LDS "Great Men Pray" distributions was addressed in Chapter 17 of Gov. Lee's biography "Let Em Holler" (Digital version avail at Utah State History) where the author was apparently unawares of the October announcement, instead crediting a post-election December date. This raises the further question of did the "Great Men Pray" poster influence the outcome of a Utah gubernatorial election?

Bringing us to 2011, the issue of the involvement of the LDS into the political arena remains a poignant one for dedicated members such as myself. We are currently dealing with a church who wants to influence immigration bills and to even formally lobby and praise the state legislature when it passes bills it likes.

Now the question before us is how much will the church want to promote or influence its two Mormon Presidential candidates: Romney and Huntsman. Although I don't worry about the church overtly supporting either candidate, as it has recently and repeatedly reiterated its neutrality stance (The Blaze, June 29, 2011), I do worry about the more subtle--yet potentially equally as powerful "Great Men Pray" types of support or advocacy the church may want to exert both pre- and post-election.

Mormons as a group are in the tank for Romney and to a lesser extent Huntsman. Just today the Daily Herald revealed that Romney had secured support from 57 out of 80 Utah legislators, including 13 from Utah County. Mormons will support the Mormon POTUS candidates just like blacks supported Obama in 2010, if for no other reason than their perceived political advancement of their minority. For me I have a hard time supporting Romney who backed now ex-Sen. Bob Bennett in our grassroots push to replace him; and Huntsman is hard to swallow because he lied to his Democrat contender three years ago about his commitment to serve as Governor for his full 4-year term (Nacilbupera, May 2009). While I'd take either Mormon over Obama in a wink and am glad they are both in the race, I am more appreciative of the multiple better-principled contenders for the Republican nomination I have to choose from.

P.S.: For the die-hard Obama haters that can't imagine President Obama being a man of prayer, I derived the photoshop of Obama praying from this actual photo (White House Blog, Feb 2011) of Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast. I don't hate Obama; I just hate his policies, lies, and lack of leadership.

Provo City Council Raises Garbage Fees 57%, Forces Opt-Out Tax

2011-06-04T23:17:00.000-06:00

Congratulations, Provo, your taxes went up again. And it's worse than you think.

Last month the city council voted 4-2 (5/3 Minutes, Item #7) to raise the fees on garbage collection from $11.00 a month to $14.50 for a single black can. Councils Turley and Healey were the two who voted against the proposal.

Wayne Parker, Provo's CAO, claimed that the fee needed to be raised to $12.50 to cover costs. But the liberals and environmentalists on the council then took the opportunity to pursue their own progressive agenda and voted to further hike the cost of black can collection by $2 more to penalize those residents who would not sign up for curbside recycling. In other words, more than half the increase in cost of black can recycling will go to subsidize the curbside recycling. Congratulations, Provo, you are now subsiding curbside recycling with tax dollars!

But it gets worse. After raising the fee by 33% the council also decided to force its citizenry into "purchasing" a product: no longer will trash collection be opt-in, it's now going to be opt out. That means you have to submit the form available online at BY AUGUST 7, 2011 or call 801-852-6000 to not have to pay for the curbside can. Otherwise you're stuck paying for an ugly blue recycling can in addition to your black one. As Chair Healey pointed out, if you don't opt out, you will end up paying $17.50 for the two cans--an increase of 57% over the $11.00 you were paying! Sounds to me like a redo of the Obamacare health insurance mandate.

While many longer term residents who are aware of the change and will read through the form mailed to them in with their monthly bill, many students preoccupied with studies will not. When those not fortunate enough to catch the opt-out tax will be stuck (literally) in the cold with a huge surprise November bill.

The perpetrators of this curbside tax know that they can get unwatchful Provoans to pay the tax. Currently only 24% of residents have the blue recycling can in addition to their black one. With the opt-out the city expects to draft 65% of residents into recycling. They further plan to use the revenues from recycling to propagandize the program (excuse me, "market" they termed it) the program instead of using the funds to subsidize the cost of the curbside recycling. Just what we need: a government-subsidized "Re-use It Man".

In all, the liberal, environmentalist ambitions of the council were summed by the big-government phrase coined by Council Sterling Beck: "We need to incentivize people to recycle."

Rephrasing Beck's ideology: "Government needs tax its citizens and then use those funds to incentivize people to behave in a manner the government wants them to." This ideology is nothing but pure socialism and breaks the trust put forth in the Declaration of Independence which gives citizens the right to pursue "life, liberty, and happiness [determination of one's own property]."

Mayor Curtis who as a candidate talked favorably about privatizing garbage pickup, has flip-flopped and now seems more interested in spreading falsehoods and spin about the program on his blog.

Consider the following by Curtis:

"No one is required to participate." (False. I am required to take action or else on August 7th I am forced into participation.)
"No sorting is required" (False. You need to review the Recycling Do's and Don'ts on our city's website.)
"You'll find you have much more room in your trash can for trash since so much goes into the recycling can." (Pure opinion. When I had the blue can, it was nearly empty each week. It probably cost more in labor for the refuse worker to empty the can than in the materials I recycled each week.)

Any entrepreneur who wants to pick up my trash for less than $14.50 a month, please contact me at: nacilbupera@gmail.com to get my business. If I can't get a taker, maybe I'll just completely opt-out and take the trash myself to the dump: at SUVSWD it's $4 per covered truckload.

Skokos for Governor of Utah?

2011-06-02T19:46:00.000-06:00

Having been highly disappointed with several of the signatures of Gov. Herbert (HB477, HB166, etc), I am looking for a replacement Gov in 2012. One of the emerging potential candidates is William Skokos, CEO of American Resource Petroleum. I am currently reading his book "Return to Common Sense" which I downloaded from Tate Publishing (PDF format works great on my Droid and even moreso with the 99-cent app "ezPDF Reader"; the book is also available on Amazon.)

I met Mr. Skokos at a Buy Back America gathering of an amazing lot of patriots a few weeks ago and was enthralled by his remarks. More recently, Mr. Skokos has been a guest on the Rod Arquette Show.
Today on facebook a video was released about his views on domestic energy entitled "Utah Economics 101." Enjoy:

Gov. Johnson's Plan to Balance the Budget Tomorrow

2011-05-28T08:19:00.000-06:00

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.

Dick Morris' Propaganda Poll Hides Ron Paul Vote

2011-05-26T00:24:00.000-06:00

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.

Engaged In Any Sexual Solicitation Lately?

2011-05-22T22:53:00.000-06:00

READER DISCRETION: THIS POST NOT FOR KIDS!!!

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.

Honor Armed Forces Day Today by Bringing Home the Troops

2011-05-21T14:08:00.000-06:00

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." (America.gov) 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.

Invasion of the Body Scanners

2011-05-20T23:45:00.000-06:00

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

2011-05-20T00:04:00.001-06:00

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.

New EPA Regulations Proving More Costly

2011-05-16T21:57:00.000-06:00

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.

Republican Political Courage in Partial Obamacare Repeal

2011-05-08T19:55:00.019-06:00

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.

Obama's Ultimate Insult to Government Transparency (Update)

2011-05-05T08:20:00.002-06:00

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)

Eagle Mountain: #1 In Forced Recycling

2011-04-23T11:40:00.001-06:00

On the front page of its "Our Towns" section in today's Daily Herald (DH) Utah County's Eagle Mountain is heralded as "#1 In Recycling." The article heaps praise on the issue of opt-out curbside recycling as it lauds the 84% participation rate as "the most successful voluntary recycling program in the county." The DH hardly presents a balanced side of the issue.

While personally I am a conservationist and believe it recycling materials, I reject government mandates to force me to do so. Having a program where you must do an action (opt out) to prevent from incurring a tax in the form of a $48 annual fee for curbside recycling (Eagle Mtn city website) seems mean-spirited at best. How the Founding Fathers would have envisioned its constituency to be burdened with an opt-out to avoid taxation seems to me to be one of a severe infringement of liberty. Furthermore, nowhere in the DH article does it mention the burden of this onerous $48 fee--let alone calling it by its true name: taxation.

But Eagle Mountain's opt out is even worse: you can only opt out once per year and the DH article comes just a week after the close of this year's opt-out option. While promoting so-called "voluntary" recycling (try telling any EM resident who wants out now that they are part of a "voluntary" program!), the DH did not do equal justice in putting a front-section-page reminder to residents that their small window of opportunity would soon be upon them.

Defenders of liberty would do well to change all forms of government opt-out taxation to opt-in.

The Treasured Story of My Candidacy

2011-04-02T00:48:00.027-06:00

Thursday a friend inquired of me about my running for a GOP leadership position for our convention at month's end here in Utah County.  The thought rather caught me off guard. I think if you had asked me my personal political priorities prior to the inquiry I might have responded to try and keep up with my blog, finish reading Altas Shrugged before the movie release, help get HB116 repealed, and get to know better the candidates to be running for GOP leadership.

But my friend's inquiry changed that paradigm: for I consider myself a passionate patriot committed to principle and one of my principles says you can't sit around on your behind and hope that others will carry the torch of liberty when you can. Being on my first go-around as a county delegate, I felt I was pretty much doing my duty (and enjoying it!) and had no desire to carry another torch. Yet when I began to seriously examine the race, I began to feel compelled to do so.

You see, I think I overdid it a bit for a typical county delegate. In my pursuit of knowledge for party workings, I attended a few Central Committee meetings--not required of a "ordinary" delegate that I am--as an observer and watched, listened, and took notes about how people acted, how people treated others, and who stood for principle and who stood for power. I began to become concerned about the operations of the party. It seemed like their were people in power who were trying to use their power to manipulating things as to extinguish the flame of liberty.

Knowing that the organizing convention was quickly approaching in April, I attended the March CC meeting and saw still the politics of power in my party trump the politics of principle. To make matters worse, there was this "9 for 5" bundling together of candidates campaigning for the convention around a platform so broad as to make the platform meaningless (IE: "elect good Republicans"). Rather than focus on the strengths of their individual candidates with strong, unique personalities and passions they collectivized their platform-within-a-platform. The more I reflected on this the more it turned me off and I felt like I would be unable to vote for someone that stood on a fluff platform of honestly, nonsensical incontrovertible (like a delegate would want to elect a bad Republican?)

In examining the candidates for Treasurer on the day before filing deadline, I saw a sole candidate and that this candidate had signed on to the "9 for 5" agenda. This was unacceptable to me and precluded me from voting for this person.  In deeper introspection of my own life I realized it has been a life full of managing people and money both professionally and in voluntary organizations. There was no doubt that I had more than adequate skills with which to properly serve my party as Treasurer. What an awesome combination: someone who is principled yet who has a professional track record of managing power and money? Being blessed with a wife who is fully supportive of my political endeavors there remained but one thing to do as with all important decisions: clear it with the Almighty Maker. My friend's simple inquiry had morphed into an action that I knew I must do, a torch I must seek to bear.

This may all seem a bit strange to the reader: I have generally tried to separate my political bloggings from what I considered more my quiet, behind-the-scenes observations and comments within the party. And while I think it appropriate still to have some sort of separation, I deem I shall have to be much more vocal about my concerns and ideas for my party. Thus the announcement of a separate blog regarding my campaign for Utah County Treasurer: SteveReid4Treasurer.blogspot.com which I intend to be my primary source of communication to the 1300 delegates whose vote I'll be seeking over the next few weeks.
To this exciting adventure, I'll need help and lots of it.  Specifically, I'll need help from any Utah County Republican willing to assist me with the practical matters of campaigning. Secondly, I'll need lots of input: my listening, note taking, and observing haven't stopped; they're just coupled now with the responsibility to communicate. Please contact me (nacilbupera@gmail.com) if you can lend a hand or a voice.

Gov Walker Withstands Violent Rehetoric, Fake Caller, Questionable Doctors Notes, and Fleebaggers During Wisconsin Budget Battle

2011-02-26T10:40:00.001-07:00

Observations and analysis on the $3B Wisconsin state budget crisis:

The genesis of a new political term: "fleebagger" (Twitter hashtag #fleebagger sometimes #fleabagger; blogoshere example Michelle Malkin who also uses the term "Party of Truancy") to describe those who abdicate duty for protest and flee to a fleabag motel. Note that the right's use of this term provides a high road contrast to the sexually-explicit left's term of "teabagger." (see Urban Dictionary; reader discretion advisory)
Gov. Scott Walker is a strong leader. He's calm and doesn't deviate from the basic task of government of fiscal functionality. Reminds me of Chris Christie.
Where is Obama's condemnation of the union protester's uncivil comparisons (see example photos at Doug Ross At Journal) using crosshairs over Walker's face and Hitler comparisons, when just a few weeks ago at the AZ shootings memorial service he took a supposed strong stance for civility? Obama is weak and his lack of prior executive experience continues to glare--even now halfway through his presidency.
And where is the condemnation by Obama of his own party's Democratic member of the U.S. House, Michael Capuano (MA-08) urging union supporters to "get a little bloody" with their protests in the streets? (New American including video)
Wouldn't it be nice if the Democrats in the U.S. Senate were to go into hiding, too? In 2012 America has the opportunity to send 23 of these Democrats and Progressive Independents out of the public eye. (Nacilbupera, Nov 2012)
Many of the Wisconsin union protesters are paid while tea party protesters pay their own expenses. Tea party rallies are more often on weekends so that tea party patriots can work and contribute to society and family. Many a Wisconsin state employee including teachers used questionable doctors' notes issued at the union protest rally (MacIver Institute, Feb 19) and illegally abused sick pay to protest, putting children and classrooms behind protest and pay. (politics.gather.com)
Union dues help fund the election of Democrats and are unfair to those who contribute but do not support different candidates than those to whom the union decides to give their due money to.
These union dues are no small change as Commentator Charles Krauthammer points out: "[Unions] are worried to death if you give teachers and others a choice to pay $1,000 a year in union dues or not, some of them may actually say, 'I think I can use that thousand dollars.'" (O'Reilly Factor transcript, Feb 22).

Concerning leftist blogger Ian Murphy who posed as David Koch in a phone interview this week with Wisconsin Gov. Walker ("Koch Whore" to use Murphy's disparaging term), seeking to entrap the Governor (coverage including full audio at FireAndreaMitchell.com):

Murphy fails reader in the title his supposed expose "Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker answers his master’s call." That Koch is the supposed "master" makes no sense because Walker fails to recognize the so-called "master's" voice. David Koch's real voice can be heard here: (Youtube). Walker also fails to question impostor-Koch's offer of "flying to Cali" when Koch is a longtime resident and philanthropist of NYC (Wikipedia).
Walker plays along friendly with the call, calming asserting his position while not falling for the foul language or attempts at dirty play. Walker responds exactly how he should have, exactly like how one would respond to any media with exception of detailing appropriate GOP strategy.
The Left thinks conspiratorially: many of their writings reflect their belief that the Koch brothers are the financial seed-planters of the tea party. As a self-described tea party member, I had never heard of the Koch brothers until now as the tea party is devoid of centralized leadership and formal membership.
The Left are preoccupied with right-wing conspiracy such because they have their own financial seed-planter George Soros and unprecedented access to President Obama by SEIU's Andy Stern, Goldman Sach's Lloyd Blankfein, and AFL-CIO's Richard Trumpka (see articles WashingtonExaminer.com and above-referenced O'Reilly Factor transcript).
Murphy could (and should) face criminal identity theft charges. The Freedom Fighter's Journal does a thumbs up job in examining Wisconsin state law and makes a strong case for such charges. I wonder whether Wisconsin law would apply, New York law, the state of origin of Murphy's call, or any of the above depending on who wanted to run with it.
In addition to or instead of criminal charges, Mr. Murphy could face a civil defamation of character or related lawsuit by David Koch.
Murphy has written offensively in the past including "F*ck the Troops" and "Let There Be Retards" (The Daily Caller)

Mike Lee's Praiseworthy Plans to Filibuster Raising the Debt Ceiling

2011-02-19T00:41:00.001-07:00

Nacilbupera regulars know I had a knotty dilemma choosing between GOP primary candidates for US Senator for Utah in 2010. Though in the end I voted for Lee I remained critical, less on issues and more so on conduct. My vexation held merit: I believe a healthy dose of critical examination and accountability of our officials by our citizenry is vital to maintaining our republic; of little import, even destructive consequence lies rote adulation (Mmm mmm, mmm) of our pols. In counter to our probing, commendation is essential when politicians do right. Bible study today highlighted this to me:

A false balance is abomination to the Lord: but a just weight is his delight. (Proverbs 11:1)

When I watched Lee on liberal MSNBC (below), I was very impressed with his performance regarding a filibustering of raising the debt ceiling to focus our attention on cutting spending. Lee has it 100% correct: pending something huge like a tough Balanced Budget Amendment, we should not be raising the ceiling. Unlike O'Donnell, I have enough faith in Lee that when he says he's going to attempt a filibuster of raising the debt ceiling, I believe him.

Ron Paul: Twice Victor at CPAC Makes Him Credible

2011-02-14T20:57:00.003-07:00

Rep. Ron Paul won the CPAC Presidential straw poll a second year in a row, outpacing over 14 other candidates with a whopping 30% of the first place votes (see CPAC 2011 Straw Poll official results). After having personally previously written off Rep. Paul as an insignificant aberration, I knew after winning CPAC twice consecutively I had to give him another chance and devoted myself to listening to his CPAC speech.

I was stunned. Literally, I cannot remember a more inspirational speech by a national-level politician since my youth listening to Ronald Reagan. Rep. Paul tackled the GOP sacred cow of defense spending, of ending the Federal Reserve, of protecting the Constitution by protecting our natural civil and fiscal liberties. After all my studying and devotion to politics, he at a national level unabashedly set forth exactly what needs to be done. And the fact that he was willing to tackle the difficult issues vaulted him in my mind as the biggest principled debt- and government-shrinking zealot out there: and that is precisely what we need right now as a country to save us from ourselves and our $14T debt tsunami.

So then I started to compare other CPAC presidential hopeful speeches. Second-place Romney came across as an Obama-attack dog. That's a good thing. Yet what Paul did was better: to provide specific principles and solutions to an ever power-massing federal government. Tonight I watched Hannity's show on Fox News and he played a CPAC excerpt of Donald Trump saying Paul couldn't win while completely neglecting any excerpt from Paul, the huge victor. (Presidential straw poll votes for Trump were lumped in the "other" category.) Hannity's actions tonight were blatantly anti-Paul.

As for myself, I have yet to commit to any candidate. I like Cain, Palin, Christie, Bachmann, and now Paul a whole lot and like a whole lot less Huntsman, Gingrich, and Trump. Kind of between the two groups of like and like a lot less lie Romney, Huckabee, Santorum, Barbour, Thune, and Jindal. Pawlenty and Daniels I don't know well enough to put into any category yet.

Here's some of the great guzzles I extracted from Paul's speech; full vid follows:

"We need to do a lot less a lot sooner not only in Egypt, but around the world."

"It used to be Conservatives were against foreign aid. I'm still against foreign aid for everybody."

"Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country and giving it to the rich people of a poor country...and there can't be a be example of that than what we did with Egypt."

"People don't like us propping up their dictators no more than we would like it if a foreign country came in here an propped up a dictator in our country."

"We've had troops in Japan since WWII and Germany: why are we paying for their defense?"

"The bill to audit the Fed is the first step to ending the Federal Reserve."

"[The Fed] eliminated 98% of the value of 1913 the dollar."

"The purpose of all political activity is to promote Liberty."

"Liberty comes from our Creator. It doesn't come from our government."

"When government takes over the role of making us virtuous, in making us excellent, and redistributing the wealth, they only do it at the expense of liberty: and that's why we're in such terrible shape today."

Provo's $100,000 "Switch It Man"

2011-02-12T23:33:00.001-07:00

Provoans may not be able to afford a 6 Million Dollar Man, but we've now got our $100,000 "Switch It Man" to save the day from our wasteful energy selves. How fitting...we're wasting money on Switch It Man for the objective of wasting less energy.

