Death Knell

States I've been to (even if only briefly aka airport)

2009-07-07T13:08:00.000-07:00

visited 25 states (50%)
Create your own visited map of The United States or Best time to visit Milan

Reasoning with the Unreasonable

2009-06-23T10:46:00.001-07:00

President Obama and his administration have been largely silent regarding the brewing revolution in Iran. The fear is that, if the administration comes out in favor of the freedom fighters, they will tick off the current regime and will be seen as "meddling" in their affairs. This fear comes without regard to the fact that the current Iranian regime is a violent, fear-mongering, hate-filled group that hates the West and hates, especially, the US. My fear is that, by not fighting alongside the freedom fighters, we are complicit in the devastating tactics taken by the current regime in putting down this revolution.

The message we are sending to all oppressed people is, we're not willing to risk a "working relationship" (read, a relationship where we allow regimes to get away with murder and oppression in the name of 'rebuilding our image' in the world) with an oppressive regime in order to support a people who wants to enjoy the same God-given freedoms that we Americans enjoy.

That is a dangerous message.

This is the problem with moral relativism. Benjamin Franklin is credited with saying "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

In this instance, the essential liberty we are giving up is the liberty of the Iranians fighting for a democratic regime, and the little temporary safety is that which we hope to gain by appeasing an historically violent and defiant regime.

My guess is that we will end up regretting our failure to support those who are seeking those inalienable rights that we hold dear - or at least we used to.

Mr. Huntsman goes to China

2009-06-11T08:17:00.001-07:00

There has been much speculation regarding Gov. Huntsman's intentions in accepting the ambasadorship to China. Some question how he plans to launch a bid for the Republican presidential nomination when he has been out of the country serving a Democrat. I think, however, Gov. Huntsman's ambitions are a little more humble.

When he first mentioned the ambasadorship, Gov. Huntsman stated that when the President asks you to serve, you serve. It seems he is willing to put the country's needs above his own political ambitions. If this is truly his motivation, and I believe it is to a certain extent, then you have to admire Gov. Huntsman's acceptance even more. After all, as has been debated time and time again, taking this position does little to advance his political career - but the President believes that he is the best man for the job. Given Gov. Huntsman's resume, the President is probably right.

There is something else to take into consideration, however. Huntsman has positioned himself as a moderate Republican who is willing to come out with stances that go against the hard-core right wing of the party. He has been true to himself, but doing so has potentially damaged any run for the presidency.

Yet, Huntsman has positioned himself very nicely for the two-spot on a ticket. Granted, few, if any politicians, want the vice-presidency. Most who take it, do so begrudgingly. Back when the vice-presidency was the booby prize in the presidential election, John Adams called it "the most insignificant office ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived." One might say that anyone campaigning for the vice-presidency would be crazy.

I think Huntsman might be crazy like a fox.

Huntsman, as the number two man on a ticket, would bring in a lot of moderates. His foreign experience would be unquestionable. A run for the presidency would be hampered by a lot. Granted, he is an executive, but of a relatively small state-population wise. We saw, through Gov. Romney's run, that the Mormon factor would cause a lot of people to think twice about voting for Huntsman. Those on the right and the left would not think twice about attacking Huntsman for his mormonism.

However, the effect of the Mormon factor is muted when he is up for the number two slot. After serving as the vice-president for four to eight years, Huntsman becomes a known entity and voters will be more likely to dismiss his mormonism as a non-issue.

This ambassadorship may be the perfect ticket for Huntsman to become a very viable asset to a strong presidential candidate. His moderate stances may round out a ticket, his foreign experience puts him in a great spot to be a strong foreign diplomat from the White House, and spending a few years as the vice president on a Repulican ticket will allow people to see beyond his Mormon faith and will allow him to repent of his service under a Democrat administration.

Huntsman's reason for taking this ambassadorship is likely very basic - the president asked, so Huntsman will serve. Regardless of the reasoning, Huntsman may be solidifying his best path to the presidency, and that path leads him through the vice-presidency.

Miss California

2009-05-12T10:25:00.000-07:00

A thank you goes out to Mario Armando Lavandeira (aka Perez Hilton). His response to Miss California's answer to the "gay marriage question" in the Miss USA is exactly the evidence we conservatives needed to prove our point.

You see, much of us argue that gay marriage opens the door to the justification of a lifestyle that we disagree with. We fight against gay marriage to ensure that the stigma against this lifestyle remains. After all, as we have seen through the abortion debate, it is never enough for liberals to simply live and let live. They want their view shoved down the throats of everyone.

