A Sunday School Lesson Fit For an Election

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

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

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)

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)

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?

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

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.