Switch It Man^TM (yeah, he's actually trademarked) has hit Provo hard in February. He's in banners across streets, in the newspaper, home mailers, on twitter, facebook, and even has his own blog. Rumor has it he'll even get to be the grand marshal of the Freedom Festival this year, (the feral cat came in second place). Switch It Man^TM even has his own controversial commercial on youtube which--incredibly--urges wives to dump energy-lazy husbands in favor of owning a dog (watch ending):

Switch It Man: Rooted in the Federal Government

Switch It Man became a funded possibility two years ago as part of the "shovel-ready" projects of the failed Obama Stimulus plan or American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, passed in haste now two years ago to create jobs and stimulate the economy. A little over a year earlier in late 2007, Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) had been passed and included a Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program (EECBG) which became funded under this failed Obama Stimulus (U.S. Dept of Energy). Cities, including Provo, from across Utah and indeed the country applied for these "grants" (list of recipients) which amounts to nothing more than a redistribution of taxpayer dollars back to communities in the form of a bribe for certain behavior--in this case, spending monies on things deemed by the Federal Government to curb energy usage.

Provo City's Thirst for Federal Funds

In June 2009, Provo City completed its EECBG application and was consequently awarded a $1.14M grant from the Federal Government. Last year's January 5th Municipal Council Study Meeting (minutes) provide details in how our taxpayer $1.14M will be spent:

Energy Audits $235,000
Weatherization Program $225,000
Appliance Rebates $175,000
Energy Services Marketing $100,000
City Building Energy Audit and Upgrade $125,000
Street Light Efficiency $50,500
Traffic Signal Efficiency $84,000
Bike Lanes and Trails $150,000

The "Energy Services Marketing" line was the amount Provo City budgeted in order to create Switch It Man^TM to inform the citizenry about all the "goodies" Provo City had secured from the U.S. Taxpayers. Perhaps the Feds required a certain percentage to be spent on marketing; otherwise it counts as a frivolous waste on top of million dollar federal pork project. You can't tell me that by using its powerful array of free or extremely low-cost advertising that the city couldn't get the word out about "free" government goodies. The city even got a December write-up article in the Salt Lake Tribune!

My View as a Provoan

Other than the ridiculous man-trashing Switch It Man^TM, these budget items are all aimed at the worthy goal of conserving energy which I support and try to incorporate in my personal life. Yet when considering dire situation of the Federal Government, now bankrupt at $14T in the hole and desperate to borrow more money, I must condemn spending like this and insist that our leaders do not spend or seek to spend borrowed money. This unspent money did not stimulate the economy during the past two years and will have to be paid back with interest. Our local leaders must catch the vision of keeping federal monies strictly for federal projects, not for rebates for Provoans to insulate their homes at the expense of all U.S. taxpayers.

But don't let Switch It Man^TM get you in the blues too bad, it's Valentine's Day weekend. As soon as the first-come-first-serve Stimulus funds run out, like a lovefraud con man Switch It Man^TMwill only be a bad memory except the debt he leaves you with. So go to SwitchItProvo.com and get rid of the old fridge and the old husband and kiss your new lover Switch It Man^TM. Oh, and hey...turn the lights off!

Hatch's Record: A FCINO "Demon Sheep" Responsible For The Debt Threat

2011-01-30T23:00:00.005-07:00

Responsibility Placed For Our National Debt Threat

With the Federal Reserve now monetizing our $14T debt, it is clear we are on the morning of a major economic downtown with high probabilities of hyperinflation, a downgraded of our bond rating, and/or removal of the dollar as being the world's reserve currency. Any one of these three threats would cause a greater financial disaster than the current recession we have; all three are well on their way to becoming reality. This crisis was caused by individual members and leaders of both parties in Congress over decades of undisciplined spending and earmarks, and of recent note includes signatures on bills from both Presidents Bush and Obama.

Spending Cuts: The Only Solution to Our Debt Crisis

No longer is terrorism my foremost concern for the defense of our country: it is instead the defense of our economic system which can ONLY be resolved through massive spending reduction. Democrats might agree on principles that the debt is a threat, but more often than not their solution is to raise taxes. My counter is that the population is already overtaxed and historically governments have been overthrown for less taxation than we are already suffering. Additionally, both Republicans and Democrats have proved time after time that increased taxation is a "green light" for them to increase spending. This would only exacerbate the problem.

So we must cut. We have to cut everything if we are to have any chance late in this fourth quarter of avoiding looming economic disaster. Entitlements including Social Security and Medicare, defense spending, earmarks, and even petty things like Obama's staff and innumerable czars have to take net hits. Fresh-faced Republicans in the 112th Congress get it and have proposed $2.5T in cuts over 10 years. This is a superb start and so much better than the spending spree of the Democrats, yet hardly enough to balance the budget or avert financialgeddon. I support these cuts, but demand more--much more. We must balance the budget within four years like McCain promised during the 2008 debates (NY Times transcript).

While the House is on to the gig, the Senate is way behind. And the finger must be pointed at fiscal liberals who have helped create this disaster--and that includes our current Senator Orrin Hatch. I have already documented that Hatch has contributed to the problem through his prolific earmarking (see "Hatch Opposes His Own Earmarks", "Hatch Proposes UTOPIA Bailout", Dec 2010).

Hatch's FCINO Record

When Hatch was sworn into office in January 1977, our entire national debt was a mere $0.6T (publicdebt.treas.gov, Wikipedia)--less that the widely-unsuccessful spending aka "stimulus" bill passed in 2009 to defibrillate our economy. Currently the national debt stands over 20 times greater at $14T. By no means is Hatch singlehandedly responsible for this debt, yet the impression of many a Republican in Utah is that Hatch has tried to stem the inevitable tide of Democratic Big Government. If that were true, I'd argue that given 34 years, Hatch has been pretty ineffective in averting economic disaster and we should pass the reigns to another.

Instead of being the chief scissors-operator some GOP Utahns believe he his, Hatch has been hiding his spending ways to his constituency behind his FCINO Demon Sheep clothing (Campaign Ad, Carly Fiorina 2010). Take as evidence the Political Courage Test sponsored by the non-partisan, non-profit Project Vote Smart (PVS): Hatch refuses to participate to let us know where he stands.

"Senator Orrin G. Hatch repeatedly refused to provide any responses to citizens on issues through the 2006 National Political Awareness Test." (PVS, Issues Positions)

If Hatch were a fiscal conservative, then to a Utah electorate he should be unafraid to tout his fiscal conservancy and ideas for cutting the budget to reduce the deficit. Hatch's problem is that he's a fiscal liberal who won't find major areas of the budget to cut. This is evidenced by Hatch's response to the PVS "Presidential Election 2000 National Political Awareness Test" where he did reveal his fiscal preferences.

The 2000 PVS Test¹ questioned candidates on 13 areas of the budget asking them to identify on a five-point scale from "greatly decrease" to "greatly increase" where they stood with funding. Hatch's revealing answers to this test precluded a single area of the budget for cuts. (Orrin Hatch, 2000 PVS Test Responses) Indeed, coupled with areas of desired fiscal expansion, Hatch's responses would be indicative of an expansion of the budget, not a retraction. In further support of this claim, the PVS Test gave Hatch an opportunity to list "Other" areas of the budget he could elaborate on response and Hatch declined to do so, thus leaving the foregone conclusion that Hatch wanted to increase the budget, a tenant of fiscal liberalism.

The Balanced Budget Amendment: Hatch's Signature Sheep's Cloth

Hatch's signature sheep's cloth is his longstanding support for a Balanced Budget Amendment. While such is a commendable good start and one I support, as evidenced above Hatch has long ignored his own constitutional budget duties to walk the talk and pass responsible budgets within the current scope of the constitution. If the answer to Congressional spending relies uniquely upon a Balanced Budget Amendment as Hatch's record points to, I predict fiscal failure for our country before we get around to it. Hatch has been trying fairly unabatedly for the past three decades to get it through Congress--including a time when Republicans held majorities in both houses. Were even Congressional passage to occur, 3/4 of the states would still have to pass--a process historically taking years at best.

Hatch's support for the Amendment provides what he thinks is cover for his well-documented spending spree and fiscal liberalism. I believe Hatch's sheepskin is rapidly falling off revealing a FCINO to his Utah constituency rightfully panicked by an inescapable debt.

¹ As background, in 2000 our national debt stood at a breathtaking $5T: to any professed fiscal conservative this is a massive, multi-bell alarm to cut spending, a firestorm out of control.

My Response to Obama's SOTU Address

2011-01-25T22:07:00.003-07:00

My response to Obama's State of the Union speech tonight is brief. Maybe it was the garden-hose-to-wildfire approach to debt of Obama's promise to "freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years."

So here's my official response (h/t GEICO):

McAdams Means to Micromanage Mom (Updated)

2011-01-24T21:44:00.010-07:00

Utah State Senator Ben McAdams (D-02) thinks we need more laws to enable us to be good citizens. McAdams is working on (le.utah.gov) and has verbally committed to introduce (SL Tribune, Dec 29 2010) a bill short-titled "Leaving a Child Unattended in a Motor Vehicle." The bill seeks to make criminals out of parents who leave their children unattended in a motor vehicle.

While no one is advocating children be left alone in a motor vehicle, these decisions should be left to the parent, not the state. Parents are already charged by law with the safe rearing of their children. If something were to happen to an unattended child, the parent could under existing state law be held accountable. Why do we need more than this?

In the article "More Nanny State" Paul Mero of Utah's Sutherland Institute responds to the proposed McAdams bill by pointing out that leaving a child unattended doesn't necessarily harm the child, or cause a crime:

And then there’s this sentence from the [SL Tribune] article: “McAdams said the problem with using existing child-abuse laws in Utah to prosecute people is a requirement in the law to prove that the child was harmed.” Imagine that – someone has to prove that a crime has been committed to be able to prosecute the crime! (Mero Moment, Jan 4 2011)

In his blog today "Legislating Away Your Liberties", Connor Boyack would have us take a serious look at the incessant cry for expanding legislation:

The constant wave of new laws does not reflect a productive legislature which takes seriously the powers entrusted to it by the people. Rather, it reflects a messy patchwork of legislative “fixes” for a wide variety of ever-present problems that distract and emotionally captivate those who cry out “there ought to be a law!” (Connor's Conundrums, Jan 24, 2011)

Connor continues that the solution is to simplify law and thus liberate the citizenry:

Rather than legislating, start repealing. Instead of focusing inordinate amount of time on generally unimportant statutory tweaks, look for ways to restore lost liberty by removing entire chunks of the Utah Code. In short, we need less laws, not more. (Ibid.)

I couldn't have put it any better than Connor. Perhaps we need a 45-day de-legislation process following our current session to get rid of all the micromanaging laws we have encumbered ourselves with. We certainly don't need a micromanaging Mom bill such as McAdams plans to unleash this session.

++++ Update 1/27: McAdams' bill now has life as S.B. 124

A Crisis Caused by an Ambiguous Map: Utah's District 57 (Update)

2011-01-23T17:21:00.003-07:00

For the past fortnight or so, the residents of Utah's House District 57 (a newer portion of Cedar Hills in Utah County) represented by Craig Frank and to a smaller extent the state at large, has been perplexed by an accidental discovery by Frank that he didn't live in his district according to state records: a requirement stipulated by the Utah Constitution.

For me¹, there has been a plethora of confusion over this dilemma as reported in the media which seems to have been finally put to rest by the information in the video below, from the District 57 group of voters "Our Vote Counts":

The video highlights that the state was relying on an oxymoronic map showing conflict between the words "city boundary" and the drawn city line whereas the county went with the city boundaries. The city boundaries were certified through several cycles of elections and Lt. Governors (who in Utah serve as Secretaries of State as we haven't that position). These points highlighted in the video and the group's website seem to be rather ignored in the Utah mass media which hasn't helped to alleviate my personal confusion and frustration over the matter.

It seems however, in light of Frank's resignation on Friday (Daily Herald) that there is working another solution as discussed on yesterday's Red Meat Radio (KTKK, 630AM): with a 2/3 supermajority required in both houses, pass SB 113 which would define the boundary for District 57 as the one which everyone has been happily using for the past decade. On the program, Rep. Hughes (R-51) cited concerns about the bill due to lawsuit concerns and appearances of gerrymandering.

Hughes' lawsuit concerns by Democratic operatives were balanced out during the program by the point that the residents of District 57 are threatening a lawsuit to protect their vote. Having been an early outspoken critic on the importance of non-gerrymandered results on upcoming reapportionment (Nacilbupera, Nov 2010) let me say this: declaring (or moving, whichever be your position) the lines for district 57 contains NO FORM of gerrymandering, but rather righting what has been supposed and incontrovertible all along. Indeed, it seems that any alternative other than this could be considered gerrymandering or at minimum deprecating the will of the voters.

Has anyone speculated if Matheson would still be in office if the lines that the state now upholds were enforced? In 2002, liberal Democrat Matheson won a squeaker against John Swallow and District 57 is staunch and loudspoken conservative. Surely numerous dilemmas such as this could be posed. Without diminishing the plausibility of other solutions, I wholeheartedly support SB 113 and with the state legislature convening tomorrow, urge its passage.

A Time to Reconsider the Residency Requirement

An interesting related issue to all this is to note that while federal Congressional leaders can live outside their boundaries, according to the Utah State Constitution Utah state lawmakers cannot. Last October, I blogged about my opposition to Utah Constitutional Amendment B because it put increased requirements for state legislative office:

If the citizens feel like someone is being a carpetbagger, then let the citizens have freedom through our competitive caucus system to elect someone else.

Although Amendment B passed by nearly 85%--a larger margin than any of the four proposed Amendments--it was widely dismissed as a positive which should be passed. In fact the voter information pamphlet even lacked a "Argument Against" to give voters a pause to think about the consequences of extending residency requirements. Perhaps the crisis surrounding Frank's eligibility may help to demonstrate that there can be unforeseen and unwanted consequences to having a residency requirement for legislators as part of our state's Constitution.

++++ Update: 6pm:

Found today's Daily Herald Editorial (h/t Joel Wright) "Honor in Resignation" which helps clarify that Frank resigned specifically for the passage of SB113. The editorial also links the Laura Cabanilla issue here in Provo to which as a resident I concur: Cabanilla definitely should step down. To quote the Herald: "Elective office is not a right or a personal possession."

¹As some setting disclosures, while I am not a resident of District 57, in a few months my son will be a registered voter of the District. I like Craig Frank as a legislator and agree with him on most political issues and would most likely vote for him were I to live in the District. Conversely, I am not a Frank partisan whereby I feel it my duty to uphold Frank over law because of my regard for him.

Hatch's Support for a Liberal Senator Proves Decisive

2011-01-22T06:45:00.000-07:00

During a 1975 Barbara Walters interview, President Ford's Photographer David Kennerly was confronted about rumors of dating first daughter Susan. Responding to the rumors Kennerly turned the tables:

"Well, Barbara, I put those stories in the same category as those about you and Ed Brooke, they are rumors and gossip." Kennerly added that Walters lightened up pronto. (NY Post, 2008)

Walters kept her multi-year affair with liberal Sen. Edward Brooke (R-MA) under raps until the release of her 2008 autobiography "Audition."¹ Although the Walters/Brooke affair wasn't public in 1978 when two-term Sen. Brooke was running in the GOP primary against conservative Avi Nelson, Brooke's public divorce and liberal voting record--including pro-ERA and pro-abortion, two highly unpopular Utah political positions--were well documented. Although Brooke would win his primary election, Brooke would lose in the general to Democrat Paul Tsongas. Reflecting on the loss Lynette Clemetson claimed Brooke's lackluster image at the time:

Mr. Brooke lost his seat in 1978 after a bitter, public divorce and charges of financial impropriety had tarnished his reputation.² (NT Times, 2007)

During the GOP primary Avi Nelson,³ a conservative TV talk show host, seemed to be a clear-cut alternative to the liberal incumbent. Former campaign worker, Bostonian-raised columnist Frank McGuire mused on Nelson's credentials:

[Avi Nelson] was in the Tea Party Vanguard long before the current movement began. In 1978, Avi ran in a primary campaign as a Constitutionalist Republican against the Massachusetts mugwump Senator Ed Brooke, whose mug was on one side of the fence while his "wump" was on the other. With the odds and big-bucks against him, Avi, the son of a rabbi, and the graduate of MIT and Yale missed by a whisker of knocking-off Brooke. (RenewAmerica.com, Dec 2010)

It would seem then that for a first-term, self-labeled "Conservative" Senator from Utah if one were to throw support to a GOP candidate in a MA primary given a choice between supporting a waning, pro-ERA candidate⁴ who voted to expand FICA benefits with the alternative a Constitutionalist Republican, Hatch would have an easy time tapping Avi Nelson. Nevertheless in a telegram shortly before the primary Hatch would join with others in opining:

Dear Ed: We want you to know that you have our strongest, most enthusiastic support in the primary election on Tuesday. (Roderick, Leading the Charge, 1994 p. 119; emphasis mine)

Brooke's post-primary response to the Hatch telegram pointed to the impact Hatch had in defeating Brooke's conservative primary opponent:

Your endorsement was perfectly timed and politically potent...I'll always be grateful. (Ibid.)

One of the reasons Hatch gave as his reasoning for his support for Brooke over Nelson was Brooke's skin color. Brooke had on his own achieved the distinction of becoming the first black U.S. Senator since reconstruction and was the only black at the time. Privately, Hatch revealed:

Besides, Ed Brooke is the only black in the U.S. Senate, and a friend, and I would hate to have him lose. (Ibid.)

In expressing the desire to vote for Brooke because of his skin color, perhaps Hatch was fulfilling an inner need to publicly show tolerance admist previous national racial divides. Yet Hatch's decision to support the liberal Brooke based partly on race seems to have clouded what blacks have fought for, to--as Dr. King famously said--one day live in a nation where we would not be judged by the color of our skin, but by the content of our character.

Hatch's motives in supporting a losing liberal Republican over a Conservative seem rather inconsequential at this point as he gears up for re-election. Of relevance is that this liberal-supporting incident early on in Hatch's career would hardly stand out as an anomaly. Hatch has continually supported liberal candidates and judges over his tenure--with a recent example being his support for ex-Sen. Bennett. Conservatives were furious with Hatch's support of Brooke in 1978, and a new generation of conservatives are resurrecting those frustrations, coupling them with present ones.

¹ Were these 1975 rumors to ever be proved valid, then both Brooke and Walters would have both been married during the time of their affair as Walters did not divorce until 1976 and Brooke until 1978.

² Black Americans in Congress cites the same issues in their Brooke bio. See especially footnote 44 for further reading.

³ Avi Nelson is still around the political arena in the Bay State. He currently has a Saturday radio show at WRKO in Boston.

⁴ I'm re-emphasizing this issue because its importance to the context of this discussion. To equivocate ERA in 1978 in terms for modern readers, think of the 2008 California Prop 8 issue. In both cases the LDS church took strong and active stances and was highlighted in the national media. Also if the name Sonia Johnson means anything to anyone, 1978 was the apex of her notoriety culminating her her excommunication from the church the following year.

Finally! An Awesome Bill Passes the House...and Utah's Matheson Opposes

2011-01-19T19:59:00.007-07:00

Today the House voted to repeal Obamacare 245-189 -- a larger margin than the passage of the behemoth a year ago -- with three southern Democrats joining all the Republicans in passing (also reflecting more bipartisanship than the original bill vote).

Contrasting to the 2,000 page quagmire, H.R. 2 was a simple 3 page bill. It fulfilled campaign promises made by the GOP and points to the seriousness the House--led by a promising new Speaker, John Boehner--is taking in their Pledge to America made prior to the November elections. It's a welcome fresh change to the unconstitutional tyranny of the old Pelosi-led Congress.

Yet with the perfect opportunity for Utah's Rep. Jim Matheson to put teeth into his dying so-called "blue dog" moderate coalition and kill the bill he proudly claims he didn't vote for (for further analysis read my post "The Untold Story of Matheson's Vote for Obamacare"), Matheson voted today against repeal.

In this past fall's Bruce Lindsey's Sunday Edition KSL televised debate with challenger Morgan Philpot, Matheson claimed their were "good parts" about Obamacare that should be preserved such as the prohibitions against denial for preexisting conditions:

I think we ought to keep the good parts and get rid of the bad parts....if you had a pre-existing condition before this became law, insurance companies could deny you coverage, to have health insurance coverage....If you repeal the whole law you're saying, "You know what, if you have a pre-existing condition, too bad."