Mr. Lavandeira has established this point. Miss California (Carrie Prejean) was asked regarding her opinion of gay marriage. She gave the honest answer that she was glad to live in a nation where the states could decide, but as far as she was concerned, she felt marriage should be between a man and a woman. According to Mr. Lavandeira, a judge at the event, this answer cost her the crown.

It is not enough for gay marriage to exist, people like Mr. Lavandeira want it to be accepted and pushed as an appropriate lifestyle, regardless of one's beliefs. For liberals, there is no live and let live - they push a zero-tolerance agenda where their beliefs are pushed as THE beliefs. Anyone who disagrees with them is a neanderthal who "bitterly clings to guns and religion."

It is this attitude that causes us conservatives to want to draw the line as early as possible. The sooner we can draw the line, the more likely we are to reach an acceptable common ground.

Has it really been that long?

2009-04-04T14:13:00.000-07:00

I was on my sister's blog and there was a note stating that I hadn't written on this blog for a month. I couldn't believe it. I've certainly started or thought about a number of posts, but I haven't quite gotten them up.

So, here goes.

We live in West Valley City - we've been here for about a year now. We enjoy it for the most part. Recently, WVC politics have made some noise. First, the city council recently decided that, in lieu of seeking nearly $600K in back rent from the Utah Grizzlies (Utah's minor league hockey team - figured I should clear it up since, from the attendance, most people don't know about it), the City would instead take a piece of the team. That's right, WVC now owns 40% of the Utah Grizzlies.

This has caused a lot of opinions to be voiced. Some in favor, most opposed. I can see why people wouldn't want the city to take a piece of a franchise that is already having a hard time making ends meet.

However, it seems to me that the choice was pretty evident. Hockey has never been terribly popular in Utah. But, WVC essentially married the Grizzlies in 2001 when it beat out SLC for the hockey venue. WVC's $600K was illusory at best. The only way WVC would be getting the $600k is if things really picked up for the Grizzlies. In the instance that the Grizzlies' prospects really do improve, the City will be better off owning 40% of the franchise.

At the end of the day, it was a choice between two seemingly loser options. At the end of the day, WVC was either going to push for $600K that it wasn't going to get, or it would take a lot more than $600K by the time the Grizzlies would have been able to pay the $600K.

I see it as a good gamble.

HB 187

2009-02-16T15:26:00.000-08:00

I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist and I often find the SLTribune's hatred for the legislature ridiculous and usually not founded in the truth - or even rational thinking. But in reading this article, I couldn't help but find the distrust of the legislature warranted in the case of HB 187.

I am of the opinion that the state should generally allow people to live their lives without interference from the government. I whole-heartedly endorse man's right to property and feel that even CC&Rs can be too restrictive. Nevertheless, we have a recording system that allows people to purchase property with their eyes open and a full understanding of the nature of the property they are buying. Accordingly, those who buy land abutting public waterways know that their land will be exposed to those using the public waterway.

Like a street, the landowner may take the precautions deemed necessary to limit the exposure from the public waterways, but such precautions should be limited to the land itself.

HB 187 seems not only to destroy public right to the waterways, but also extends a land owner's right to place material over the waterway so as to prevent the public from using the waterway. HB 187 is a travesty for the right of the public to use land owned by the public. Further, in a year when the budget is crucial (as you point out on your blog), creating disincentives to tourists looking to capitalize on Utah's scenery and fishing only hurts the state as a whole.

I have contacted my legislators, Representative Kory Holdaway and Senator Karen Mayne, and have received their assurance that they plan to vote no on this bill - if the bill makes it in front of them on a vote. I have also contacted its sponsor, Representative Ben Ferry, and have asked him for his rationale for proposing the bill in the first place.

I should have received Rep. Ferry's response before jumping into this debate, but I do not see the merit of it. Perhaps Rep. Ferry will persuade me to change my mind. We shall see.

Interesting Jefferson Quote

2009-02-09T09:25:00.000-08:00

"It is of great importance to set a resolution, not to be shaken, never to tell an untruth. There is no vice so mean, so pitiful, so contemptible; and he who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and a third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world's believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good disposition."

--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, 19 August 1785

I just got done reading Joseph Ellis' "American Sphinx; The Character of Thomas Jefferson". It is the only Jefferson "biography" I've read (it was more of a character study as the name implies, than a biography). What makes the quote interesting is that, at least according to Ellis, Jefferson's life was often at odds with his political stances. He was a man who abhorred slavery, but who kept slaves; he berated those who practiced "politics", but was often the unseen hand in much of the political maneuvers that took place during the Washington presidency; he employed the media to attack his opponents, then deplored the same tactics when used against him.