While on its face pre-existing conditions sounds very simple and utopic for the insurance companies to cover, the mandate on insurance companies is a horrible portion of Obamacare, not at all good like Matheson asserts. Indeed the mandate is a severe overreach of the Federal government and destroys the very concept of insurance.

Insurance is designed for a group of citizens to pool collective risk of negative future events. Life insurance pools risk against future death, car insurance against future accidents, and earthquake insurance against the event that an earthquake would destroy a home. Furthermore, the pools are specialized allowing different rate payments based on higher risks. A septuagenarian pays higher life insurance premiums than a mid-lifer because risk is greater, while a driver with a clean driving record reaps better premiums than the driver with three moving violations.

By the Federal government reaching in and mandating insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions, in a single swath they have destroyed both the specialized pools of low risk health insureds vs. high risk and the risk of insuring future negative events since anyone can obtain insurance at any time. Thus, health insurance is destroyed. Coupled with the Individual Mandate portion of the bill, the pre-existing conditions portions Obamacare causes us to now share collective healthcare costs in a Socialisitic system with disregard to lifestyle choices.

Why would Matheson and the liberal Democrats want to destroy Health Insurance through this pre-existing conditions clause? Health insurance premiums have continued to skyrocket post-Obamacare passage as companies seek to brace against the wave of uninsureds with pre-existing conditions who will be added to their rolls at the whim of the uninsured. Eventually the healthy will seek escape from so-called "health insurance" because it will be many times cheaper for them to self-insure rather than be pooled with people with actual, rather than risk of future, catastrophic medical costs.

By exacerbating health insurance woes by adding a requirement for pre-existing conditions, Matheson masks his Socialistic tendencies as help for the needy. Matheson clearly has to be voted out of office in 2o12. And a new Utah Policy poll this week shows just this: a hypothetical matchup of Gov. Herbert vs. Matheson has Herbert winning 50%-40% (h/t Political Cornflakes).

Fighting Hunger in Utah (Update)

2010-12-29T06:25:00.005-07:00

Government doesn't necessarily need to be involved in a social safety network; indeed federally it is a violation of Constitutional principles. Jesus commanded his disciples or followers to "feed [his] sheep"; what Jesus didn't do was command the Roman government to feed the sheep. As families and as citizens in our communities we are empowered and even admonished to take responsibility for our own.

An example of a corporate program which we all can support as a community during this Christmas season is Walmart's Fighting Hunger program. Walmart has identified two communities in our state (Ogden and Salt Lake) as needing help among many nationally and has committed to donating $1M to fighting hunger in the community garnishing the most Facebook votes by Dec 31st and $100K to each of the next five communities.

The contest has been fun to track and participate in. Both Utah communities were far down in the rankings and have gradually moved up. Ogden/Clearfield is now in 6th place which just barely qualifies for the $100K if no other community posts a late surge to overtake (quite possible, to be sure) while Salt Lake City is in the #2 position. A large last-minute push these next couple of days could be what SLC needs to get the $1M.

Part of the Nacilbupera mission is a call to action. With less time than it took to read this entry, you could help fight hunger in Utah. I encourage you to so do.

+++ Update 12/30 6pm:

With less than 24 hours left to go, Salt Lake has taken first place by a narrow margin for the first time over Fresno in the contest while Ogden has settled in for a solid 4th. The amount of interest in the contest has surged with tallies of both first and second place exceeding the entire populations of their respective counties. Wow.

The Sunday Nite Surprise? Congress Violates Constitution, Grows Govt, Debt In "Food Safety" Bill

2010-12-20T18:10:00.003-07:00

If you went to bed early last night with visions of sugar plums dancing in your head, you missed the Senate's passing of another Constitutional mess of a bill. The 242-page "Food Safety" act S. 510 was snuck in the Senate last night by Harry Reid through a voice vote--a horrible way for Congress to do its work because no Senator has their vote recorded, and thus accountability becomes encumbered.

The bill appropriates $1.6B (link to Sen Coburn's astute dissection of the bill) granting the FDA expansive new powers to regulate food and farming activities 90% of which is unfunded debt spending. (So, what happened anyways to the Democrat-touted PAYGO this Democratic Congress passed and Obama signed earlier this year?)

It becomes a "Constitutional mess" because the Senate goofed on their normal get-around-the-Constitution ways. Alexander Bolton of TheHill.com had a revealing article (if you read between the lines) entitled In Sunday-evening surprise, Senate passes food-safety legislation (emphasis & hyperlink mine below):

The Senate passed the Food Safety and Modernization Act on Nov. 30 by a vote of
73-25. But the bill was later invalidated by a technical objection because it was a revenue-raising measure that did not originate in the House — Senate staff had failed to substitute the food-safety language into a House-originated bill.

The term "technical objection" was Bolton's euphemism for saying that the bill was offered and subsequently passed in direct violation to specific, easy-to-understand US Constitutional language explaining that the bill was supposed to originate in the House, not the Senate (Article 1 Section 7 Clause 1):

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills

Bolton's final phrase about the failure of Senate staff masked a weak attempt in hiding accountability. You see, it is sadly customary now that when the Senate wants to originate an appropriations bill, they simply completely gut a House bill already passed; for example, Obamacare was passed in this manner. By blaming "Senate staff" rather than the bill's Sponsor--none other than Democrat Dick Durbin (IL)--Bolton attempted to diffuse the blame to the unnamed staff perpetrators.

In theory, it should be an easy act to declare this bill unconstitutional because it so plainly violates the First Article of the Constitution and could warrant blue-slipping by the House (h/t LaughterandLiberty.com). Whether anyone will rise to do so whether in the House--or if signed into law by the POTUS, by the SCOTUS--remains to be seen.

Hatch Opposes His Own Earmarks in Omnibus Bill; Obama, Democrats, Bennett, Hatch All Fail Utah (Update)

2010-12-15T22:08:00.002-07:00

Senate Democrats ruined last Christmas by passing Obamacare. This Christmas, they want to push the country into further oblivion by passing a last-minute, $1.1T, 1924-page (link to actual text), massive pork-barrel-laden Ominbus bill with 6600 earmarks, to make up for dereliction of duty in not passing a budget.¹ The bill if passed and signed by Obama (as widely expected if passed), would violate Obama's election promises to keep government transparent with C-SPAN coverage, fight wasteful spending, and not vote for earmarks.

Senate Democrats overwhelmingly support the spending. A few RINOs have voiced support including Bob Bennett who is on his last month as Utah's Senator and is ending his reign by showing his true, liberal Democratic colors: (The Hill.com, emphasis mine)

“That’s my intention,” said retiring Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) when asked
if he would support the package.
Bennett said earmarks in the bill might give some of his GOP colleagues reason to hesitate but wouldn’t affect his vote.
“It will be tough for some, but not for me,” he said.

After still not listening to Utah's desire for us to actually follow the Constitution and decimate the deficit, all I can say to Bennett that since I can do no more to get you any sooner out of office, may God hold you accountable for the country and the lives you are destroying.

Hatch meanwhile is doing the doublespeak. While is denouncing the Omnibus on Fox News² his own earmark requests have been stuffed into the bill. That's the problem, and he hasn't owned up to it either. As I reported in my last blog entry: Hatch Proposes UTOPIA Bailout Earmark for 2 Towns, Hatch proposed a $1M bailout earmark for helping with the UTOPIA buildout for Perry City and Tremonton in a $132B appropriations bill which had yet to be voted on: S. 3606.

The proposed $1.1T Omnibus takes S. 3606 and adopts it in full or modified form (so sorry, like anybody else in Congress I haven't had time to read it all) and combines it with the other pending appropriation bills Congress has failed to address. If you compare p. 55 of S. 3606 which authorizes the money to p. 63 of the Omnibus, they read exactly the same: both grant the continuation of the $18M in grant money (the grant money was separately earmarked on p. 76 of Senate report 111-221).

I've only had time to identify these two earmarks by Hatch in this bill. ~~The real question--and I honestly don't know (probably no one does as of this moment)--is just how many earmarks of the hundreds Hatch has proposed for FY 2011 are in this awful Omnibus?~~ And when will Hatch be honest to the people of Utah about his role in earmarking and contributions to the deficit?

Obama has failed. Democrats have been derelict--as well as proposing thousands of earmarks themselves--Bennett has converted to the Democratic Party, and Hatch is saying one thing and doing another. Utah: we've got a big problem on our hands. It's time to raise the alarm that Scrooge is about to steal another Christmas.

++++ Update 12/16 8am:

(h/t) Political Cornflakes Hatch has apparently stripped out his [other] earmark requests in the Omnibus due to his moratorium support (TPM). Still remains viable for Perry and Tremonton to get the money Hatch asked for.

More importantly Hatch's website has been scrubbed of his earmark requests. I half suspected this might happen so I downloaded copies before and am happy to repost the documents or email any interested parties. Naughty, naughty Hatch. Trying to cover up your wrongdoings before it gets out of the blogosphere into broadcast media.

At least Hatch is shrewd enough not to ignore lowly blogger Nacilbupera.

¹ Not to mention lame-duck Democrats attempt at passing a START treaty, a federal land grab, and a repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and others I am missing...

² While the denunciations are good, they're probably more aimed at kicking off his 2012 re-election bid than to seriously attack spending. Case in point: Hatch's vote today to extend unfunded unemployment benefits and pork spending for a weak 2-year deferment of tax increases.

Hatch Proposes UTOPIA Bailout Earmark for 2 Towns (Updated)

2010-12-12T16:05:00.003-07:00

It is no secret that UTOPIA, Utah's 11-city¹ fiber optic services consortium is struggling to compete against private sector internet providers. In its eight-year life despite inclusion of the 2nd and 6th largest cities in Utah, the consortium has only 10,000 subscribers (SL Tribune) and has extensive annual losses. What has remained uncovered in the media is Sen. Orrin Hatch's plan to bail out two of the smallest member cities--Tremonton (pop. 7K) and Perry (pop. 3K)--with a $1M earmark to help cover these cities' UTOPIA buildout costs.

From Hatch's website Hatch proposed for FY 2011 $272K in help for Tremonton while Perry City gets $750K. That's $250 of redistribution of wealth from the hardworking taxpayers of America to every man, woman, child, and babe in Perry for a fiber optic system that only a handful of residents will use.

The earmark is contained as part of a $18M undistributed grant [taxpayer] money [I think of it as unspent money against a credit card limit as we have no money] found on page 55 of the $132B S. 3606 which has not been voted on in the Senate; the Democrats having voted to leave town October [Utah's Matheson to blame here] in hopes of campaigning to save their political lives leaving Congress to run under a "continuing resolution" fiasco. The specifics of the earmark are found on page 76 of Senate report 111-221 (pdf version), under the section "DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM LOANS AND GRANTS" where the "Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies" [Wow. Maybe we could acronym it the A.S.A.R.D.F.D.A.R.A.!!!] lead by Sen Kohl (D-WI) recommended its expenditure alongside a bunch of other pork from other states, many having Senate representation on the subcommittee.

Unfortunately this $1M bailout is only one bite of the porkulous hog Hatch has proposed for FY 2011. The website WashingtonWatch.com lists 13 pages of earmarks numbering in the hundreds Hatch has proposed. The website is interactive and one can sound off by voting for or against individual earmarks and leaving comments.

Did Hatch not get the message as to what voters want? The $18M in its entirety should be cut from the bill. No pork-barrel earmarks. Slash spending and no bailouts. A fiscal conservative is supposed to do what I'm doing and identify pork and to try and stop it. I don't know what Hatch is fiscally, but away from the spotlight he's doing the opposite of what a fiscal conservative would do: adding to the pork when he should be cutting.

¹ UTOPIA lists membership as 16 cities on their website. Wikipedia defines the additional 5 cities as "non-pledging."

+++++ Update 12/13 8pm

To my pleasant surprise, Holly on the Hill and Free UTOPIA! had wonderful write-ups on this story today. Holly pointed to the Hatch's press release statement:

"...I have always said I have an obligation as your Senator to make sure our state, our communities and our people get back the hard-earned tax dollars we contribute to the federal treasury." (emphasis mine)

The problem with Hatch's press release is that it is the antithesis of fiscal conservatism and gives reason to why he is not acting like a fiscal conservative. From this statement I extract three egregious points:

(1) The "hard-earned tax dollars" are supposed to be paying for constitutionally-defined vital federal services such as national defense and the post office and flow one-way to the government to pay for these services. That one could "get back" the money means that constitutionally the government has no place in misappropriating private property in the first place.

(2) If Hatch indeed has authority to give back money to Utah, then he must accept that all other 534 members of Congress do as well. This results in protracted bickering among equals as to who gets what share of the pie and is resolved only by everyone getting everything which does further damage to the deficit.

(3) Hatch's statement thus defines him as a believer in "redistribution of wealth," a tenant of socialism. Hatch believes it is his job, indeed his "obligation" to take money the government has coerced from the people and decide who the winners and losers are in the state of Utah to receive back the distribution.

Contrast Hatch's press release with what a fiscal conservative such as myself would say regarding earmarks:

I have always said I have an obligation as your Senator to make sure our state, our communities and our people do not pay a single excessive dime of the hard-earned tax dollars we contribute beyond what is vitally necessary and Constitutionally permitted to the federal treasury.

A Tale of Two Democratic Nebraskan Senators

2010-12-11T21:01:00.005-07:00

With the 1978 Labor Law Reform Act (as recounted in the Orrin Hatch biography "Leading the Charge" by Lee Roderick, Chapter 7), Democrats wielding control of all of Congress and the White House [sound familiar?] sought to greatly expand the power of the Unions by easing election rules and expanding federal power exercised by the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board).

Economist Pierre Rinfret projected the measure to have a severe inflationary effect on an already bumpy economy while Carter-administration pollster Pat Caddell showed the President the people wanted unions to have less, not greater power. The Senate, then with a 61 Democratic +1 Independent supermajority needed the help of moderate Democrats to stay in line with with the party in order to avoid being filibustered by the Republicans.

The filibuster endured several weeks and repeated failed attempts by Majority Leader Robert Byrd at cloture, but the last Democratic holdout--a Nebraskan Senator by the name of Ed Zorkinsky seemed on the verge of wavering just before a record-setting sixth cloture vote on a single bill (ten years later Byrd would later push the record to eight attempts in 1988). "Leading the Charge" describes the pressure on Zorinsky thus:

Hatch calls Zorinsky and says he must have his vote today. Zorinsky sounds haunted. Hatch guesses that Byrd worked him over last night, Zorinsky confirms it: "They promised me everything."

"Ed, you didn't give in did you?"

"No, but you can only count me as a mushy no," says Zorinsky, meaning he's still with Hatch--barely. "If I change my mind I'll call you." (p. 98)

Yet Zorinsky went on to stick to his convictions and became the deciding holdout vote against big government and big unions when 58 Senators had voted for filibuster-ending cloture and a 59th had announced on the floor his conversion. The bill was defeated and the filibuster held.

When I read this story, I reflected on the contrast to the modern-day story of another Senator from Nebraska--Ben Nelson¹--and the infamous "Cornhusker Kickback" he received in exchange for his vote a year ago this month for cloture on another economy-busting Democratic bill: Obamacare.

As 2012 elections slowly begin to roll around, I hope we will not forget the damage Ben Nelson did to our country through his vote and find someone better in Nebraska with Zorinsky-like toughness to vote for what is right.

¹Coincidentally, Nelson occupies the selfsame Class I seat previously held by Zorinsky

Hatch, GOP, Sell Out on Up-Or-Down Vote to Extend Bush Tax Cuts

2010-12-06T18:25:00.006-07:00

A mildly bipartisan majority of both houses of Congress are ready to vote an extension of all of the so-called Bush era taxes set to expire at year's end. Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid have had the past 4 years in their total control of Congress to get their act together on this. Instead, they close to emphasize healthcare reform and financial regulation to the dismay of We the People. Pelosi in particular punted on trying to resolve the issue before the November elections with Utah's Jim Matheson casting the decisive vote to adjourn rather than to address the issue.

Now at this eleventh hour of the expiration and on the verge of a dramatically more fiscally-responsible Congress about to be sworn in in January, Democrats want to deal. Note that the desire for a deal comes after last week's class-warfare rejection votes to only extend tax cuts for the middle class. Yet still we haven't had an up-or-down straight vote on extending the tax cuts.

And with Pelosi and Reid controlling congress, we probably won't get one. Fine. Let the Democrats show We the People that they are willing to raise taxes on everyone in a recession rather than cut taxes for everyone. In January, we will get the GOP back in control of the House and will get the tax cuts extended retroactively. The GOP will win twice, both in December as the Dems let the tax cuts expire and in January when they save everyone from those hikes.

But what some--including Sen. Orrin Hatch--want to do is to cut a deal to extend unemployment benefits to get the tax cuts to remain in place 2 more years. Huh? What? Why? Unemployment has been extended already to a record 99 weeks and we want to extend it longer? NO WAY! If you've been unemployed 99 weeks you probably aren't doing what you need to do to find a job. Either you need to move, improve or update your skills, or lower your wage expectations. Michelle Malkin points to the tremendous burden on business these record-long UI extensions are having. Folks, 99 weeks is WAY beyond a "safety net" it IS redistribution of property, a dole, socialism, welfare, or whatever name you prefer.

The GOP should not be negotiating from weakness when in a month their numbers go up and they can negotiate from strength without having to add yet another entitlement program to the deficit. They should have an up-or-down vote on extending all the Bush-era tax cuts or no vote at all. What Congress has yet to understand is we want votes simple, one-topic bills not quagmired compromises.

Utah Co. Commissioners Poised To Vote Pay Raises in Deficit Budget

2010-12-05T15:15:00.006-07:00

With the 2011 Utah County budget still $2M short of being able to be in balance (see County Commission Notes 11/16/2010 page 1), County Commissioners led by Commissioner Ellertson are on track to vote a 2.3% pay increase for 700 county employees, or an approximate $6M expenditure when weighed over the next 10 years.

According to an article Wednesday by Daily Herald political reporter Joe Pyrah, the County plans to tap into reserves "to keep from raising taxes" as our county's debt load continues to pile up.

The Daily Herald itself courageously spoke up against the proposed pay hike in this morning's editorial:

Proposing a raise for government employees right now painfully highlights the element of coercion in taxes. Revenue for private business comes from customers who take money out of their pockets in a free market and spend it as they choose. By contrast, government just takes your money whether you agree to give or not. You have no choice.

Raising the pay of government employees on the backs of taxpayers who are getting no raises thus borders on the unethical. We don't recall any of the candidates for county commission in the recent campaign loudly proclaiming that, if elected, their priority would be to raise the compensation of all government employees. That one probably wouldn't fly back then. So why does anybody think it flies now? It shouldn't.

The Herald is right on the mark here with the "unethical" label, but even a step short of where I would take it: if you pass an irresponsible budget including pay increases when we can ill afford them, this is a de facto tax increase and unsound Republican government.

A Herald reader/commentor self-identified as "grumpydad" brought to light the conflict of interest issue I have personally sensed as a county delegate myself regarding county delegates who are also county employees: this group overwhelmingly votes in favor of Commissioners who raise county employee pay.

Are these people crazy!!!!??? What planet are they living in to give raises on the backs of the taxpayers? They keep collecting more and more of our money, and
stack the party caucuses with County employees (mostly deputies) to guarantee that they can keep getting elected and the deputies get all their special favors and raises from the Commissioners. This is a total racket. [emphasis mine; ed. sp.]

Perhaps then it is more than coincidence then that Commissioner Ellertson--the next Commissioner up for reelection--is the outspoken supporter of such raises. What the Commissioners should be discussing instead is whether pay cuts are necessary for us to meet our financial obligations.

With a final vote on the budget scheduled for Dec 14th, two days hence on Pearl Harbor Day Tuesday, December 7th, at 9am at the County Administration Building will mark the final opportunity for citizens (who aren't working at that time slot) to voice their opposition to these Utah County tax-increasing pay raises in the deficit budget.