In short, Jefferson appears to have been quite the enigma given his political stances vs. the way he conducted his life.

Perhaps there is something to be said for seeking the ideal while fostering an understanding attitude toward others. I could stand to learn that lesson.

"Bailout"

2009-02-09T08:52:00.001-08:00

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one...." --James Madison

Ronald Wilson Reagan

2009-02-06T09:25:00.001-08:00

Happy Birthday to the greatest president of the 20th century!!

Does the President know what excuse means?

2009-02-04T16:07:00.000-08:00

"Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter." --then-Sen. Tom Daschle on 7 May 1998

"As you can well imagine, I am deeply embarrassed and disappointed by the errors that required me to amend my tax returns. I apologize for the errors and profoundly regret that you have had to devote time to them." --Tom Daschle in a letter to Sens. Max Baucus (D-MT) and Charles Grassley (R-IA)

"I disclosed this information to the committee voluntarily and paid the taxes and any interest owed promptly. My mistakes were unintentional." –Daschle

"Tom made a mistake, which he has openly acknowledged. He has not excused it, nor do I. But that mistake and this decision cannot diminish the many contributions Tom has made to this country." --President Barack Obama

By calling it a "mistake" (cough, yeah right, cough), Tom Daschle IS excusing his failure to pay taxes. To not excuse it would be to say, 'I failed to pay my taxes in accordance with the law. I am sorry.'

Instead, one of the many liberal hypocrites attempts to "make up" for his "mistake" by hiding behind the idea that he disclosed it "voluntarily" (read: I realized that this would be a problem when the Obama vetting team uncovered my "mistake" so it was decided that I'd better come clean).

I wonder if he paid the penalties as well as the interest owed. After all, he is a tax cheat and the IRS should enforce the laws to the letter.

Democrats and Taxes

2009-02-03T09:23:00.000-08:00

I am amazed at the number of tax issues that President Obama's nominees have had during the nomination process. Democrats constantly rail against Republicans for their efforts to cut taxes across the board. Democrats usually claim that Republican tax cuts will only benefit the "wealthiest one half of one percent" of the population.

Considering that the wealthiest among us pay almost all of the income taxes, I'm ok with giving them a break every now and again.

Apparently, so are the Democrats. For Republicans, the wealthiest among us should get tax relief across the board. For Democrats, individuals among the wealthiest of us who don't pay taxes should also get relief - by being nominated to the Obama administration!!

Earlier Nancy Killefer, nominee for President Obama's Chief Performance Officer withdrew her name from nomination for that post due to "unspecified tax issues."

Tom Daschle has just announced his withdrawal from the nomination process for HHS secretary citing tax issues. The former senator had just recently filed amended returns wherein he had to pay around $140,000.00 in back taxes. Even with the amendments, Sen. Daschle apparently failed to report another $80K in income. Apparently this guy is making so much money, he just doesn't have time to figure out how to pay his taxes. Further, Daschle was criticized for lobbying in the health care field and then accepting the nomination for HHS secretary. This was a major facet of the Obama administration and, given the hypocrisy that abounded in sweeping this one under the rug, Daschle withdew his name.

The fun doesn't stop there!

New Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner also faced issues regarding his failure to pay taxes on his income.

This is troubling on a number of different levels. The least of these is the fact that it is Democrat policy to rely on the wealthiest to pay the vast majority of income taxes, yet the wealthiest of Democrats simply don't pay taxes.

Further, this does not bode well for this "New Era of Responsible Government." The Obama administration has touted its plan to reduce corruption in government by not employing lobbyists - yet it nominated two to its cabinet to work in the field where they lobbied. Obama highly touted the position of Chief Performance Officer to scrub the federal budget of nonsensical spending - yet his nominee has to withdraw due to "tax concerns."

Hopefully the administration can get its act together. I fear, however, that there is more lip service than real policy behind much of the administration's efforts.

A good general rule of thumb

2009-02-02T16:41:00.000-08:00

I was in class yesterday (like the good Mormon boy I am) and couldn't help but reflect on a comment made. We were discussing how to better treat the women in our lives (it was in Elders Quorum - side note, what is the proper name of that quorum? Is it Elders' Quorum or Elders Quorum??). One of our quorum members mentioned that, in his teaching career, he often hears language that blows him away. When such language came out of a student whose parents this good man knew, he pulled the student aside and asked him where he had heard such language. The student stated that it had come from tv or his friends.

The teacher then said, "When it comes to the language you use, you can always guarantee that it is safe to use an expression if you've heard your parents use it."

Now, obviously this only worked because the teacher knew this students' parents. But it remains a pretty good rule of thumb (depending on your parents).

What hurt is realizing some of the things my kids might say that they could honestly tell their teachers they HAD heard come out of my mouth. It made me a little nervous about how I talk to/about people and some of the phrases I employ at times. While I am not one for much swearing (a few gros mots slip out every now and again), I often employ other terms that are not the best.

One my son has picked up on is the word idiot. I've heard him use it occasionally and realize that I'm setting myself up for that classic retort that comes from the first anti-smoking commercial I believe I ever saw - "I learned it from watching you!" I've since tried to eliminate my use of that word (stupid is another word we are working on).

For most this may seem rather innocuous, mundane even, but in my efforts to be more civil (see previous post), I am attempting to eliminate those words from my vocabulary that really do nothing to add any substance. Hopefully, then, some day I'll be able to be sure that my kids won't return home from school with a note explaining some phrase they used at school knowing full well that they learned it from me.

A Call to Civility I Can Agree With

2009-02-02T16:19:00.000-08:00

Senator John Valentine has proposed a Senate Concurrent Resolution entitled "A Call to Civility." You can read the full text here.

In all, it is a good resolution. I've debated this issue with Ethan Millard (or rather, debated it on his blog) and with my good friend, A.W..

To avoid any implications that I am opposed to civility, I wanted to repeat that I fully support voluntary measures to increase civility in public discourse. I think SCR2 is a good start. Some of the provisions in that Resolution include the following:

WHEREAS, the Utah Constitution, Article I, Section 1 observes that, among our "inherent and inalienable" constitutional rights is the fundamental right "to communicate freely about our thoughts and opinions";

WHEREAS, we may also be "responsible for the abuse of that right";

WHEREAS, there should be a renewal of respectful discourse and behavior in civic and
public settings in Utah;

WHEREAS, this is not an appeal for all citizens of the state simply to get along;

WHEREAS, there are profound differences among Utahns, and spirited debate is a vital
part of American democracy;

WHEREAS, participation in American civic and public life does not require that we sacrifice our deepest convictions but that we best protect our own rights by protecting the rights of others and adhering to high ethical standards;

WHEREAS, the following ground rules of civic and public engagement recognize the important place of the rights, responsibilities, and respect inherent in our civic and constitutional compact;

The resolution then goes on to suggest certain ground rules about respecting one another and understanding that different viewpoints do not enemies make.

In all, I think it is a good focus on the need for spirited but civil debate in public discourse. I think such a resolution is a worthy effort by Sen. Valentine and I would support passage of such a non-binding resolution.

What I am opposed to is government mandating that some obscure, slanted definition of "civil" becomes the measuring stick by which we are allowed to engage in public discourse. What is likely to result is not a free exchange of ideas, but rather an imposition of one opinion over the others. Essentially, such measures would become a government created shout down that prevents certain individuals from having their voices heard. Or, as Ethan Millard fears, such measures would prevent tough questions from being posed to those who hold elected office.

However, I do not see such measures in SCR2. Rather, I think this is a resolution that A.W., Ethan, and I could all agree on. I may be wrong, and you can bet that if this is used in any way as a foundation for measures to abridge our freedoms, I will vehemently oppose them. Until that happens, though, I think measures such as the passage and publication of SCR2 are worthwhile ventures that will hopefully lead to the voluntary adoption of a more civil tone in all public discussions.

Agreeable Disagreement

2009-01-28T08:14:00.000-08:00

Ethan Millard recently posted on his blog at www.slcspin.com a brief paragraph indicating his opposition to recent efforts to force "civil discourse" into public debate. His reasoning, while not stated on his blog, appears to be that the measures likely to be taken are more likely to create a sort of affirmative action in public debate with political correctness being codified. Efforts to improve the tone of public debate are always appreciated, but should be self-produced, not forced from the top down.

I was impressed, however, with the tone of debate that President Obama and the congressional Republicans had over the president's "stimulus package." Both the Deseret News and the SLTribune ran stories on the encounter.

This is the type of debate that is necessary to truly produce the best results. People shouting one another down or ambushing each other with sneak attacks in political discourse rarely do anyone any good. Usually the attacker ends up looking shallow and afraid of what the opposition might say. (Think Rosie O'Donnell both on The View and with her "interview" of Tom Selleck on her now defunct talk show.)