The Budget-Barfing, Hungry Power-Grab Act of 2010

2010-12-05T09:06:00.011-07:00

On Thursday, the House voted 264-157 (mostly along party lines) to pass S. 3307, a 220-page, $4.5B monstrosity so-named "Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010", the brainchild of Michelle Obama and last May's congressional conceiver, now lame-quack Sen. Blanche Lincoln.

The bill--expected shortly to be signed into law by Michelle's husband--is clearly unconstitutional as it expands grasp of federal government into the domain of the states through funding of school lunches. Nowhere in our Constitution is the federal branch of government granted the right to meddle with our kids' education; indeed the 10th Amendment allows these non-enumerated powers to be reserved to the States:

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.

S. 3307 was first passed in August by unanimous consent in the Senate rather than a floor vote. For Utah, this means that neither GOP Senators Hatch nor Bennett stood up to voice any objection to yet another unconstitutional power-grab by the federal government. While Bennett is scheduled in January to be replaced by Mike Lee ("I will not vote for a single piece of legislation that I can’t reconcile with the text and the original understanding of the U.S. Constitution," NBC quote / C-SPAN full video of speech), the consent vote certainly leaves Hatch open for just criticism as he prepares to run yet again in 2012.

Rep. John Kline (MN-02), Senior Republican on the House Committee on Education and Labor, took a courageous stance against S. 3307. One of the truths he points out in his widely-underreported Floor Statement was in debunking the myth that S. 3307 was "fully paid for" as touted by the media. While much of the money for S. 3307 comes from cuts in the Federal Food Stamp program, this was additional unused one-time monies coming from the Stimulus bill and will leave us long-term further indebted (emphasis mine below):

...The majority claims this bill is “paid for.” They want us to believe we can grow government with no cost or consequences. But the American people know that is just not true.

More spending is more spending, whether or not those dollars are offset elsewhere in the massive federal budget. But one offset in this bill is particularly questionable.

The truth is, at least some portion of the billions in new program costs is deficit spending. This money was borrowed from our children and grandchildren in 2009 when it was put in the stimulus; that borrowed money is simply being redirected today.

This bill – with its so-called “pay for” – is merely a stalling tactic. It obscures
government expansion in the short-term so this bill can become law and its spending can become permanent. So here we stand, playing a shell game with the federal budget and hoping the American people do not notice that government continues to grow, spending continues to expand, and our children continue to fall deeper and deeper into debt.

In his statement Rep. Kline further highlights that S. 3307:

Nets opposition from local school leaders responsible for implementing these new requirements because of rigid mandates and higher costs
Creates or expands 17 separate federal programs
Implements dangerous federal price controls, as highlighted by the National Governors Association

Utah's Representatives fell in line as one would expect with Matheson voting along with the Democrats to expand government and indebtedness while Bishop and Chaffetz opposed.

Help On The Way In Curbing Future Utah Tax Increases, But Too Late To Stop Provo's Prop 1

2010-11-09T21:51:00.008-07:00

Last week in Provo a small group of citizens quietly raised everyone's property taxes for the next 20 years for the purpose of a recreation center or Prop 1 which passed 60%-40%. In a more telling perspective, fewer than 9,000 voters turned out to vote in favor of raising taxes on the remaining 51,000 registered voters. In percentage terms, less than 15% of registered Provo voters were able to vote tax increases on 100% of the property owners in the city. Is this really a fair way to approve tax increases?

Those in favor of Prop 1 were organized and had political mailings, a website, endorsements, and yard signs; those wanting to keep their own money were clearly not organized. We must remedy this as voters and hold accountable officials who publicly signed their names as citizens supporting unnecessary tax increases. We must be ready to organize better to stop future attempts from our city council and to be ready to change city council members.

But for those of us feeling that something more than a simple 50% majority should be required to approve tax increases (which coincidentally includes many people who did favor Prop 1), help is on the way in the form of a proposed Constitutional Amendment. Rep. Carl Wimmer (R-Herriman) announced a proposed Constitutional amendment to "require that any tax or fee increase on the state, city or county level would require two thirds majority vote in order to pass." (ABC4)

The proposed amendment will need to pass a 2/3rds vote through the legislature next year and then require voter approval as amendments A, B, C, and D did this past election.

This is a much-needed amendment, case in point: had this amendment been in place, Prop 1 would have fallen considerably short of the votes it needed and I wouldn't be forced to choke up $80 a year for the next 20 years. Provoans could have then sought a more fiscally responsible way to pay for their want. Those who wanted a rec center could have donated the money they used to fund their taxation efforts into a voluntary citizen donation fund to accrue money over time towards a day when we could build a rec center without raising taxes or forcing citizens to pay for services they do not need or want.

Utah's 2011 Reapportionment

2010-11-07T06:48:00.011-07:00

Perhaps the single most important issue impacting our state legislature for 2011 is reapportionment, or redrawing the lines which separate us all into Federal Congressional Districts as well as State House and Senate Districts due to changes in our population noted in the results of this past summer's decennial census. Republicans were in the saddle last time ten years ago and will be again in 2011. Justified criticism--yes the "g" word as in gerrymandering--was leveled at the GOP after reapportionment in 2001 and Republicans suffered a backlash from the voters. This is my attempt as a Republican to offer both some hindsight of where we as Republicans went wrong and some guidelines on our upcoming reapportionment.

Utah to (finally!) get its 4th Federal Congressional District!

Ten years ago, we counted just 800 persons shy of getting a fourth seat for Utah in Congress; that seat went to North Carolina instead. A major court battle ensued because Utah wasn't allowed to factor in religious missionaries serving missions abroad whereas North Carolina was able to count its military and civil servants living abroad. This was obviously wrong, but Utah wasn't able to persuade the courts. The entire Utah Delegation wanted then to alter the Constitution by giving Washington, D.C. a Representative coupled with a 4th for Utah. Fortunately, this horrible idea (see 2006 wonderful DN opinion by former Rep. Jim Hansen) went nowhere and instead the 800 persons short has rectified itself by Utah's continued population explosion. Because of the addition of this fourth seat, Utahns can expect some significant boundary changes when we next vote in Federal elections in 2012.

Criticism of the 2000 Reapportionment

Utah's 3 Congressional Districts changed dramatically in 2001 and resulted in a fair amount of criticism. (See BYU Universe article for before and after maps.) Noble-thinking Republicans thought that it would be good to have all of Utah's Reps co-responsible for Utah's vast land and resource areas; partisan-thinking Republicans were hoping to create a district so Republican we would be able to rid ourselves of Matheson (actually getting rid of Matheson could be considered noble as well, but not to those who don't study Matheson sly votes). Whatever the motives were, the redistricting backfired.

The first way the 2001 Reapportionment backfired for the GOP is that liberal Matheson has successfully held the seat through the 5 Federal election cycles since reapportionment. Second, it has spawned an organization called Fair Boundaries which seeks to implement a non-elected oligarchy of 11 persons to manage reapportionment. This idea is yet another way of taking power out of the hands of We the People and our elected representatives; the promoted "cure" is worse than the problem. Third, Republicans lost the media war: an example of this is a 2001 Wall Street Journal editorial entitled "The Gerrymander Scandal" applying the word "scam" to Utah.

Witness the scam Republicans pulled off this year in Utah to defeat the state's Democratic Congressman, Jim Matheson. The state's GOP legislature carved up his urban Salt Lake City district and mixed city neighborhoods with 14 rural counties. The GOP plan moved 684,000 people from one district to another, while competing plans moved fewer than one-tenth as many.

Defense of the 2001 Reapportionment: Bad locally, not atypical nationally

Not that the WSJ is the conservative paper many perceive it to be--indeed it's widely-considered the most liberal--but Republicans were unable to come up with an effective counterargument making redistricting look like a gerrymandered attempt to remove Matheson (despite some in the legislature who I believe had good intentions.) Furthermore even the WSJ editorial admitted Utah's Congressional Districts were "not the worst." To name but a few of the numerous worse examples consider the likes of: Arizona 2nd California 23rd California 38th California 39th Florida 22nd Florida 23rd Illinois 17th Maryland 2nd Maryland 3rd Massachusetts 2nd North Carolina 12th New York 22nd New York 28th Tennessee 3rd Texas 19th Washington 1st and my all-time favorite: Illinois 4th. New Jersey is perhaps the worst overall gerrymandered state: not only do all 13 districts look like a bad jigsaw puzzle, but this gerrymandered outcome was a result of one of these "bipartisan districting commissions" (similar to the Utah Fair Boundaries proposal) put into the New Jersey State Constitution by voters in 1995 (see Rutgers 2010 redistricting study).

I guess one could argue that Republicans did the same thing in a red state that Democrats did in blue states. This attitude was summarized by John Swallow who after participating in redistricting as a Utah State Legislator in 2001, then turned to make runs against Matheson in 2002 and 2004:

"People need to understand it's a political process that happens every ten years, and that in Utah, just like in Washington, majority rules." (BYU Universe)

Recently-defeated Matheson opponent Morgan Philpot also voted for the redistricting in 2001 and came up with this ultra-partisan defense:

"[Democrat Minority Leader Ralph Becker's] appeal to fairness is nonsense. The fact of the matter is that's the nature of the game. Let's wake up." Philpot added that by their nature political parties "cannot seek fairness." (Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 2, 2001; emphases mine)

Although the 2001 redistricting wasn't an issue in the 2010 midterms, hopefully Philpot will use his political clout to retract this statement and support a fair redistricting by noble-minded elected Republicans in 2011. Calling fair reapportionment "nonsense" and "a game" is exactly the kind of partisanship that will turn people away from the Republican party. While I truely believe that Swallow or Philpot would have hands down done a much better job than Matheson has, perhaps bad karma struck thrice (twice Swallow, once Philpot) as voters with sufficient memories held out this against the GOP.

2001 State Reapportionment--particularly the House--a gerrymandered mess

While I consider the Federal reapportionment to be lightly gerrymandered, the state's alignment into State House Districts and State Senate Districts was awful. To this I defer to valid points raised by Fair Boundaries organization coupled with my own observations.

House District 69: Grand County--population 8,000 was split in half down Main Street of Moab while carving up 4 other counties
House Districts 67, 70: The confluence of slices of rural counties
House District 8: Herniated into Ogden after squeezing through a 5-block gap
House Districts 53: Even though Summit County was right at the 30K population mark needed for its own rep, liberal Park City was deemed by the Republican legislature to have to be cut in half. Some of 53 protruded into Wasatch county.
House District 25: Combines Federal Heights area with a piece of Park City. Road travel between the two areas is impossible without crossing House District 28. Although connected by land, the two areas are essentially non-contiguous
Senate District 24: Tooele County got split into 4 Senate Districts while not boasting enough population to justify even one.
Senate Districts 13/27: Utah County took away land Tooele county when it had plenty of population with its own borders. Instead, SE Utah County got lumped into District 27 which extends clear the the SE corner of the state.

How to Conduct a Fair Reapportionment

While Utahns don't want a silly commission, we do want fair reapportionment. We don't want reapportionment to be based on racial profiling, incumbency, or political parties. We want to be grouped into logical, compact groups. We have a wonderful state division unit which divides us called the "county." County boundaries should be the foremost consideration when dividing any redistricting line. I suggest the following rules for Utah be adhered to (specifically written for divison of the four Federal Congressional Districts, but mostly applicable to any redistricting):

Strike balance between keeping districts segregated (into urban and rural; more a Democratic tenant) and desegregated (all districts have both urban and rural; more a Republican tenant)
If a county has reached the population threshold for representation (for Utah abt 2.8M divided into 4 districts or 700,000), that county merits strong consideration for a representative whose district lies completely within the county
As much as possible, keep the full county intact as a voting unit.
Keep county breakups to a minimum: that is, break into twos is better than breaking into threes.
Don't string counties along like Texas 19th, keep county groups compact.

If we had followed these basic five rules, I think most of our gerrymandering problems would resolve themselves.

What the 2011 Federal Redistricting of Utah Map Should Look Like

I'm not here to draw maps, but here's an outline a basic idea from the application of these five rules to a Utah with 4 districts:

Salt Lake County (SLC), with over 1M in population would have its own representative; it would also be the only county with its own representative confined within county lines.

"Boomtown" Utah County with population currently (est) 560,000 will be on the verge of meriting its own representative by 2020 with a population of 727,000 (see 2008 Baseline Projections Summary, Utah Gov Office Plan & Projections). Of course, by 2020 it could be Utah at 3.6M in population is looking for a 5th Congressional District anyways. Thus for 2010, Utah County could prepare for 2020 by taking some of the population from the south end of SLC and be a compact district of its own without having to string or divide other counties.

There would both northern and Dixie districts, considerably rural, to help balance out the two urban districts. The division between north and south would help keep the geography workable for a single representative.

There would still be population in SLC to be absorbed by either the northern or Dixie district depending on exactly how the counties are allocated and how the SLC seat is drawn.

The Bright Senate Forecast for 2012

2010-11-04T21:11:00.007-06:00

This election spotlighted the overwhelming amount of House seats gained (over 60, the biggest GOP gain since the Great Depression) and a net gain of 7 governorships in critical presidential election states including Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and New Mexico.

While the GOP gained six seats in the Senate and lost none, there were also seven close races we lost: Buck in Colorado, Rossi in Washington, Angle in Nevada, Fiorina in California, McMahon in Connecticut, and Raese in West Virginia. Had we won these six races, the Senate would be in GOP hands. But good news lies just around the corner.

In 2012, 21 Democrats and the 2 Independents who caucus Democrat are up for reelection while only 10 Republicans are up. Presuming all 10 Republicans are holds like 2010, this gives us a chance to focus on the 23. Keep in mind all 23 voted for Obamacare, the failed stimulus, the 2000+ page Dodd Frank financial mess bill, and to confirm Elena Kagan to the SCOTUS¹. Their records are all far-left liberal.

Below I offer my own independent opinion on how things are shaping up for 2012 divided into three sections of vulnerability with the incumbent listed. If we could pick up the 7 vulnerables, the GOP would easily win Senate control at 47+7=54 seats. Now here's the exciting part: there are 11 other seats in play to various degrees which if we won them all (a long shot, but possible) would give the GOP a supermajority of 65 seats, just 2 shy of being able to override a presidential veto.

Vulnerable (+7 GOP pickups):

These 7 states have converted over to the red column and show no signs of going back to purple.
NEBRASKA: Ben Nelson ("cornhusker kickback")
MISSOURI: Claire McCaskill (won less than 50% of vote last election)
FLORIDA: Bill Nelson (Last month PPP had Nelson at 42% against a hypothetical Congressman Mack)
MONTANA: Jon Tester (won less than 50% of the vote last election)
OHIO: Sherrod Brown (June PPP has Brown's approval rating at just 38%)
VIRGINIA: Jim Webb (won less than 50% of vote last election)
NORTH DAKOTA: Kent Conrad (possible retirement?)

In Play (Up to 11 GOP pickups):
CONNECTICUT: Joe Lieberman (a strong GOP could win in a possible 3-way contest)
PENNSYLVANIA: Bob Casey, Jr. (could another Republican follow in Toomey's steps?)
MICHIGAN: Debbie Stabenow (a poll earlier this year had Gov Engler up 1% over Stabenow)
WISCONSIN: Herb Kohl (possible retirement)
NEW MEXICO: Jeff Bingaman (GOP Susana Martinez won decisively the governorship; is NM ready to go further red?)
WEST VIRGINIA: Joe Manchin (this race sure to be nationalized as a carryover from 2010)MINNESOTA: Amy Klobuchar (GOP picked up a seat in 2010 and almost won Gov. First Senate election since Democrat Franken stole election)
WASHINGTON: Maria Cantwell (WA was in play in 2010; will be again in 2012)
NEW JERSEY: Bob Menendez (NJ GOP picked up a congressional seat; Christie won statewide in 2009; can't rule out anything.)
HAWAII: Daniel Akaka (would theoretically reach 94 in office if re-elected--presuming he lives that long; Gov Lingle rumored to be mulling a run)
DELAWARE: Tom Carper (possible retirement: could Castle or O'Donnell get a second chance?)

Probably Not In Play (5):
CALIFORNIA: Dianne Feinstein
NEW YORK: Kirsten Gillibrand
RHODE ISLAND: Sheldon Whitehouse
MARYLAND: Ben Cardin
VERMONT: Bernie Sanders

¹ Klobuchar didn't cast a vote but pushed for the nomination: "It's hard for me to understand how anyone could oppose her."

Utah's biggest election-night loser: Dan Jones

2010-11-03T00:47:00.004-06:00

Typically, people who tell you "the polls are wrong" are usually wrong themselves. In Utah however we have statewide Dan Jones polling which has become so unreliable as to be ridiculous.

On their last poll for the 2nd District--released a day before early voting began--Dan Jones found with a 6% error margin Matheson to be beating Philpot by an astonishing 26 points! Yet Philpot ran a very close race tonight coming within 5 points of defeating Democrat Matheson. Keep in mind Philpot's narrow loss reversed increasing election victories including a Matheson's last 28 point victory in 2008. So how did Philpot move up 21 points in a single day before early voting? He didn't. Dan Jones was simply embarrassingly off.

And it isn't just this race Dan Jones got way off either: in Utah's other major race in the primary between Mike Lee and Tim Bridgewater they showed Bridgewater with an 8 point lead with a margin of error of 4% just before voting. Lee won by 2 points.

With a track record like this, I really don't want to waste another minute reading another Dan Jones poll in my life.

Which brings me to Utah's biggest hero: the supporters of Morgan Philpot. From Alice Baker to people whose names you and I will never know--people stepped up to support a genuine patriot running in his first federal election. Morgan proved that Matheson is vulnerable and that while Morgan is a wonderful candidate, he isn't uniquely qualified to take down Matheson. Folks, we're just 24 short months away from getting rid of phantom Matheson and the lies he has used to get reelected.

So until victory in 2012, I took this snapshot earlier tonight on the New York Times election returns website with 65% reporting and Philpot in the lead to remind us all that together we can turn the 2nd District red.

A Sunday School Lesson Fit For an Election

2010-10-31T16:15:00.007-06:00

Today in Sunday School, the lesson touched on Isaiah 65:21-22. For many Christian eschatologists and religions, these verses refer to a day when believers will have a better lot than they do now during a period of time called "The Millennium."

21. And they shall build houses, and inhabit [them]; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.
22. They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and my elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. (KJV)

Early 19th-century Presbyterian Minister Albert Barnes offered this interpretation of these verses in his "Notes on the Bible":

The idea here is, that they would live to consume; that is, to enjoy the productions of their own labor. Their property should not be wrested from them by injurious taxation, or by plunder; but they would be permitted long to possess it, until they should wear it out, or until it should be consumed. (emphasis mine)

This idea that as citizens we should be able to keep the fruits of our labors was not lost upon our founders who viewed property rights as sacred.

Let us unite our voices in voting down property and income taxes. Let us vote for candidates who will continue the Bush tax cuts and slash budgets including transfer payments.

I've studied dozens of races across our nation and have yet to find a single race where the Democrat comes even close to the Republican in supporting fiscally soundness--and yes, WV Senate Republican Candidate John Raese beats Democrat Manchin hands down for fiscal conservatism! After Democrats voted en masse for stimuluses, Obamacare, Cap-n-tax, and financial regulation all the while producing nothing but an extended recession you can't go wrong in voting Republican this year.

One final point: these past two years we (the tea party and other ordinary citizens) have had tremendous energy in holding Republicans accountable to their promised fiscal conservatism. WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO AFTER THE ELECTION. This promised self-regulation of our party should give rise to Independents and open-minded Democrats to vote for the fiscally-conservative Republican. So let's unite and go start to turn this country around on Tuesday by voting out Democrats and voting in these fiscally-conservative Republicans at all levels of government!

Random Acts of Patriotism Preceding Mighty Miracles

2010-10-27T20:27:00.005-06:00

There are so many noteworthy things happening out there across America as patriots begin their migrations to the polls. There are stories of election fraud, a beating, a church burning, rampant distortions of fact; and yet many good and praiseworthy things are happening. One of these noble acts which welled my eyes was the following video by a nearly octogenarian patriot in Utah's 2nd district:

The inspiring ad was reported by Holly on the Hill, SL Tribune, Rod Arquette Show, and by KSL the latter who I thought had the most thorough coverage of the story. It seems that although Alice is a citizen of above average import (being President of the prestigious, private Challenger School) it is clear she sought no recognition as such for the gift of tens of thousands of dollars in the form of radio ads to Morgan Philpot who hopes to join with other Republicans in restoring principle and fiscal responsibility to our country.

I regard this as a gift from Alice to us, the younger generations, that we might have hopes in growing up with a government that pays down its debts and balances it budgets. Alice could have bought another residence, travelled the world, or bequeathed the money to family or friends in a future inheritance. Instead she chose to perform a "random act of patriotism" in hopes of blessing us. I am indeed humbled.

In pondering the video, I thought to myself regardless of the actual vote count on Tuesday, we have won. We the people have won. We have won because people of all ages have awakened to the fact that their liberties have been destroyed and we are doing what we can to reverse course and return to our abandoned Constitution. We have won because we have monitored and held Matheson accountable for his votes and are now slowly reeling him in. I can't say yet if the time will be now or in a generation from now, but no matter how many times it takes, Matheson will be defeated. He will not stand. Alice has helped inspire us to move forward.

The odds are stacked so heavily against Philpot, neophyte to Federal elections. Heavy PAC and out-of-state money sustains namesake Matheson. And as the children of Israel pinned against the Red Sea, it will take a miracle for the seas to part for us to continue on to our divinely-appointed way. Yet we must go forward, polls not in our favor, and get our feet submersed before the miracle can happen. Are there enough Alices out there in the 2nd District who may not have money for a radio campaign, but will make a stand for our Republic and vote Philpot on Nov 2nd? I firmly believe there are more than plenty Utah Patriots out there to elect Philpot, IF the faith proceeds the miracle and the 2nd District as the Tolkein March of the Ents gets out and votes.

Utah Constitutional Amendment ABCD's

2010-10-25T20:55:00.006-06:00

I'm not a huge fan of amending our Utah State Constitution, let alone FOUR TIMES as is the proposal before us on November 2nd. Like dude, what is this a Constitutional Convention or something? As with voter propositions, my default is set to NO unless you can prove its a great thing we really, really need. So I got out my voter pamphlet and put the Amendments to the smell test.

Amendment D: Creating a Legislative Ethics Commision

This creates a 5 person "independent" panel of "distinguished Utahns" (language in "Argument For" section) to review complaints of unethical legislative behavior. So, let me get this right, we are creating a non-elected oligarchy to pass judgement on the legislature? And what the fishwiskers makes someone a "distinguished Utahn"? This is an absurdity of an amendment.

Then I saw who was pushing this: David Clark, Speaker of the House. Oh. That makes sense now. The same guy who lead the standing ovation to Kevin Garn's hot tub-with-a-minor confession. (Holly on the Hill) Yep. This Amendment will decidedly vault Utah into a State of Enoch where distinguished panel members appointed by noble legislators will stand as 5 wise Solomons in executing perfect judgement. NOT!!!!

If there's one thing I've learned about a Republic is WE THE PEOPLE bear the burden of executing judgement and whenever we think to give up our power to someone else to do our job we suffer the consequences of their wrong decisions and encounter huge resistance in reigning back the power that is justly ours.

Chris Buttars, the sole Republican to have the wisdom to vote against this asp summed it up in the "Argument Against":

The current process places you, the citizen, in full control of ethics violations. In fact, you ARE the ethics committee, because YOU decide whether a candidate is allowed to serve.
Do not use ethics legislation as a feel-good crutch when the real problem is that too many citizens fail to properly scrutinize before they vote.
There are no short cuts to running a proper democratic republic.

It's quite the shame more Republicans couldn't grasp the vision of Senator Buttars. I believe, if passed, this panel will permit or create far more unethical behavior than it will ever solve. This is the worst of the four proposed Amendments and gets a NO! vote from me.

Amendment C: Specific Property Tax Exemptions

This Amendment provides some property tax exemptions for entities providing water and had no opposition. Here's my take: I can find no Federal Constitutional justification for Property Tax--that is, the governmental misappropriation of private property--so if we can give anyone any break on property tax let's do it and vote YES.

Amendment B: Eligibility for Legislative Office

The innocuous intent of this Amendment belies masking the debate on appropriate requirements for office. The Amendment seeks to normalize the requirements for office between elected and appointed officials. Fair enough so far.

Where I disagree is that it limits the citizens freedom to choose whomever they want to represent them. Having a 3-consecutive year citizenship in the state seems stringent in our mobile society. Suppose someone lived in Utah all their life, but moved away two years ago for a year for employment reasons. That person is ineligible for holding office. What if my citizen-legislator has to relocate across town and outside their district to care for an aging parent? They would not be able to serve.

If the citizens feel like someone is being a carpetbagger, then let the citizens have freedom through our competitive caucus system to elect someone else.

Until requirements are eased, there is no need for normalization which moves in the direction of stringency. We the People need fewer laws and more freedoms, so it's NO on B for me.

Amendment A: Further Definition of Utah's Secret Ballot

A bit of background: there is a growing national movement to do away with secret voting when it comes to forming a union (aka "card check"). I am strongly for keeping one's vote private when it comes to unionization because a public vote opens the door for intimidation and coercion of the workers in getting them to sign on to the union. It is easy to see through the fallacy of open union balloting by simply asking promoters to defend why then shouldn't all voting be public rather than secret?

Our Utah Constitution currently says that "all elections" should be by secret ballot so it seems like we should be protected from Federal intrusion into our state (IE feds: what part of "all elections" don't your understand?) and thus we shouldn't amend our Constitution whimsically.

The problem is we have seen the unchecked iron fist of the Federal government reach in and steal our lands we need to fund our schools, steal franchises from car dealers in our state, and force us into purchasing health insurance meeting their requirements. The 10th Amendment has been spit upon and "enumerated powers" has grown to a neverending Santa's list of wants.

If this small Amendment helps clarify our laws and keep the secret ballot for unionization we currently have--which I believe it does--then do I justify this Amendment with a YES vote.

Illegal Misoginistic Email Pins PACman Blumenthal (More)

2010-10-24T21:15:00.016-06:00

CT Democrat Senate hopeful Richard Blumenthal is literally punching himself out with disasters pouring in all seams.

In yesterday's blog, I reported on the denying of WWE fans the right to vote if they wear WWE apparel. What I neglected to report on was the other simultaneous unravelings by Blumenthal.

The Hungry PAC-man
At the beginning of his race Blumenthal boasted in an MSNBC interview: "I've never taken PAC money and I have rejected all special interest money because I have stood strong and taken legal action against many of those special interests." Yet Daniela Altimari in a Hartford Courant article Friday attests Blumenthal's latest FEC filings prove the exact opposite:

Blumenthal's latest filings with the Federal Election Commission show he's taken thousands of dollars in PAC money to fund his U.S. Senate run in the third-quarter of 2010 alone. Among those opening up their checkbooks are political action committees representing air traffic controllers, steel workers, wine and beer wholesalers and rural letter carriers.

Altimari continues naming names of PACs of all kinds including social, labor, insurance, and business PACs:

Most of the special interest money flowed from Washington, naturally....[including] a $1,370 donation this quarter from from the Planned Parenthood PAC, and $5,000 from NARAL Pro Choice America PAC....In addition to labor PACS, which were prominent on Blumenthal's donor list, he received money from the American Crystal Sugar PAC ($5,000), the New York Life Insurance PAC ($2,500) and the AFLAC PAC ($2,000)...

Someone ought to ask Blumenthal if there was any PAC contribution he turned down. At this point I'd rather put my trust in a Mexican coyote that this dishonest corruptible.

"Worst of WWE + women photos"
Perhaps the worst story of them all to break Friday was Ben Smith at the Politico who posted the following email from Blumenthal press staffer Marcy Stech to seven other Blumenthal aides and the State Democratic Party regarding trying to dig up misogynistic (or, women-hating; at least I spelled it right!) photos to hit "LM" (Linda McMahon):

Subject: Worst of WWE + women photos
Date:Fri, 22 Oct 2010 13:50:
From: [Marcy Stech]
To: Catherine Algeri, Pat McHugh, Brian Farnkoff, Dan Morrocco, Jon Donnenberg, Ty Matsdorf, Kate Hansen

Hey all — Grossman is looking for mysoginistic photos of women and WWE. Planned Parenthood wants to hit LM hard on it.What do we got?

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

With the liberal Hartford Courant calling this email which points to coordination between the Blumenthal campaign and Planned Parenthood (a Blumenthal PAC contributor noted above) "at the very least embarrassing and at very the worst, potentially illegal" it is a wonder the Courant chose to endorse this candidate who engages in potentially illegal acts. Keep in mind Blumenthal is the Attorney General of Connecticut or the state's top legal cop. If anyone should be held to the highest standards, it is Blumenthal.

Blumenthal is an embarrassment. He has no idea how to create a job. He lies. And now he engages in potentially illegal acts to win campaigns? How could anyone in their right mind vote for this crook? Didn't Connecticut learn its lesson from Dodd that there is a major corruption problem with the Democratic Party in Connecticut?

Come on, Nutmeggers: you deserve better than Blumenthal. Heck, the whole country deserves better than Blumenthal.

++++ More:

Similar to Blumenthal's PAC fib, Barney Frank (Dodd's House Counterpart) admits to breaking his pledge not to take money from banks receiving TARP funds. (Boston Herald, h/t Quickwit)

2010 Voter Intimidation Begins With a Smackdown (Updated)

2010-10-23T17:53:00.005-06:00

With a little less than two weeks to go before polls open in Connecticut, voters are being warned by Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz¹ that the wearing of any apparel with reference to WWE could result in the denial of the right to vote. In a statement Friday, Bysiewicz spokesman Harris gave authority to have local officials deny the right to vote. (Washington Post)

If the local officials feel [wearing WWE apparel] is becoming an issue, they can tell someone to cover that up or come back wearing something else.

Apparently for the unique reason that WWE Chairman Vince McMahon has his wife Linda running against Bysiewicz's ally Blumenthal², that alone makes the wearing of WWE apparel a political advertisement for McMahon. And the uniqueness of singling out WWE apparel as opposed to purple SEIU tees or Obama "O"s as being a campaign statement is what I predict will get Bysiewicz into further trouble.

Vince appropriately stepped up and issued this rousing pro-WWE video:

I recommend on November 2nd, Nutmeggers be extra vigilant and be ready to stand their ground in their First Amendment right to free speech in wearing non-political WWE apparel.

At least in 2008, voter intimidation waited until the election day.

¹ This is the same Susan Bysiewicz who tried to run in the AG seat being vacated by Blumenthal but in a 7-0 CT Supreme Court decision was stopped because she lacked the 10 years of law experience for the position. Bysiewicz had tried to claim her time as Sec of State.(Wikipedia) She is obviously no legal expert when it comes to law.

²Not only are Bysiewicz and Blumenthal allied by party, but the first thing Bysiewicz did when her lack of experience for the AG position came up was to seek a favorable opinion from Blumenthal. Blumenthal would pass the grenade to the courts without offering an opinion on whether or not Bysiewicz was qualified.

++++ Update 10/24 7pm:

The clip below from Newsy.com points to a Politico story which covered more of the drama:

"It may be a thing where an 18-year-old kid walks in with a Smackdown T-shirt. If the moderator determines it's no big deal, it's fine," Harris said. "Forty people walking in when the Connecticut candidate for Senate is associated with the company, and her husband is the CEO — it's a celebrity type of CEO, it's not just a run-of-the-mill CEO of a company. This a well-known ubiquitous company."

Since when does poll worker's opinion surpass my right to vote? Are we a country of laws or are we subject to enforcement by arbitrary opinion? Does my right to vote cease to exist when I go to vote with likeminded individuals versus voting alone? Does my right to vote cease to exist if I'm a 40 year old wearing a WWE tee versus an 18 year old? Does my right to vote cease to exist if I'm wearing fatigues because a pro-military look might be viewed as a vote against Blumenthal who lied about his Vietnam service?

The executive branch of government--in this case the CT Sect of State--was designed to enforce established rules and laws--not interpret them through the eyes of thousands of differing poll worker's opinions. The situation in CT is totally out of control. Frankly, Bysiewicz should resign before she further embarrasses the Democratic Party and the whole state of Connecticut.

Multisource political news, world news, and entertainment news analysis by Newsy.com

CT veteran journalist Don Pesci at Connecticut Commentary: Red Notes from a Blue State points out that really it is AG Blumenthal's responsibility to "put a quick stop to the abuse of the First Amendment by issuing one of his frequent advisories" and adds:

Someone surely will put the question [of wearing WWE apparel] to Blumenthal, hopefully before voters compelled to strip by poll watchers enter voting areas to exercise their franchise and their First Amendment rights in November.

How Much Does Government Fund NPR?

2010-10-21T19:38:00.006-06:00

In light of last night's unjust firing of liberal commentator Juan Williams at NPR (FoxNews), it is appropriate to examine just how many public dollars NPR is soaking up. At first glance, it seems a modest 5.8% of funding comes from the government (see graph below taken from the NPR website):

If we dig a bit deeper into the pie, we find more public funding. The CPB or Corporation for Public Broadcasting funds 10.1% of NPR. In turn, the CPB gets roughly 15% of its funding from federal governments and 25% from state and local governments (NPR funding report). That translates into 40% of CPB funding from the government. Forty percent of the 10.1% translates into an additional four percent of NPR's total pie coming from government sources.

But public funding doesn't stop there. Consider the "University" slice: certainly huge amounts of public money go to fund our public universities to directly provide education for its students. Since it is impossible to break down what percentage of "University" money is considered public, how about NPR simply returns the money back to the universities to help lower tuition or build buildings? There is certainly no need for one public entity to fund another.

Thus if NPR wants to completely public defund itself, NPR needs to eliminate:

5.8% in direct governmental funding
4.0% in governmental funding through CPB
13.6% in university funding
-------
23.4% in total public funding

In an era of neverending waste, we call upon all levels of government to defund NPR and put it towards reducing debt.

WSJ Shows Democratic Bias in 2010 Senate Race Map

2010-10-20T21:37:00.009-06:00

In the Wall Street Journal's reporting on the US Senate races, it was interesting to note a small tick entitled "60 Seat Majority" placed underneath a colored band of various Senate race likelihoods. See graphic below or online:

What the WSJ really means by a "60 Seat Majority" is of course a "Democratic 60 Seat Majority" as the tick is placed at the position to include 60 Democratic Senators. Noticeably absent was a corresponding "60 Seat Majority" tick drawn towards the blue side of the color band to represent the equivalent Republicans would need.

Democrats currently hold 57 seats plus 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats. No political reporter is talking about anything close to the Democrats retaining seats; the big question is whether the Republicans can stretch to the 50-seat halfway mark (or perhaps beyond) with consensus building around a projection of 7 or 8 GOP pickups.

The position of the "60 Seat Majority" tick demonstrates biased Democratic thought by the WSJ in terms of measuring the 2010 Senate elections up to a irrelevant 60-seat Democratic Majority.

Carly Fiorina: A New Hope For California

2010-10-19T21:19:00.004-06:00

I have been impressed with the way Carly Fiorina has carried herself in her crusade to restore economic life back to California--the state I left five years ago, now in shambles--with 2.2 million unemployed (equal to every man, woman, retiree and baby in the state of Utah) due to the neverending spend policies of Barbara Boxer and the Democrats who strangle the economic essence from the state.

Demonstrative of Carly's professional, but approachable character and business prowess is this impactful interview of Fiorina with CNBC:

Two take-home quotes from the video:

"Barabara Boxer believes every decision belongs in Washington and I think a lot of folks believe that people closest to the problems need to make the decision."

"The first thing that I will do is sit down with the Senior Senator from California, Dianne Feinstein, and work on those things that we can do together to help bring relief to the people of California. And one of the first things we can do is get the water turned back on in our central valley and put people back to work."

Turning off the water for some trite minnow is an example of liberal policies wrecking havoc on the great California economy. Parts of the Central Valley once known as the "nation's salad bowl" have now become barren due to the lack of irrigation. Some of the hardest working legal immigrants in California have been devastated. If you can't figure out a way to save BOTH a minnow from annihilation and an economy from destruction, you don't deserve to be elected. It would be rather ironic if the minnow went extinct because hungry Californians caught it to use as fish-bait to feed hungry families on now-barren farms.

Thus the day of reckoning has arrived for the soon-to-be-septuagenarian Boxer to be held accountable for the devastation she has wrought upon California (not to mention the rest of the nation) for nearly three decades. How much longer does Boxer need in office to prove her unworthiness? Another six years? Twelve? Maybe some think she should just stay in office until like Byrd and Kennedy she just drops off. But I believe Californians deserve better. They deserve a change from 12%+ unemployment.

There remains no doubt in my mind that Carly have a measurable impact towards California economic prosperity while Boxer will continue to lead the once Golden State down the road of bankruptcy.

Unearthing Phantom Democrats: A Search for Matheson and Utah County Commissioner Candidates

2010-10-16T15:47:00.017-06:00

Jim Matheson, Phantom Democrat

"Phantom" Jim Matheson has been justifiably taking the heat for his lack of public appearances and contact. Bloggers with opposite political leanings have been justly taking note (Brian Halladay) (Glen Warchol).

Two months ago in a Salt Lake Tribune article by Matt Canham on this very issue, Matheson is recorded as countering the "phantom" label by asserting:

“I have been in front of the public all the time, with open questions, no script. Anyone can ask me any question they want”

Contrast this bold assertion with Matheson's performance when someone actually saw the Congressman and approached him with some legitimate questions as seen in the video below:

Keep in mind it was this selfsame "Phantom" Matheson who was the deciding controversial vote for adjournment last month instead of a budget or retaining tax cuts specifically stated so he could "go out and be with their constituents and hear from them." (KSL)

Hmm....I'm beginning to wonder if Jim Matheson really exists at all. Maybe he's like a Remington Steele where Democrats just use his recognizable surname to hang on to political power while the Claudia Wrights of the party do all the work in communicating to the district.

More Phantom Democrats Unearthed in Utah County

In April, I did a groundbreaking post on Utah County elected officials & candidates and their attendance at the Tuesday Utah County Commission meetings. With early voting starting this Tuesday, a followup was needed, see chart below:

The two Republican Utah County Commissioner candidates, Doug Witney and Gary Anderson, both attended the meetings with appropriateness: Anderson attended all excepting a pair of excused absences, Witney attended several so that he can hit the ground running when he wins.

As for the two Democrat candidates for Commissioner? As of the last available online minutes, either has yet to attend a single meeting for the entire calendar year! Why even bother running for office if you're not going to at least try and be public and informed? (For any corrections please comment below or see our profile for email address.)

Join me in electing Witney and Anderson as Utah County Commissioners.

Do You Hear The People Sing?

2010-10-10T11:27:00.005-06:00

Yesterday at the "Phire Pelosi" rally, towards the end they played the finale music "Do You Hear the People Sing?" from one of my fav musicals: Les Miserable.

The music reminded me of the march of We the oppressed People of our great country by a federal government that won't mind our fiscal house of order and will not listen to the will of the people in letting go of power and reducing its intrusion into our lives. A government which controls, as Morgan aptly pointed out yesterday, 2/3rds of our great state and thus controlling the very resources we need to keep our state from raising taxes on its citizens and to be wealthy and prosperous. Morgan said yesterday that Emery County alone has the resources to provide the state with most of its electrical needs, but the citizens have no hope for jobs there because it is locked up in the hands of the Feds.

I posted below the video the lyrics as I found them expressive of the deeply heartfelt passion of tea partiers, concerned citizens, and patriots from both sides of the aisle rallying to restore the power back to the people and away from backroom dealing, deceit, unfathomable bills in length and complexity, and exposure to enormous quantities power for so long it has corrupted our officials. With elections upon us and early voting about to begin (Tuesday, October 19th in Utah), won't you "join in our crusade" and vote that we might again have "freedom in the garden of the Lord"? You can still register in person at your county's office through the 18th if you have been meaning to do so.