We really don't need statutes or rules of etiquette pushing agendas on anyone. What we need is general common sense. No one likes a bully, and everyone gains from a full discussion of all opinions.

I generally believe that the best thing the federal government can do in most circumstances is stand out of the way. However, when there is action taken at this, or any level of government, it should be with a full, open, and honest debate with each side presenting their views.

I appreciate President Obama's willingness to discuss his ideas with his political opposition. Like the Republicans in Utah's congressional delegation, I am opposed to this "stimulus package," but I appreciate the tone set and appreciate that President Obama is willing to listen to those who agreeably disagree with him.

Republican Resurgence

2009-01-19T08:46:00.000-08:00

I just read this article from David Frum at Newsweek.com. Given its source (Newsweek), I was prepared to hear about how Republicans essentially need to shift to the center and start to realize that this is a center-left nation. I was surprised, then, when I read the article and found it to be a fairly good assessment of four areas where the GOP can improve its relationship with the voters.

Americans are, in general, conservative. These next four years we will see a push toward the left on issues such as health care and welfare programs. However, as we have seen in the past, such a push generally leads to a strong rebound by conservatives who can cash in on the failures of liberal policies. 1984 wasn't a fluke. It was the prime example of a conservative leader who communicated Republican ideals coherently and with a connection to the populace as a whole.

This past election cycle was not so much a perfect storm for the Republican party as it was a Titanic-type accident. Arrogance, failure to heed and respond to rising concerns with a well-balanced conservative approach, and an apparent lack of conservative leadership left the party at the mercy of the waves and winds. This listless approach allowed our party to sink after running into the economic situation that befelled the American public in 2008.

It is no wonder that a completely unproven, un-accomplished neophyte such as Obama was able to sweep in and appear as intelligent and levelheaded as he did to as many people as he did. That is not to say that Obama is not intelligent or levelheaded. But it does go a long way to demonstrate how easily someone, whose only extensive writing to date has been about himself, was able to rise from obscurity to take the White House.

I sincerely hope that President Obama succeeds. However, I only see his success through, what to his supporters would deem to be, selling out the left. If Obama fails to shift significantly to the center (although he has already), we will see one of the most liberal agendas legislated over the next four years in over 70 years. At that point, I believe it won't take long for the country to see how liberal policies fail - but this point will only be made if the GOP is ready to stand up and act as intelligently and level-headed as Obama seemed to be during this past election cycle.

BCS Sucks!

2009-01-10T12:17:00.000-08:00

I just got done watching "The Greatest Game Ever Played." It's a fantastic show that chronicles Francis Ouimet's story in the 1913 U.S. Open. Prior to 1913, Golf was largely a game for the wealthy. There were few courses and most Americans did not play.

Ouimet was an American of immigrant parents. He had caddied and knew the game well, but the idea that he could compete at the same level as the "gentlemen" was unthinkable. The fact that he had been a caddy demonstrated to most who watched that Ouimet simply wasn't a player to be taken seriously.

When Ouimet sunk his last putt on the second day he found himself in a three-way tie for the lead. A playoff was held the third day and Ouimet held his own. For the two of you who may read this, I won't spoil the end if you haven't seen the movie, but whether he won or not, Ouimet changed Americans' view of the game of golf just by getting to the playoff.

Americans love an underdog. Rudy, Hoosiers, We Are Marshall, Invincible, Rocky, the list goes on. These are all great stories about underdogs who overcame the odds to win big. The stories are loved because people love to see the little guy win. Everyone loves to hear a story of a Cinderella team winning against the odds.

So, why on earth would the NCAA adopt a system that denies us the chance at having more of these stories. Boise State's overtime win against Oklahoma a couple of years ago was amazing. What would have made it more incredible is if they hadn't allowed Oklahoma to climb back into the game in the second half.

This year, we had the Utah Utes dominate a team that was at the top of the national rankings for five straight weeks. No one else sat atop the rankings as long as Alabama did this past year. Yet when they came into a game against a "mid-major" team, the Utes took it to them for four straight quarters. Alabama was the beneficiary of some questionable calls that changed some momentum at the end of the half, which allowed them to get closer to the Utes in score, but the final, 31-17, demonstrates that, even when the calls weren't going their way, the Utes could hold their own against a team that was supposed to be far superior.

Utah, arguably, is the best team in the nation. Rivals.com ranked Utah at number 5, one spot above Alabama, the team the Utes decimated in the Sugar Bowl. USA Today put the Utes at number 4. The AP had the Utes at number 2, right behind Florida. However, the Utes are the only undefeated team in the nation and their performance in the Sugar Bowl shows they can hang with "the best."