When the votes are counted on November 2nd, let us have our leaders "hear the people sing" loud and clear like the 250-person choir below:

Do you hear the people sing?
Lost in the valley of the night
It is the music of a people who are climbing to the light
For the wretched of the earth there is a flame that never dies.
Even the darkest night will end and the sun will rise.

They will live again in freedom in the garden of the Lord
They will walk behind the ploughshare,
They will put away the sword.
The chain will be broken and all men will have their reward!

Will you join in our crusade?
Who will be strong and stand with me?
Somewhere beyond the barricade is there a world you long to see?
Do you hear the people sing?
Say do you hear the distant drums?
It is the future that they bring when tomorrow comes!

Tomorrow comes!

"Phans" Rally to Fire Matheson and Pelosi

2010-10-09T20:51:00.011-06:00

A few hundred people showed up on a partly cloudy afternoon during the middle of major BYU and University of Utah football action to support Morgan Philpot and to receive the Fire Pelosi bus touring all 48 states (which ran a hour behind schedule).

I was amazed at the organization and enthusiasm of the Philpot campaign. I was first greeted by one of two (yes, two!) Philpot touring buses. An acquaintance said volunteers had applied the graphics for the bus to save money for the campaign. (Amazing. I love Utah politics which truly demonstrates how the state is the Beehive State.)

With the national bus delayed, speakers addressed the crowd including GOP Chairman Dave Hansen, Senator Orrin Hatch, Congressman Rob Bishop, and of course Morgan Philpot. Bishop was careful not to come across too harsh on his colleague Matheson, but tried to instruct us that while Matheson was like the ambulance doing the best he could with cleanup in the valley, Philpot was the better "fence on the cliff" to stop America from falling off in the first place.

Admittedly Philpot isn't a star orator like a Ronald Reagan or a Cherilyn Eagar but I think some of the women in the crowd came just to check Morgan out for his purported good looks--did I actually hear someone say he was "hot"? (Er, he is married btw...) I came more for the substance and Philpot nailed the facts: he will repeal Obamacare (Matheson refuses to do so), he will have town meetings (I can't find any town meetings Matheson is having even though he left early giving himself plenty of time to campaign), and he won't vote for Nancy Pelosi like Matheson does 93% of the time. Way to go, Morgan!

Not having much taste for the rumor mill, I thought I'd share one I heard: liberal Democrats are secretly planning to vote for Philpot because Matheson doesn't listen to them and they feel the only way to get him out is to lose this time and try a different candidate in 2012. I have no idea if this is true or not, but it would make a bit of sense. Matheson faced his first primary challenge this year as a Congressman, and there is plenty of bad vibes going around about how he would be long gone if he weren't the son of a former Governor. Maybe I shouldn't speculate, but I figured I'd let the reader decide their own filter level.

At any rate, the Philpot "Phans" have their work cut out for them. No matter how much money Philpot raises--and like every non-incumbent out there he does need money if you need to ask--he will be outspent. Yet the fact the Phans were in droves during major football games alongside improved polling proved to me that Philpot has gained huge momentum. Should Philpot be able to continue the momentum for the next three weeks, not only will he win, but by a comfortable margin as the disgust level with Matheson's vote to adjourn--without budget nor attempt at tax cuts extension--is going off-the-charts. The folks are fired up and mad and want Matheson out in a bad way. Conversely should the folks start falling asleep again or have better things to do on November 2nd, Matheson will win by a comfortable margin. Because of the intensity level, I think big turnout favors Philpot.

As far as coverage, the Salt Lake Tribune was the first to the internet although all major media were out covering the event. The AP also covered the event in advance sending stories to far away places like the Stamford Advocate (CT).

17 Ethical Dilemmas for Legislators

2010-10-08T10:09:00.008-06:00

I came across an interesting, short read by Ken G. Nelson who served as a DFL (Democratic-Farmer-Labor) Minnesota State Legislator for 20 years.¹ The reading, "Some Ethical Tensions I have Experienced As a Minnesota State Legislator," is one promoted by Harvard Professor/Lecturer Dr. David C. King who has used this paper repeatedly a course on U.S. Congress and Lawmaking (Harvard Course PAL-210).

In this read, Nelson names 17 "ethical tensions"² he experienced without further discussion or elaboration. Although Nelson uses the word "tensions" it seemed to me that the word "tensions" was understating the seriousness of these so-called "tensions" when considering the Congressional Oath of Office each Congressman is sworn to:

...support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic...

To me, this Oath means that every bill, every vote must be viewed with the underlying premise of "am I through my vote (actions) supporting and defending the US Constitution?" The resurgence of such a notion was evident in the recently-announced GOP "A Pledge to America" where on page 33 the authors promise:

For too long, Congress has ignored the proper limits imposed by the Constitution
on the federal government. Further, it has too often drafted unclear and muddled
laws, leaving to an unelected judiciary the power to interpret what the law means and by what authority the law stands. This lack of respect for the clear Constitutional limits and authorities has allowed Congress to create ineffective and costly programs that add to the massive deficit year after year.

We will require each bill moving through Congress to include a clause citing the
specific constitutional authority upon which the bill is justified.

Such Constitutional underpinning will help provide a moral basis to ground the legislator through their ethical dilemmas and to help treat them with the seriousness imbued by the office itself.

What follows is a discussion of Nelson's 17 ethical tensions with my response (identified in maroon) immediately following each stated tension:

(1) The ethical tension of living and working in the political culture, which operates on the pervasive and dominant value of re‑election, while voting and working against those special interests who can best help you get re‑elected. ("You ought to be able to drink their wine, eat their food, take their contributions, look them in the face, and vote against them.")

This tension must be resisted by the politician who must treat every election as a privilege and focus on serving the constituency though noble policy irrespective of potential impacts on reelection. To ameliorate such tensions, the politician should examine if they should be "drinking the wine" offered in the first place. Serving but a sole term and returning to one's profession is far more noble than a career in politics; for America has sadly been witness to acid-like exposure-to-power corruption acting upon even the most noble of our Representatives.

(2) The ethical tension of voting against your own district, even the people who helped elect you, but for an issue that solves a statewide problem. (Policy by printout and parochialism.)

A basis of justification of voting against the district may be found in the Oath of Office above: sworn loyalty to the Constitution precedes loyalty to the district. Alternatively, politicians who feel government is best administered at the most local level possible--a theme derived from the Constitution--may find naturally that solving a local problem statewide is invasive.

(3) The ethical tension of voting for an issue you are against, either because you need that issue's supporters for your next vote (trading votes), or because you are a leader in your caucus, and the caucus members have decided they want this issue to pass. (lottery ‑ less latitude as you rise in leadership)

In theory, vote trading is not in and of itself evil, but rather the absconding of it is. If one were to engage in vote trading, they must be honest and open with their constituents; the potential embarrassment of such honesty provides an answer to whether one should vote trade. If votes were examined for their Constitutionality, votes most impactful to the nation would be found to be untradeable. Vote trading for leadership advancement or preservation is immoral as it promotes power over principle.

(4) The ethical tension of taking credit on the campaign trail for what you have done for your district, but not wanting your colleagues at the capitol to hear this because they already believe you have benefited your district at the expense of theirs and it can negatively impact your effectiveness to deliver again.

Loyalty to the people of the district must supersede loyalty to the party.

(5) The ethical tension of overusing the "I" pronoun, rather than the "we" pronoun when you work on an issue, pass a bill, chair a committee or give a legislative report.

If one is honest and wants to effectively gain influence with others they will give credit where it is due. Football coaching legend Bear Bryant is often quoted: "If anything goes bad, I did it. If anything goes semi-good, then we did it. If anything goes real good, then you did it."

(6) The ethical tension of working against good ideas because they are promoted by people of the minority party which is trying to take away your majority status.

One should never work against good ideas. People who push this corrupt philosophy are tyrants concerned about the preservation of power over principles which have made our nation great. Here's a great principle: great leaders sacrifice personal and party power for the good of the nation.

(7) The ethical tension of preserving human relationships while working against people because they are of the other party or on the other side of an issue.

True relationships remain even when the parties differ in opinion. One must always treat the opposing side with respect; yet if the opposition does not return the handshake of fellowship it speaks not to a personal ethical problem, but rather belies the relationship of a friend who is in truth a colleague.

(8) The ethical tension of telling your supporters all you know or have done on an issue, knowing that it will erode their support for you.

To lie, or not to lie that is the fundamental question posed here. A lie can be guised as a part-truth inasmuch as our courts have us sware: "to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god."

(9) The ethical tension of providing a quick budget fix, to get through the next election, knowing that you are compounding the long‑term fiscal problem of the state.

It is this very kind of common, unethical action that has placed our nation in financial jeopardy. Our latest 111th Congress went took this a step further and adjourned last month to go campaign leaving undone the Constitutional neglect of passing any budget.

(10) The ethical tension of characterizing an issue for the press in an objective manner, increasing the likelihood that you won't get quoted, or overstating it to get quoted.

Same response to this as (8) above: don't lie, don't misrepresent.

(11) The ethical tension of criticizing or not criticizing the press, even when you believe they deserve it, because you know they have more ink than you do.

Thank goodness for advent of the internet and modern media that makes it much easier to present the truth than to fret over yellow journalists. Always battle for truth and don't worry about the Goliaths in the media you have to face; it's OK if you lose an ink war, it's not OK if you lie.

(12) The ethical tension of operating by certain rules; for instance, seniority,when you know that other people could better chair the committees.

One is only given so much power in life (thank goodness!) A sole politician may not be able transform entrenched power, but one can make a difference and should speak up. Doing so in a professional way may draw others to your thinking that were to abashed to speak.

(13) The ethical tension of challenging your own leadership through a clandestine process of collaboration with the minority party.

Challenges should be open--for they are strongest when they are open. Under the rule of law as we have, when clandestine purposes are someday revealed as they always are, they ultimately weaken those who participated in them.

(14) The ethical tension of voting without adequate knowledge, having others vote for you, being intimidated to vote against what you believe is right, or using the vote to get even.

Elected Representatives must be servants who have bridled their human passions for revenge and corruption. Regarding "adequate knowledge," one shouldn't vote on a bill they haven't completely read and studied which--given the thousands of pages our bills often reach--puts adequate knowledge out of the hands of all but a few specialists. In Federalist #62 Madison aptly warned against this type of "voluminous" and "incoherent" law:

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...

(15) The ethical tension of telling people what they want to hear, knowing that they won't find out that you acted and voted otherwise; or couching it in such a language that they will be led to believe you were on their side when, in fact, you were not.

This goes back again to (8) and (10) above: don't lie, don't misrepresent.

(16) The ethical tension of ripping the system and its process, when you are frustrated with it, knowing that your criticism plays into the hands of those who are anti‑government or those who are struggling to believe in democracy but are becoming despondent and disengaged.

The strength of our Republic lies in our freedom--and indeed responsibility--as both citizens and representatives to criticize our government when it has gone astray. As Franklin succinctly put it, we have a Republic "if [we] can keep it."

(17) The ethical tension of periodically asking yourself, "Why am I elected? Who am I serving?" and objectively measuring your answer against democratic ideals and goals and not just personal ambitions, and then asking your family the same question.

An elected Representative serves "We the People" through the Oath to uphold the Constitution. If the elected must periodically reflect on these questions, instead of having that ingrained into one's vision, it serves as a revealing symptom that the lust for power has already taken hold in the elected's heart. As one with a cancer, the elected should take immediate steps to eliminate the disease by rectifying their orientation and preventative actions to stop the disease. Like the awful mastectomy, the strong action including the possibility of immediate resignation should all be considered as options in preservation of the Oath and one's integrity.

¹Although admittedly Nelson's paper is written from a Democratic or Progressive viewpoint, the bias is mostly innocuous and I will waive my minor objections in order to foster discussion and attention on Nelson's points rather than bias

² Nelson names them only; I have numbered them for convenience sake.

Provo's Prop 1: The Recreation Tax

2010-10-06T11:01:00.012-06:00

On November 2nd, Provo residents will have to decide whether or not to raise property taxes on themselves, their neighbors, and their future neighbors for the next 20 years. The tax hike cause isn't even to balance the budget as "bearded marxist" Delaware Senate Candidate Chris Coons did in his New Castle County Administration times, but to provide increased taxpayer-funded entertainment during the economic blight of a recession.

I am disgusted we are even talking about me having to fork out an estimated $77 per year to fund someone else's entertainment, but the pro-Prop 1 folks--who include city elected officials John Curtis and Laura Cabanilla though lacking their titles in supporting (note full list of sponsors)--think through their support of this recreation tax that they know that that is better for me than using that money to pay down my credit card and get out of debt (or whatever my family's needs may be). How is it we are a city of Repbulicans at the national level jointly decrying socialism, yet when a socialistic notion hits home we think somehow it's OK?

I am further disgusted by the misinformation by some in the pro rec-tax crowd such as Dave Olpin in the "Local Opinion" section of today's Daily Herald. Under Mr. Olpin's section "Financial" he purports:

The average homeowner of a $195,000 home would see a small increase of $2.61 per month in property taxes (less than the cost of a gallon of gas a month)

The problem with this statement isn't that it's untrue, but that it is a half truth--or better stated a 3/20th truth. As the graph available at the city's website shows below for the first three years taxes go up $2.61 a month ($31 annually) for an average $195K home; but for the remaining 17 years it skyrockets to the $77 annually I mentioned above.

Another massive piece of misinformation opined both by Mr. Olpin and Provo City is a user frequency statistic:

A recent survey indicated 78 percent of Provo residents would use a new recreation center at least monthly. (Olpin, 10/6/2010)

78% Will Visit A New Indoor Community Recreation Center Monthly ("A New Community Recreation Center in Provo", Provo City Website PowerPoint Presentation, page 5)

The problem isn't that the 78% is incorrect from the survey, but rather it is miscited. In the actual 29-page survey the wording reads: "Seventy-eight percent of respondent households would visit a new indoor recreation center with the features they most prefer at least once a month." (emphasis mine) Although the survey did try to define what those features were, it is a huge leap to omit this "most preferred feature" wording. Consider what might quickly happen to this 78% rosy statistic when you factor in the following:

Your most preferred feature isn't offered in the rec center?
Your feature were offered, but not at a time convenient to your household?
Your feature were offered, but not all the features needed for other household members?
Your feature were offered, but the user fees limited your visits?

In population terms, implying that 78% of our population will be at the rec center at least once a month breaks down to over 3,000 daily unique visits from Provo residents (not counting any repeat visits during the entire month) every day if the rec center were open 6 days a week. I'm going on record right now that you need to throw out that 78% number because it's not happening; it's simply not realistic, in my opinion.

Some argue that the Rec Center will be a community asset we will all share the benefit of. I counter that it is Provo's low tax rates we share the benefit of in inducing home ownership and to retaining and attracting business--and speaking of business, the tax burden is nearly double that of individual home owners ($141 vs $77 on properties of equal value). Rental rates on small businesses will inevitably increase as landowners pass those costs on to their tenants.

A property tax is quite possibly the worst form of tax. If you can't pay this recreation tax, you will lose your home; and how many neighbors have we been witness to in this housing-bubble devastation all across our city. Is it worth risking your home over some rec center? No!!

Here's how the rec center tax proponents won't frame their tax-increasing ambition: Suppose someone came to your door and said, for $77 a year (plus user fees) we will give you access to a beautiful new rec center in downtown Provo for the next 20 years. However, if you default on your payment, we will come and take your home from you. I think most any wise church leader or financial advisor would council heavily against you accepting such a deal. The risks of losing your home, albeit small, are far too great for you to take for such an unworthy cause.

Over a third of our citizenry surveyed wants not a single penny of taxpayer funding for the rec center (Survey, page 25). Neighbors: do we have the tyranny of a democracy where a majority votes tax increases on the minority to put their property at risk of confiscation of the government? I beseech you, even if your household has that kind of money to afford a Rec Tax to take a stand against such tyranny and to not raise my and your fellow neighbors who oppose such taxes.

Say no to the Recreation Tax: Vote NO!!! on Prop 1.

+++ Revision: 10/06 7pm

Curtis tonight graciously offered a correction that he is not using his title as Mayor to support the tax increase and I have correcting this entry to reflect this truth. This said, while he reiterates his private support of a tax increase, I feel could have and should have as Mayor spoken out against the tax increase; thus I don't hold "Mayor Curtis" blameless. It also smacks as a political caviat to say he didn't vote to raise taxes, he just promoted the project and left the citizenry to fight amongst each other over one neighbor's swimming lessons vs. my pocketbook. So much for "city unity."

Bloomin'-thal Lies Again

2010-10-05T10:12:00.007-06:00

Is Richard Blumenthal, candidate for CT Senate, capable of telling the truth just once?

I was listening to Monday's CTSEN debates made available online thanks to the Harford Courant. I was amazed at Blumenthal's reiteration over and over and over that McMahon wants to lower the minimum wage. The topic started when Laurie Perez of FoxCT played a Blumenthal ad attacking McMahon in part for "talking about lowering the minimum wage."

The ad quotes a 9/30/2010 news piece by political and opinion writer Ted Mann of TheDay.com. In this piece Mann writes:

Most notably, McMahon said she believed Congress should consider lowering the
federal minimum wage in times of economic distress for small businesses, such as
the current recession.

Note that Mann gives no quotes for the assertion meaning he is giving his interpretation of McMahon's words. In the article's very next paragraph he gives the quote upon which he has based his interpretation:

"The minimum wage now in our country, I think we've set that and a lot of people have benefited from it in our country, but I think we ought to review how much it ought to be, and whether or not we ought to have increases in the minimum wage," McMahon said.

Nowhere in this quote does McMahon talk about lowering the minimum wage, but rather on whether it should be increased or not. And it's not just lowly me who is the lone wolf crying foul on this misrepresentation. For contrast, look at the same story covered on the same day by CT's largest circulation newspaper, The Hartford Courant:

McMahon made a point of telling reporters that she does not favor a repeal of
the minimum wage — "Don't take away that I'm saying that we should scrap minimum wage," she said.

But by mid-afternoon, supporters of McMahon's Democratic opponent, state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, seized on her remarks, using them to reinforce their portrait of a wealthy self-funding Republican who is out of touch with the concerns of Connecticut's working folks.

"We were shocked to learn that Linda McMahon supports lowering the minimum wage," said Jon Green, executive director of the Working Families Party, which announced its endorsement of Blumenthal on Thursday.

The Courant aptly pointed out that it was Jon Green of the ultra-left WFP who claimed McMahon "supported lowering the minimum wage" not McMahon.

Blumenthal tacked on to this false claim laid by Ted Mann and Jon Green, through his issuing of a false attack ad, and upped the ante again on last night's debate.

Although I personally disagree with the positions of both Blumenthal and McMahon and feel that the minimum wage is best left to the states, one thing has been reiterated to me over and over: Blumenthal will distort the truth.

With the likes of Dodd, Nutmeggers cannot afford another dishonest politician in their state.

Fire Pelosi Bus Tour Coming to Utah (Updated)

2010-10-03T08:03:00.007-06:00

This Saturday at 4:30pm at the RNC's "Fire Pelosi" Bus makes its scheduled stop at ~~our Utah State Capitol~~ Sandy City Hall, 10000 Centennial Parkway; the bus is visiting well over 100 cities in all 48 contiguous states. This will be a wonderful event to help support Morgan Philpot in overthrowing "lap dog" Democrat Pelosi who votes with Pelosi 93% of the time. (See my posts yesterday and Wednesday on a couple of those important votes.)

RNC Chairman Steele who has helped imbue our party with both enthusiasm and a return to our core values spoke with Greta Van Susteren on Friday's "On The Record" regarding the tour:

The Fire Pelosi Bus site also has a store where to can purchase a Fire Pelosi hat, stickers, pins, or my favorite: the Wee publican bib!

While John Dennis has raised nearly $2M to directly defeat Pelosi in San Francisco, the best way to fire Pelosi is for the Democratic incumbents to lose their majority in a big way. Particularly if you are unable to attend this Fire Pelosi tour, you may want to consider a donation now to the Philpot campaign. We are at the point now where to have the most "bang for the buck" your donation to any candidate needs to be received soon, as in the next week or two, as the campaigns need to have time to appropriately budget and spend your donation. This race is being tracked nationally by the likes of Real Clear Politics and by Dick Morris who recently claimed this may be Matheson's last term.

Matheson Appeases Pelosi With Adjournment Vote, Now To Face Angry Constituents

2010-10-02T21:56:00.009-06:00

In Wednesday's post, I revealed how stealthy and careful liberal Matheson is with his votes, using his Obamacare vote as evidence. This week, Matheson had an equally stealthy yet revealing vote against extending Bush-era tax cuts due to expire at year's end.

Two weeks ago on September 15th, Matheson brought together 30 other Democrats in opining a short but to-the-point Statement to Speaker Pelosi (found on the Congressman's website front page) on their position on extending the tax cuts. Being the brainchild of Matheson, the Utah Congressman was the first to sign the statement which concluded:

We urge quick passage of legislation to extend the tax cuts so that American families and businessess have the certainty required to plan and make informed decisions. The sooner we act, the sooner our nation's economy will benefit.

At face value, the statement appeared to have a positive effect, prompting Pelosi to suggest that a vote to extend the tax cuts could come before the November elections.

In an interview just a week ago with KSL's veteran Doug Wright (btw, congrats to Doug who Thursday just won Utah's first individual Marconi Award) Matheson made it clear that the tax cut vote should come before the November elections:

Wright: Congressman what are your thoughts about putting off this vote until after the election? I have to be honest with you, Jim, it feels a little chicken to me.

Matheson: I feel like I may just repeat what you just said [chuckling] over the last
three minutes. Listen, not only should it not be put off till the election, the fact is it should have been done a long time ago. [full audio at KSL; emphasis mine]

A vote seemed plausible until suddenly Wednesday, Congress voted 209-209 to adjourn. Matheson shockingly sided with the in the 209 voting to adjourn without addressing the tax cut extension, let alone the matter of shirking their fundamental responsibility of passing a budget. This set up Matheson's friend and leader Pelosi to cast a tie breaking vote to adjourn and send her followers home to try and salvage their widely-forecasted large loss of seats in the House.

So how can Matheson who days before said "NO!" to Doug Wright in adjourning early, suddenly vote the opposite? Because that is precisely the kind of sneaky-vote politician Matheson has become. Matheson's voting record has brought shame to our great state.

By Thursday morning it became apparent the beehive had broke off its limb and the hornets were in full swarm. In naming a few, Blogger Holly on the Hill was all over the "Phantom Jim" vote. Doug Wright was justifyably livid and for an hour rebuked the Congressman for his vote. [Full audio archive; program begins about 6 minute mark]. Thomas Burr at the Salt Lake Tribune had Matheson in complete denial of any involvement linking the adjournment vote to the tax cuts, blaming it insead on "politics":

Any suggesting that this adjournment vote had something to do with cutting
taxes is just playing politics, Matheson said. That’s really what’s going on.

Just before Wright's program Thursday on KSL, Matheson claimed the following in trying to justify his vote:

There was no reason to stay. The bill was never going to be brought up. The Senate wasn’t going to move its bill. I think it’s important for members go out and be with their constituents and hear from them. I hope that will get some people in a better frame of mind for addressing this issue.

To Mr. Matheson I have but this to say this about your newest turncoat vote: you will surely indeed hear from your constituents.

The Untold Story of Matheson's Vote for Obamacare

2010-09-29T21:49:00.005-06:00

The most important race in Utah two months from now in November won't be Governor Herbert's triumph over Carroon. Instead, it will be the story of how a common man named Morgan Philpot took down a powerful political dynastic incumbent named Jim Matheson.

I'd like to introduce Jim Matheson to you. He is a politician who shrouds his votes carefully, masking his true liberal spend-and-tax philosophies. No better example of this comes to mind than Matheson's vote this spring for Obamacare.

Oh, you counter, Matheson did not vote for Obamacare (HR 3590)! Ahh, I rebut, but in the real vote for Obamacare he did vote to unconstitutionally ram it through! Please, allow me to elaborate and take us back to March of this year.

Back in the third week of March the Senate had already passed Obamacare and Speaker Nancy Pelosi was frantically twisting arms to get votes to get Obamacare passed in the House. Out of desperation, scheming, or both, Louise Slaughter (D-NY28 "gerrymandered earmuffs" and Chair of the House Rules Committee; Jill Rowland is in a good fight to unseat her) came up with an idea which would become to be ignominiously known as the "Slaughter Solution": deem Obamacare to have passed without actually voting on it. The Slaughter Solution provided Pelosi twofold objectives: first, a backup plan to pass Obamacare in case Democrats couldn't force enough of their members to vote for it on a direct vote and second, to provide Pelosi a true test vote on Obamacare to see what kind of margin they could get on Obamacare. Many Democrats were "fence sitters" knowing Obamacare was massively unpopular at home but desired to both partisanly please their leader as well as further the expansion of big government and power. Such was the case with supposed fence sitter Democrat Jim Matheson.

On Thursday, March 18th, the infamous "Slaughter Solution" (H RES 1190) passed the house 222-203 providing Pelosi a good indication about how fence sitters were sitting. Joining all the Republicans in opposing the "Slaughter Solution" were 28 so-called "Blue Dog" Democrats who are considered more moderate than the Nancy Pelosi and Louise Slaughters of the political world. Publicly that week even beyond Thursday, Matheson kept saying how he was undecided about Obamacare while protesters were held daily outside his office. Yet Matheson revealed his desire for government healthcare takeover by voting "aye" on the Obamacare "Slaughter Solution" which is nothing worse than passing unconstitutional Obamacare unconstitutionally (ie Congress has to actually vote on law, they can't deem it to have passed.)

Pelosi kept working the Democrats and prepping them for a Sunday--yes a rare Christian Sabbath Day vote--on Obamacare to be held when Christians across the nation would in their homes and churches praying for deliverance from Sin and Obamacare. The morning of Saturday the 20th broke and I joined a few hundred protestors on the steps of our state capitol for a Code Red Rally. Even after the rally ended Saturday mid-dayish, protestors went over to "undecided" Matheson's empty office to protest. It was after this--less than 24 hours before the vote--that Matheson announced he would be voting no on HR3590 and Pelosi got Bart Stupak to cave in on the anti-abortion measures freeing up some of the Democratic fence sitters like Matheson to vote against the leadership knowing that the vote for HR3590 "Obamacare" would be scrutinized historically far more than H RES 1190 "Slaughter Solution."

Utah needs a better Congressman than Matheson. I have better things to do with my Saturdays than to protest a supposed "fence-sitter" who has already voted for Obamacare in the worse form of the Slaughter Solution.

But let's just say I'm a nutjo who has no idea what I'm talking about. You say Matheson's vote against Obamacare HR3590 proves he is against it. I say the vote was a run for cover and can prove it with one final blow: if Matheson is SO against Obamacare that he didn't vote for it, then why doesn't Matheson sign the pledge to repeal it? Republican Morgan Philpot signed the pledge a long time ago.

The answer to that question reveals the true nature of liberal Democrat Matheson and why we must make every effort to ensure Morgan Philpot defeats him this November.

CTSen: Integrity of McMahon vs. Blumenthal Lies

2010-09-05T07:56:00.009-06:00

I'm not a big Pro-Wrestling fan. Not that I have anything against Pro-Wrestling in general (although all forms of entertainment can be packaged in forms appropriate for different audiences, some not appropriate for children or myself). Suffice to say Connecticut Senate candidate Linda McMahon's 30-year WWE experience from a purely wrestling perspective for me is neither a pro nor a con.

What I love about McMahon is her sense of taking her WWE business acumen to town for CT. She knows that the Obama philosophy of spending one's way out of debt is a bunch of horse-dung. And that Obama-touted candidate Blumenthal is a Chris Dodd re-tread with respect to this crucial area of fiscal responsibility. Haven't Nutmeggers borne enough of this fiscal nonsense and irresponsibility?

McMahon is largely self-financing with both her and her opponent Blumenthal vowing not to take PAC money. Knowing the deceitful history of CT politicians, I was quite skeptical about the Blumenthal vow (below).

A review of the Federal Elections Commission site for available donations from the first two quarters of 2010 (Jan-Jun) shows that Blumenthal has received nearly $500,000 in PAC money from 158 PACs including:

A myriad of union groups including the Teamsters
Several big businesses and insurance companies such as Comcast, General Dynamics, AFLAC, and Blue Shield of California
Planned Parenthood

Surprisingly from a candidate that purports to have "never taken PAC money", less than 15% of Blumenthal's PAC donors were even based in Connecticut!

Not knowing McMahon, I was also somewhat skeptical about her promise to not take PAC money and to not take individual contributions over $100. I was very pleasantly surprised to see she had with honor kept true to her word. If you look at her page on the FEC site under the "Other Committees Contributions" line (this is where PAC money is listed) the line is $0. Furthermore, if you examine her FEC individual contributions list, no one has contributed over $100.

I have examined several FEC documents this season and McMahon's documents are impeccable and prominently stand out in a positive way. McMahon has proven to me, an out-of-stater, she is a candidate of integrity and will keep her promises of restoring fiscal discipline to our nation.

To further contrast the integrity of McMahon vs the apparent pathological lying of Blumental let us turn back our memories to the spring of this year when Blumenthal purported to have served in Vietnam. The story broke in the liberal New York Times and even progressive MSNBC covered Blumenthal's lie:

Although I don't share some of McMahon's moderate social values, she is against partial-birth abortion and hasn't taken money from Planned Parenthood which is a step in the right direction over Blumenthal. Thus in light of her strong commitment to restoring sanity to our financial house, I am pleased to announce that for Connecticut Senate in 2010 Linda McMahon earns a strong Nacilbupera endorsement.

Discerning Racial Minorities

2010-08-12T19:37:00.008-06:00

Would someone tell me how to define "racial minority?"

I think generally people would say Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians are all American racial minorities. It seems pretty clear-cut. So in order to fathom if I'm a "racial minority," I just need to figure out what race I am. Yet in America, land of equality, figuring that out might not be quite so easy...

Let's and say I'm half black, half white. Am I black or white? Am I a racial minority or do I claim to be part of the racial majority? (Personally, I'd call it mulatto but that historic term as long since fallen out of favor.) What if one of my grandparents is black and all my other grandparents are white. Am I black or white? What if I know one of my distant ancestors is black and the rest white. Am I then black or white? What if I suspect but cannot prove as is the case in many a genealogical inquiry that one of my ancestors is black. Am I black or white? Where is the line drawn, and just who has the authority to make these racial determinations? I have used black as an example but we could easily substitute Hispanic or Asian for illustration.

What about adoption? Is a child born to white parents and legally adopted and raised by two black parents since birth a black or white child? And what happens when the parentage of the child is unknown or uncertain: is race then judged by the color of the skin?

Then let's talk about some other races that are even less common in the U.S., for instance how about Russians: are they racial minorities? And what about Latvians, Czechs, Poles, Lithuanians, Greeks, Slovenians, Armenians, and Hungarians? Seems to me they would all qualify as "racial minorities." And aren't Jews a racial minority as well? So if Poles are a racial minority, surely we can't exclude the Germans which were a well-recognized 19th century American racial minority.

Continuing on, if Poles and Germans living in America are a racial minority, then surely the French, Italians, Swedes, Irish, Finnish, and Dutch are certainly racial minorities in and of themselves!

So what to do with all the mulattoes? For example pro golfer Tiger Woods is "one-quarter Chinese, one-quarter Thai, one-quarter African American, one-eighth Native American, and one-eighth Dutch." (Wikipedia) Whatever race he is, I think most would classify him as a "racial minority" despite the apparent racial perplexity. Thus we see the confluence of recognized "racial minorities" does little to preclude our application of the term "racial minority."

As an amateur genealogist, I have performed an inquiry into my personal racial makeup and have found myself to be a strong racial makeup of Irish, German, Swedish, Scottish, and English, with--disputably--a pinch of other races thrown in the pot for good riddance. Surely with this strong and diverse racial makeup--easily to rival Tiger Woods'--I am a "racial minority." What might come as a surprise to most Americans that consider themselves in the "racial majority" is that they are simply a confluence of diverse racial minorities--excluding perhaps the English race which seems to be the accepted "racial majority" for Americans.

In honor of the 47th commemoration of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech on August 28th and the rally to be held this year, I went and read the text of that stirring oration:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Surely then when big brother EEOC steps in to regulate business hiring based on skin color or "racial minority" rather than allowing business to fire employees for illegal activity, this flies in the face of what Dr. King sought for America and spits in the face of lady justice. And surely this should merit strong condemnation and intervention from the so-called "post-racial" President.

Nancy Pelosi: Teacher-bribing

2010-08-10T20:57:00.009-06:00

Today Nancy Pelosi held a special session of Congress to pass HR1586, another $26B stimulus bill. The bill comes as a de facto admission of the failure of previous tax-and-spend stimuli to generate jobs. (Why would you need to save jobs if you have already saved them?)

What is particularly onerous are the constitutional overreaches of the federal government in bailing out state union jobs, in particular the teachers' unions. The federal government has no business in education let alone raising federal taxes to pay for states who are unwilling or unable to manage their own fiscal houses (like Pelosi's own Democratically-dominated California).

The bottom line is that the last thing Americans need are more taxes during a prolonged recession. Yet Pelosi and the Democrats think that offering a monetary bribe to unconstitutionally dole out other people's money will garnish them votes with the teachers in what portends to be significant Democratic losses this November.

People are smart enough to see past this awful and endless spending and to call it like it is: a bribe for votes. This will backfire.

The vote on HR1586 was 247-161 with Louisiana's freshman Cao (ignominiously the only GOP originally voting for Obamacare) and Delaware's Castle (one of the cap-n-tax 8 GOP) the only 2 GOP voting in favor while three southern Democrats opposed: Taylor (MS-04), Bright (AL-02), & Cooper (TN-05).

What this means for Utahans, this is more fuel to the fire to get rid of tax-raising, teacher-bribing, Constitution-shredding Jim Matheson (UT-02) and to get Morgan Philpot elected in his stead. Matheson along with 246 wreckless Representatives must be voted out.

Hatch: Leading the Charge Against Kagan?

2010-07-10T17:37:00.005-06:00

Some time ago I realized that simply being a voter was an insufficient enough participation level for me to consider myself a defender of the Constitution. That is a fundamental reason why I created Nacilbupera.

Likewise, with the regard to the nomination of Elena Kagan, it is insufficient enough for me to have my two Senators--Hatch and Bennett--simply verbally oppose the nomination of yet another Constitiution-ripper-upper. I need action. Every legal action possible. And with a scheduled July 13th vote in Committee, time is drawning short.

Judiciary Committee veteran Hatch must be found "Leading the Charge" (as the title of my autographed Hatch biography states he does) of a massive filibuster of this nominee Kagan whose ideology would veer from the strict power granted the Federal Government by "We the People." Hatch's judicial nominee opinions seem to carry a large amount of weight in the Senate. If Hatch is unwilling to use the power we the citizens of Utah have vested in him to defend our Constitution, then then time is ripe in 2012 to find another more willing to do so.

Senators Hatch and Bennett: will accept your duty as vested you by the People of the State of Utah and Lead the Charge? Or, Senator Hatch, must we find another to Lead the Charge as we found Mike Lee to replace Bob Bennett?

The Evil of Eric Holder

2010-07-05T12:07:00.014-06:00

US Attorney General Eric Holder is a evil man. For me, being evil as it applies to the political world unites two components: first, a person must pursue a pervasively wrong ideology such as socialism, communism, fascism, dismantling our sacred law-of-the-land the Constitution, or other form of tyranny. As horrible as these are, there are some folks who fall into this category that are simply "misguided" in their philosophy due to propaganda or indoctrination rather than meeting my benchmark of being "evil."

The second part of being evil involves a breach of power, a trampling of law, bribe, or other form of corruption. An elected official having the second component but lacking the first is a guilty lawbreaker who should be punished, guilty of the human foibles of greed, lust, or vanity. Thus it takes the "ebony and ivory"^* if you will of both wrong ideology and political corruption to qualify for this label of "evil" I feign from using. Just as foreign evil doers are omnipresent in world history, I too as a citizen must do my duty to "support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic" [emphasis mine] as my honeybunny committed to do during her recent naturalization.

Holder has a proven record of releasing criminals including the Puerto-Rican terrorists to buoy up Hillary Clinton's Senatorial bid in New York and Marc Rich, a fugitive on the FBI's 10-most-wanted list.

More recently, Holder tried to get 9/11 mastermind KSM tried in civilian court--in of all places, NYC of course! After considerable bipartisan outrage, Holder announced four months ago today that the trial for KSM was '"weeks away" and [would] not be made or announced before President Obama leaves for Guam, Indonesia and Australia on March 18.' Two weeks ago Josh Gerstein of the Politico.com had this update:

Now advocates on both sides of the issue say they expect the Obama administration to punt the decision until after the November midterm elections— when the controversial plan could do less damage to the political fortunes of endangered Democrats and might face less resistance on Capitol Hill....
....While “swift and certain justice” once was a regular part of the White House lexicon on Guantanamo and detainee trials, that catchphrase has now vanished along with the prospect of anything swift happening to most of the prisoners slated for continued detention or trial.

The trial of KSM by Holder in civilian court is one more example of Holder's incorrect ideology in wanting to try terrorists as civilians in civilian court, while at the same time potentially denying them the 6th Amendment right to a speedy trial by needlessly postponing it. Because of potential 6th Amendment violations in civilian court, the only legal means of prosecution remains military court as it should be done.

"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to meet justice and he's going to meet his maker" quipped Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs last February in a CBS news article with the Obama Administration pledging to seek swift justice. Sure thing, Obama! Just like you plugged the hole down in the Gulf, got the unemployed back to work, and held those Obamacare discussions on C-SPAN. (Obama's pre-election utter dearth of executive experience is glaring...)

All this brings us to some of the latest evil actions of Holder, this time clearly showing the level of corruption that exists in the DOJ for which he is at best guilty by apathy for looking the other way. This concerns the New Black Panthers (black equivalent of the KKK) voter intimidation case dismissed by the DOJ. You'll remember the famous video now with over 1M hits:

Only a few saw this racist clip: "That's why ya gonna be ruled by the black man."

In an important interview with Megyn Kelly during the last week, J. Christian Adams, a DOJ attorney who had resigned in disgust over the DOJ's dismissal of charges revealed all in two 10-minutes segments: Part 1 Part 2

These videos with Adams makes it clear that AG Eric Holder is running a culture of corruption in the DOJ. The New Black Panther Party should have been punished. I personally will continue to hold Eric Holder responsible for this miscarriage of justice. This corruption backed by a false, socialistic ideology of scrapping the Constitution shows that Eric Holder is Evil. Should Obama have any iota of executive competence in him, he should replace Evil Holder at once.

^*Use of this phrase is devoid of innuendo of racial propensity towards either component. I am simply a big Stevie Wonder fan (Obama-loving McCartney not so much) and the racial overtones of the phrase were applicable to the theme of Black Panthers voter intimidation. I also got this vision of socialism and corruption sitting side-by-side on the piano in perfect harmony.

SCOTUS: 6 Catholics, 3 Jews?

2010-07-04T10:03:00.007-06:00

Imagine for a minute there were two sitting justices on the SCOTUS who were Mormon by religious affiliation. The only Protestant on the Supreme Court was retiring and the POTUS nominated yet another Mormon to the bench. How would you feel? Would you feel like somehow though the various Protestant denominations (Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Evangelicals) comprise a majority of religious adherents in the US that you had no representation? Would you wonder why a US religion registering around 2% was getting a third justice while your religion had no representation? Would you protest or accuse the POTUS of being a religious bigot? (SCOTUS religious stats here)

Yet in the nomination of Elena Kagan to replace Justice Stevens, Obama has done just this with one twist: substitute Jewish for Mormon and, Bingo! Actually, if anything I'm being generous because there are more Mormons than Jews in the US and there have historically been 7 Jews on the SCOTUS while representing Mormons there have been fewer: lets see there has been--hmm, let me think a moment--oh yeah! There hasn't EVER been a Mormon on the SCOTUS!