Rivals.com's rationale for ranking the Utes so low was that they would not have been undefeated had they played in the Big 12, the SEC, or even the PAC-10. That's nonsensical at best. Unfortunately, we'll never know exactly how good the Utes were this year because, in spite of going 1-0 against the Big 12 and 1-0 against the Pac-10, the Utes won't get a chance to go against those who, by the mere imagination of sports writers and conference officials, are considered "the best."

Utah's team this year, and in 2004, had the opportunity to produce one of the Cinderella stories that Americans love. Had they been given the opportunity to play the other conference champions, chances are they would be number 1 right now.

However, the NCAA has decided that they'd rather maintain the illusion that there are "major" conferences and teams, "mid-major" conferences and teams, and "minor" conferences and teams. Unfortunately, because the BCS plays favorites, this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The BCS caste system is exactly the suffed-shirt mentality that Ouimet's performance was able to break through to bring the game of golf to millions of Americans. Utah's performance this year will hopefully have an effect similar to that of Ouimet's certainly all Americans are aware of college football, but the possibility of a national championship is something that should be introduced to all college football programs regardless of their conference.

Dan Wetzel of Yahoo!Sports has devised a great system that pits all conference champions against each other plus four "at-large" berths. You can read about it here. The only change I would suggest would be that all conference champions should get home-field advantage over any at-large berth team. If two conference champions are pitted against one another, then the higher seed gets to play at home. But a conference champion should get to play at home against a non-conference champion.

Demos poised to steal another

2008-12-19T08:18:00.001-08:00

I read that Al Franken has closed to within 5 votes of Norm Coleman in the Minnesota Senate Race. I read about it here

Kennedy did it in 1960, Gore was poised to do it in 2000, and now Franken is looking to do it again in 2008. I'm constantly amazed at how these canvassing boards miraculously find so many votes for just one candidate - the Democrat candidate. It is a statistical anomaly that only one candidate would gain so many votes through these challenged ballots.

Something stinks, and it should follow Franken all the way to DC if he manages to pull off this fraud.

The Passing of a Giant

2008-12-02T07:55:00.000-08:00

I just learned that Elder Wirthlin passed away yesterday. I re-read his talk given last General Conference titled "Come What May - And Love It!" What wise counsel he gave - much like every talk he has given over his long, illustrious life.

The world will miss this great man, this giant. But we can comfort in knowing that he is now with his Father.

Demos move left

2008-11-20T09:51:00.000-08:00

Two years ago, the Republicans pushed hard on a platform that voters should not vote for the Democrats on their tickets because doing so would put liberals like Nancy Pelosi in power. The voters, for the most part, did not vote on this position and Nancy Pelosi became the Speaker of the House and third in line for presidential succession.

Most people who listened to, and denounced the Republican strategy felt that there was little Pelosi could do to really make a difference in politics. While she is an extreme liberal, voters felt that her influence was too limited to have an effect.

Representative Waxman, a California liberal, was just elected to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. His platform in seeking the post was that America was moving too slow on addressing issues combatting global warming. This man now sits at the helm of a very powerful committee and can control what bills hit the house floor from this committee.

It would appear that the liberals are coming home to roost. They not only have control over both chambers, they now control the White House and are dangerously close to a filibuster proof 60-vote majority in the Senate.

The election of Rep. Waxman to this post demonstrates that the liberals are controlling the Democrat Party and will start to hoist their deficit ballooning, socialist agenda on us all.

In a way I almost welcome it. Many people, at the defeat of McCain, stated that this was the end of conservativism. This death knell, however, is sounded prematurely given that McCain wasn't much of a conservative and Republicans have strayed far from true conservative principles. What I predict, however, is that the liberals will be in power for the next two years and will push a very progressive agenda. This will excite some, but will scare most others into voting for conservatives. The blowback will sound the death knell of liberal politics and those who are so desperate to look more like Europe.

Mitt Makes Sense

2008-11-19T09:23:00.000-08:00

If there is anyone whose opinion should be considered in matters of turning things around, Mitt Romney is at or near the top of the list. His Op-Ed piece in the NY Times makes a lot of sense.

Read it here

Investments are not savings!

2008-11-05T13:34:00.000-08:00

Not that it matters, but I congratulate President-elect Obama on a hard-fought win. I hope him, and all Americans, the best over the next four years.

As I perused different websites, I came across this little paragraph on Yahoo!'s website:

"After the longest and costliest campaign in U.S. history, Obama was propelled to victory by voters dismayed by eight years of Bush's presidency and deeply anxious about rising unemployment and home foreclosures and a battered stock market that has erased trillions of dollars of savings for Americans."

Now, I'm not bickering about people being fed up with President Bush. What I am bickering about is the difference between savings and investments.

If a bank went under, taking with it all of the deposit accounts it had, then people would have lost savings. However, a company's stock losing its worth is not a question of losing savings, but rather losing an investment. What's the difference? Savings is money you can count on - actually dollars put somewhere in an account that only gains interest.

Investments are never certain and there is always somewhat of a risk that the investment won't pay off. Some of us invest in less tangible things such as education. I know I will be paying for my education for years to come and the minimal interest I will pay (although it amounts to a tidy sum in the long run) is the cost of my investment. My hope is that, by buying my education on credit, the interest I pay will pale in comparison to the money I will be able to earn above and beyond what I would have earned had I not obtained a graduate degree.

Most investments, however, come in the stock market. If you invest $30,000.00 into various stocks and your investment gives a return of an additional $30,000.00, you have only made $30,000.00 if you pull that money out right then. If your "let your investment ride" and the return declines by $10,000.00, you haven't lost $10,000.00 - you have stil gained $20,000.00. Yet, the only thing most Americans would be talking about is how they "lost" $10,000.00.

Perhaps I'm still calloused by the Obama win last night, but it frustrates me to have people complain about losing money when it wasn't really theirs until they pulled it out of the stock market.

Obamanation - if it seems too good to be true...

2008-10-30T09:06:00.000-07:00

Obama lied about public financing - he made a statement on principles when he originally pledged to limit his campaign to public financing. Once he saw how much money he could raise, he quickly abandoned his principled approach to his campaign and raked in hundreds of millions of dollars (the propriety of the donations remains in question). He claimed it was to counter the attacks from the 527s (like the "swift boat attacks" that plagued Kerry's lackluster failure of a campaign). However, those attacks never materialized and Obama isn't apologizing for raising such a high standard that public financing is no longer a viable option.

I didn't see Obama's infomercial last night. I had more important things to do than to watch a self-important socialist-in-denial offer praises of himself. However, the fact that his name hasn't been plastered all over the internet from some great prophesy or messianical message means that his millions of dollars were apparently not very well spent.

I did come across this newsstory demonstrating how Obama has recognized that, due to a little inconvenience called reality, he would have to scale back his proposed platform yet he continues to promise the moon to each group who may feel that they have gotten the shaft.

Once again, Obama shows his two-faced approach to campaigning. After all, if Obama knows that he can't afford to put a chicken in every pot, why does he continue to promise as much? Is it that he doesn't understand the reality of governing? Or is he simply too steeped in sycophancy that he can't help but say what needs to be said in order to get elected?

It's something to think about.

Bush will still get blamed

2008-10-23T10:09:00.000-07:00

The Senate Site has reprinted this article as a demonstration that the Clinton administration was one of the major contributors to our current economic crisis.

Still, there is little doubt that Bush will not escape the lion's share of the blame.

Yet another Obama gaffe goes unnoticed

2008-10-16T09:52:00.000-07:00

Just as I finished publishing my last post, I stumbled across this one:

At a campaign rally, Obama stated “We had a fun night last night. I’m deeply sad that after 26 debates we have no more debates,” he said to laughter. “I was hoping to have several more.”

Does this guy think that debates aren't worth while? Obviously, after he rejected McCain's desire to have 10 debates and Obama said he only wanted 3, you have to wonder about this guy's ability to think on his feet.

Let's face it, by the time we got to any debates, McCain was already on the ropes - not due to Obama's campaign, mind you, but rather due to the faltering economy (thanks Clinton!). All Obama had to do was stay away from McCain and he "won" each debate. Like a prize fighter dancing in the middle of the ring hoping to avoid any real entanglements, Obama didn't want to get into a real debate.

Unfortunately, McCain's soft-shoe routine in the first debate set the stage. Both spent more time rehashing canned campaign speeches than really talking about issues. This played right into Obama's strategy. "Mr. Eloquence" doesn't do so well when the teleprompter isn't around. If asked questions, he retreats back to the same old nonsense that sounds good when unchecked, but in reality will do more damage to this country than any of us can imagine.

Yet, this little jab at the debating process will not be acknowledged by the media. They will go on praising the coming of the liberal messiah without realizing that this guy still has not suffered through the intensity that most political candidates face when running for election.

Bias in the Media

2008-10-16T08:16:00.000-07:00

I have argued many times with friends and colleagues about the bias in the media. I see it as blatantly biased in favor of liberals and Democrats. Those who put up with my arguments have the view that it is unbiased or even that it leans to the right.