I use the example of the Mormon faith because I am one and it is the religion I am most familiar with, yet Mormons are hardly unique in their lament. Consider Baptists: they comprise nearly 20% of the population so roughly they should have a couple of Justices on the SCOTUS. Baptists have none. Conversely, Catholics are currently way over-represented comprising 6 of 9 SCOTUS seats (Sotomayor, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Roberts) while representing a mere 25% of the population.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not here to stir up religious fervor. I'm not here to mandate proportional religious equality on the SCOTUS. Indeed I have a deep respect for religions and am proud to have close family ties to members of Jewish, Mormon, Protestant, and Muslim faiths; and while there just aren't a bunch of Catholics in the family, I have numerous Catholic friends and people I admire.

What I am saying is that the POTUS should use more judgement in balancing out the deep diversity of religions and certainly the nomination of a third Jew to balance out six Catholics is about as skewed religiously as you can get. Those nine justices combined would represent only 26% of the US citizenry.

I vehemently oppose the nomination of Elena Kagan to the SCOTUS. Being the third Jew and having zero hours experience being a judge are just the writing on the wall of mene mene tekel upharsin: that Kagan fails to defend the Constitution as the citizenry adopted it. Show me where in these hearings has Kagan declared Obamacare unconstitutional because it mandates the purchase of a product (health insurance), something that has never been required of the citizenry before. And then show me where in Article 1, Section 8--the list of specific authorities granted the Federal Government--does it talk about health care? The nomination of unconstitutional Kagan must be stopped, by filibuster if necessary.

++++ Update 7/10

I wasn't the lone voice lamenting the cause of a another Jew being nominated. Consider this story from late June (h/t CNS news) in an interview with the Rabbinical Alliance of America:

Rabbi Yehuda Levin, spokesman for the alliance, told CNSNews.com on Thursday that "a great deal has been made about the fact that she would be the second Jewish woman on the court, and we want to signal to people across the country that we take no pride in this.”

Levin said most people are happy when "one of their own" is nominated to such a high position. But, he added, "We feel that Elena Kagan turns traditional Judaism on its head--from a concept of a nation of priests and holy people, she is turning it into, ‘Let’s homosexualize every segment of society. And by the way, partial-birth babies
have no right to be delivered.’"
“What exactly was Obama thinking, President Obama thinking, when he nominated Kagan? Because eventually, down the road, someone--or some group--is going to ‘take the hit’ for the crazy decisions that Kagan is bound to make. So we would have much preferred if President Obama had given this ‘distinction’ to another minority group, instead of singling out the Jews.”
"We’re waiting for the more courageous, decent senators--whether it’s a (Sen.) Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) or a (Sen.) Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) or a (Sen.) Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)--we’re looking for them to stand up and filibuster this embarrassing endangerment of a nomination,” Levin said.

You know, when considering Harry Reid's political views as Mormons are supposed to be similarly anti-abortion, strong supporters of traditional marriage, and against Socialism, I can see exactly where the Rabbinical Alliance of America is coming from.

Secondary Thoughts on the Primary

2010-06-23T21:58:00.007-06:00

I feel like I'm in a bag of mixed nuts with yesterday's outcome of the Utah Senate race. Logically, I should be satisfied with the Mike Lee win in the GOP Senate race--after all I voted for the man and felt comfortable with my vote.

I had planned to have my thoughts all neat and organized weeks before election day but instead found myself thinking, vetting, reading, and pondering on this decision. At one point in the process I was just about fed up enough to go write Jason Chaffetz' name down on the ballot and walk away. Instead, I looked at what Chaffetz had done in the race: he had made it clear he wasn't endorsing. I respected that decision a lot and began thinking about my own blog endorsements (the keen reader will notice some changes). In the end I decided I couldn't endorse either Lee or Bridgewater and even wondered if I should even say whom I was planning on voting for.

One nice consequence of not endorsing is that my mind remained unclouded so as to see the good and bad in both candidates. I saw many great patriots seem to become blinded to the bad in their own candidate. If you praised their candidate, you were a patriot. If you expressed any concern about their candidate you were ridiculed. I saw both the Bridgewater and Lee camps containing great and small modern-day patriots. I saw the sacrifices people were making to get what they deemed a great candidate elected to the Senate.

And then the election happened and Lee won by 2 points; I was secretly hoping it would be close although admittedly I thought Bridgewater would win. Post-election now follows with more ridicule by some of ridding of "blog trolls" and mocking patriots on the other side.

And yet I remain concerned, perhaps scared even. How will Lee (39) be as the youngest current Senator? Will he stick to his promises? Will he connect with the folks or be arrogant? I could ask the same questions were Bridgewater to be elected or anyone. The pro-Lee folks will tell you that you just don't know Lee well enough; OK, but if that's the case only God knows Mike Lee well enough. We don't have enough second chances left to get back to our Constitution for us to inadvertently send back the wrong person.

Bridgewater made the decision to vote for Lee easy for me by not responding to my email. I pretty much decided that when one candidate (Lee) would answer (yes, it took some prodding) and the other wouldn't or didn't, I wasn't interested in voting for a candidate who ignored me. I also became concerned that Bridgewater was more moderate in some of his views of wanting to do good government programs (Ex-Im Bank) rather than abolish them and cut wherever possible to downsize government and balance the government.

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't this sleeper Lee guy all along as I'm sure I'll be accused now that I've announced my vote. Lee ducked more than one debate, donated to Bennett's campaign, and particularly in the beginning came off arrogant. While I thought the "Lee Lobbying Lenses" (as I like to title it in my mind) for 1-800 Contacts without registering was interesting, it didn't seem to make me want to bail when he had talked with the guy in charge beforehand. Finally, now that Lee is the probable winner come November, I don't want to see his brother Tom be on the State Supreme Court. Too many Lees for me. Let's not tie up all that power in one family when there are others out there.

Bridgewater wasn't my guy this time around. He may or may not be my guy another time around depending on my choices. But I wouldn't dare send anyone to Washington these days without keeping the strictest of watch over them. So congratulations Bridgewater and Lee you should both be proud of your great campaigns and desires to restore honor back to our country. I think highly of both of you. But Mr. Lee I have a special caution for you now: don't expect me to be letting you off the hook just because I voted for you. I'm ready to throw you under the bus at the first sign of you throwing my Constitution under the bus as has been done too many times before by predecessors. You will serve me and my fellow citizens of the state of Utah and we will hold you fully accountable before God in a judgement day even when God allows justice not to prevail for a time on earth. Should you come home in 6 or 12 years having kept your promises of repealing Obamacare, raising the Social Security retirement age, balancing the budget, and restoring honor to our Constitution, then will you have earned more than my vote: you will earned have my praise for a job well done.

Book Review: How to Save America by A. E. Duzett

2010-06-13T21:38:00.006-06:00

I originally bought "How to Save America: A Tactical Guide for Practical Patriots" by Allie Winegar Duzett because I've been a fan of her blog: True Politics USA.

Although I've read a lot of Duzett (she is a prolific blogger and activist) I was rather surprised at the aggressiveness with which she schools the reader on how to be a conservative activist.

The book's undeclared and understated motto is found in the introduction: "There is always something we can personally do to make sure our dreams for the world can happen." Duzett could have more accurately stated the motto: "There's always a bunch you can do--and frankly should do--personally to make your dreams happen, and for starters this book will teach you 1,001 of them."

Memorable discussions from How to Save America include Saul Alinsky's "sh*t in", leaving the Obama Satan mask at home during Tea Party rallies (pic below h/t The Freedom Fighter's Journal), and the "Progressive Bake Sale" (p. 125).

Duzett spends a significant portion of the book addressing programs and ideas applicable to the college-aged including introducing me to various organizations available to students such as: campusreform.org and thefire.org

The 142-page book read easy for me, comfortable enough to tackle in a day. Also, Duzett has provided ample excerpts from her book on her blog. I throughly enjoyed How to Save America and recommend it as a way of brainstorming ideas and motivation for those times when we may feel alone, confused, or helpless as to how to react to the tsunami of socialism we are inundated with.

How to Save America, released May 2010, is available in paperback on Amazon.com or CreateSpace for $10.

Ousting the GOP "Cap n Tax 8" Part 2

2010-06-13T10:37:00.007-06:00

This past Tuesday, 4 of the remaining 6 "Cap n Tax 8" held primaries; here are the results:

Cap N Tax Rep. Leonard Lance (NJ-07) won his primary with 56% of the vote.
Cap N Tax Rep. Christopher Smith (NJ-04) won his primary with 68% of the vote.
Cap N Tax Rep. Frank LoBiondo (NJ- 02) won his primary with 78% of the vote.
Cap N Tax Rep. Mary Bono Mack (CA-45) won her primary with 69% of the vote.

Case Study: NJ-02
Although none of the four "Cap n Tax 8" incumbents were defeated, we need to give the opposition candidates credit. Let's examine the LoBiondo race where the incumbent garnished the largest percent of victory to put things into perspective:

(1) The South Jersey Courier Post described this as a "second consecutive challenge" for LoBiondo meaning that the 8-term Congressman has betimes run unopposed. Thank you challengers Linda Biamonte and Donna Ward for running! Keep up the great work!
(2) Voters narrowed LoBiondo's margin of victory in the primary down from 89% in 2008 to 78% this year. Excellent progress!
(3) These results were achieved with a biased media who described Biamonte as the "LoBiondo Challenger" (Shore News Today) instead of properly using her real name. (SNT completely ignored the presence of Donna Ward in the race--who won 45% of the anti-LoBiondo vote.)
(4) LoBiondo got some national vetting exposure in April by Michelle Malkin about his ignorance on the U.S. Constitution.
(5) Keep in mind the reason why incumbents are so hard to defeat is the money donated to incumbents by PACs and businesses. In the last FEC report, LoBiondo had donated $375K to his own campaign, outraising his opponents combined fundraising by magnitudes. LoBiondo has bought himself another two years in Congress.

Having seen LoBiondo run on an issue-less platform (see the utter lack of issue positions on his website at http://lobiondoforcongress.com/ -- unless you count his dogs as an issue position) it is great to see these two courageous patriots--Biamonte and Ward--stand for principle and I remain excited about their success.

Looking forward
The two remaining GOP "Cap n Tax 8" primaries are: Cap n Tax Congressman Michael Castle (DE) against Christine O'Donnell for the DE Senate seat with primary elections on Sept 14th and Congressman Dave Reichert (WA-08) vs. Ernest Huber with an Aug 17th primary.

Master Mr. Niceguy goes Postal

2010-06-12T01:21:00.005-06:00

In my May 9th post, I coined the phrase "Master Mr. Niceguy" in describing Utah US Senate Candidate Tim Bridgewater. This week I received two pieces of campaign literature from the Bridgewater campaign (none from the Lee campaign) the back of one which shattered my image of Tim's Yoda-esque gentlemanliness:

Here was a great man tearing down his opponent as having "no plan." What?!? Does Tim think I'm stupid or something? As an avid follower of this race, I have felt all along Lee has a plan and actually has done an equally good job as Bridgewater in communicating it. So I went to the Lee campaign website to make sure Lee was still communicating a plan and there it was under his "issues" tab: a clearly defined plan called "Five Steps to a Return to Limited Government."

Continuing on the mailer, Bridgewater attacked Lee for "focusing on tearing down his opponent with negative attacks." Wait a minute Master Mr. Niceguy, you just got through a ripping of your fellow Republican candidate for not having a plan when you failed to provide one shred of evidence of this lack of a plan...and now you accuse him of negative attacks???? Can you not see the beam in your own eye?

Perhaps it was a poll released Thursday showing Lee with a small lead over Bridgewater that is now causing Bridgewater to start the negative attacks to reap the large percentage of undecideds in the state. Whatever the reason, it is clear Master Mr. Niceguy has gone postal.

The Meaning of Endorsements

2010-06-09T16:53:00.008-06:00

This afternoon former Nacilbupera-endorsed Utah Senate candidate Cherilyn Eagar herself in turn endorsed current Senate candidate Tim Bridgewater (Deseret News).

Somewhere along the years, I deprecated endorsements of political candidates: that is, in casting my own vote I enjoy doing my own vetting process rather than subserviating to someone else's opinion. Nevertheless endorsements serve as interesting windows acutely into the endorser and as anchored starting points into political vetting.

As the race between Bridgewater and Lee enters its final days of maturation, Eagar's endorsement is hardly a starting vetting place for me; and as Eagar leaned toward Bridgewater during post-campaign remarks the endorsement came as little surprise. Thus for me, Eagar's endorsement does nothing to clear nor cloud my own analysis of this race. I hope to soon finalize my own thoughts on this race.

On Presidential Endorsements

Lately, I have been in preponderance that our President should decline to be leader of their respective political party. One of the things that appealed to voters voting for President Obama was his campaign communiques that he was "post-partisan." Obama has failed miserably on that account as acutely exampled in the ramming through of Obamacare in a most partisan way. I feel our Presidents should not be actively endorsing candidates A to Z of their respective parties, instead working on leading the country in solving the limited breadth of problems they are responsible to do.

In his 1792 farewell address Washington warned us on the dangers of political parties:

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the
spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and
countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful
despotism.

In my vision of "What would Washington do?" it would be exactly this on their first day in office: renounce being head of the Party. The Chief Executive, as our Supreme Court, should be above partisanship and the politicking of endorsement; and being the leader of a private political party does nothing to speak of representing the interests of ALL AMERICANS. While Washington might advocate the complete abolition of political parties, Executive declination of the leadership role while remaining part of the party would be a tremendous step in the right direction.

++++ Update 6/10:
It looks like Bennett is jumping on the endorse-Bridgewater bandwagon (SL Tribune). That is one endorsement I'd like to see Bridgewater decline but of course he won't because it is and has been politics as usual for Bridgewater.

Lee and Bridgewater: Sound of Silence (Update)

2010-06-02T22:35:00.017-06:00

A week ago today I sent the following second request for a reply to a rather simple but pertinent question posed to both Mike Lee and Tim Bridgewater (a similar second message sent to Lee):

The fact that it has been 10 days with neither candidate to respond is unacceptable. Here are two very good candidates yet neither is lifting a finger to earn my vote through their actions.

I have noted that some candidates are great about answering questions and some ignore you. I have first hand positive experience with response to email from a diverse collection of Utah elected officials including Provo Mayor John Curtis, Utah County Sheriff Jim Tracy, and Utah Rep. Jim Matheson. While I don't necessarily agree with everything all three of these officials and there are many others I could name in a positive light, these three have responded in a timely manner to multiple emails sent them and have earned my respect--which serves as a prerequisite to my vote.

Team Bridgewater seemed to want to be open to discussion by the following tweet last month:
While the tweet is warm, it seems now in retrospect to carry little weight if my emails are going to be ignored.

So I have to ask myself: why? Are both campaigns so disorganized so as to have no volunteers with which to answer email questions? Am I blacklisted because I dare speak to factual concerns about them? Has this important race become a lifeless zombie staggering toward a finish three weeks from now with me the only undecided Republican left in the state of Utah? And the big granddaddy question and fear: when you get elected to the Senate, Mr. future senator, will you also ignore my emails then?

Some of you might recognize this verse from a classic pop song of yesteryear which sums it up:

"Fools," said I, "you do not know
Silence like a cancer grows
Hear my words that I might teach you
Take my arms that I might reach you."
But my words like silent raindrops fell
And echoed in the wells of silence

++++ Update 6/3 5:30pm:

I received the nicest email this morning from the Lee campaign in which an apology was issued for the delayed response. It rather took me by surprise that the Lee folks were so gracious. I am going to wait to reveal the specifics on the answer of the question in the hopes and fairness that Team Bridgewater will also step up to the plate and respond. I won't be waiting too long however, as early voting begins June 8th and I had hoped to have my mind made up by then as to which patriot to vote for so I can early vote as I please.

We Become I

2010-05-25T08:11:00.001-06:00

Much ado as been said of Nacilbupera's first person plural voice on this blog.

Just as we evolved from "I" to "we" we, er, I am now choosing to re-evolve (digress?) back to the first person singular.

Why? I don't exactly know why but it seems like the "we" creates ambiguity confusion (despite our attempt at clarification), and a sense I am uncomfortable speaking on my own ground (entirely not true). Then again it creates awkward prose when referring to "we" while Nacilbupera is and always has been clearly singular.

Hope you enjoy the change!

Videos of the Week: Beck, DeVore

2010-05-24T21:24:00.004-06:00

Frank Caliendo did a superb Glenn Beck imitation on today's Glenn Beck show (h/t Breitbart.tv) If you listen to Beck's show, you will get all the jokes; if you haven't, Caliendo recaps a year's worth of shows in a few minutes. Very Funny.

And if you didn't know, Chuck DeVore can throw a mean hand grenade in this vid released today:

Tim Bridgewater Evades Paying Business Taxes (More)

2010-05-22T09:52:00.011-06:00

Do you as a US citizen, support using off-shore tax shelters for the express purpose of avoiding payment of federal tax? Apparently Senate candidate Tim Bridgewater does.

As we began our own inquiry into Bridgewater's strongly-touted business background we came across an April 2004 article (google docs) by Robert Gehrke of the Salt Lake Tribune during the time which Bridgewater was running for Congress (we have verified through Newsbank that the Gehrke article is indeed genuine) :

The Charoen Pokphand [Nacilbupera: aka CP Group] executives channeled the money to Bridgewater through two offshore corporate shells, Aleksin and Maze Industrial, based in the British Virgin Islands, the SEC filings show. The islands are among the world's most attractive tax havens due to favorable banking and confidentiality laws.

"They're tax shelters. I think it's pretty straightforward from a business
perspective," Bridgewater said of the companies. "It's a straightforward process
for everyone from Ford Motor Co. to Pittsburgh Paint and Glass, that companies
have holding companies for their foreign interests."

Bridgewater's comments are worth examining. He freely admits to using an off-shore company to shelter from paying taxes. Although not necessarily illegal, it certainly takes advantage of what many have described as a "loophole" in our tax code.

Futhermore, Bridgewater justifies his actions by basically saying: "Well, Ford and everybody else is doing it, so it's OK." This argument has never worked for us whether it came from the employees in our business or the kids being caught with hands in the proverbial cookie jar.

This issue is important to us because we have worked hard to put a principled candidate in office to replace Bennett, one whose actions are above reproach and who sets the standard for how our nation's business should be done--like Chaffetz who has defined a principle for the rather rare case of an appropriate earmark.

Nacilbupera condemns the use of off-shore tax shelters by businesses for the purpose of evading federal taxation. It would be interesting to see just how many millions of tax dollars Bridgewater has avoided paying by using Aleksin and Maze though such a computation is probably out of our grasp.

++++ More 5/23 11:00pm:

Earlier this year in an Independence Caucus 80-question highly detailed questionnaire (pdf; or see Indepenence Caucus of Cache Valley for html) of their endorsed candidates had Tim Bridgewater scoring 91% and Mike Lee 95%. Both these candidates support a National Sales Tax (NST) to replace the 16th Amendment which must be repealed (which means both candidates are really cool, imho!)

However, pertinent to this discussion on Bridgewater's business tax shelters was Bridgewater's response--reported by I-Caucus as listed either blank or "no"--to Question #68:

Do you agree that when money is being transferred out of the country for any
reason, it should correctly be considered to be “consumed”; and that money
should be taxed (at the current NST rate) as it leaves the country?

The problem is lacking a strong affirmative "yes" creates a loophole bigger than a wall-less southern border for money to leave the US without ever being taxed. Corporations such as Bridgewater's Interlink Capital Strategies would have a heyday exporting capital, thus providing Bridgewater and his colleagues with untold fortunes at the demise of country and state.

To us Question #68 points that when principle comes up against practice, Bridgewater is here to do what's best for Bridgewater International Group, LLC ("BIG") [BIG name reference citation here] in tax-avoidance strategies and loopholes, not what's best for Utah.