I think this election cycle has proven that a bias exists benefiting the liberals and lefties.

Take Obama (please!) for example. Here is a guy who makes such gaffes as saying that his daughter "should not be punished with a baby" if they made a mistake and got pregnant; whose pastor for 20 years is an anti-white racist who nearly applauded the terrorist attacks of 9-11; who has no foreign policy experience (less than Gov. Palin) but spends two weeks abroad and is given a complete pass as if those two weeks make up the difference between him and McCain's experience; who completely misunderstands the reasons behind the 9-11 attacks (read it here); who gives a LOT of money to an organization who has been involved in unabashed voter fraud; a guy who, in order to gain ground in the Democrat primaries, called for a 16-month timetable and who later reversed course and stated that a timetable was in order but it depended on what was happening on the ground; the list goes on.

Some might say that this is merely due to the fact that the media is so hands-off black politicians for fear of being seen as racist that they simply cannot go after Obama's gaffes the same way they would a white politician. Does this, in and of itself, demonstrate that the media has bought into the "political correct religion" that rests as the foundation for liberal politics?

Besides, let's take a look at Senator Biden's gaffes and how, once he was out of the running for the top of the Democrat ticket, he has been able to skate past any missteps with little to no scrutiny.

Biden claims his helicopter was forced down in Afghanistan and alleges it was due to enemy activity - it was due to snow. Biden's racism demonstrates itself when he calls Barack Obama "clean". Biden threatens Obama about taking guns. Biden's earlier (and largely forgotten) misstep of plagiarizing a British politician's life in order to seem more "middle America." Biden is so out of touch with his own hometown that he doesn't know the name of "everyone's favorite restaurant." Biden claims that FDR was president in 1929 and that FDR then went on television - what planet is this guy from?

These have all gotten maybe two minutes of total airtime in the mainstream media. Why is that?

Yet, McCain states he doesn't know how many properties he and his wife own between the two of them and the media is all over the issue giving Obama's campaign free negative ads against McCain.

Then we get into the unabashed love crushes certain members of the media have demonstrated - Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, etc. These are not simply newsmen who are looking for a good story. They have both talked about how much they love this guy - look at Matthews' statement regarding the feeling creeping up his leg!

My point is that now more than ever, the media has come out of the closet and demonstrated their left-leaning biases. Anyone who still argues that it is just because Obama is a new, fresh face is lying to themselves. There are too many examples of free passes given to Obama and his campaign that are not afforded to McCain's campaign. It's ridiculous that these people then try to hold themselves out as an unbiased source of political news.

My airwaves are being used as liberal propaganda machine.

Trickle Down Effect

2008-10-13T11:58:00.001-07:00

I am a big fan of Reagan. We moved offices in June and I started to settle in before life got too hectic. The first, and only picture still, that was hung in my new office was one of Reagan. He was a great man and the best president of the 20th century.

One of the partners in my law firm jokes with me about how Bush (43) has surpassed Reagan in becoming the worst president in U.S. History. We debate the merits of Reagan's presidency and approach to the office of presidency as well as the role of the federal government in our lives. One point he always makes is that trickle down economics simply doesn't work.

This partner is my senior in years of legal experience, debating, and real world experience. I have yet to really stick it to him on any front (this is a friendly debate we have back and forth). I finally stumped him though when I pointed out that, if the little guy suffers because those "at the top" of the financial world are suffering, then isn't the inverse true?

I am no economist nor have I ever pretended to be. However, it occurs to me that if whatever is happening to the large corporations trickles down to those of us at the bottom of the food chain, then it would work both in times of financial difficulty as well as in economic vitality.

Undoubtedly, the partner will come back with a response that will cause me to start and stutter yet again, but for the moment, I revel in my victory, be it ever so small.

Do the Democrats have too much money?

2008-08-26T10:11:00.000-07:00

I've been watching a lot of tv lately. My wife and kids were out of town last week and I took the opportunity to veg a bit. I couldn't help but notice that there were a lot of political ads being run even here in Utah. Obama just opened up a campaign office here. It's almost as if the Democrats have so much money they just don't know what to do with it - so they are spending it in Republican strongholds like Utah to do something with it.

Undoubtedly, Utah will not vote for a Democrat state-wide for a while (barring unforeseen circumstances). However, with the purplification of the west, there will be a time when state-wide races become competitive outside of the Republican convention and primary cycles. It makes me wonder if the Obama campaign has so much money that they are betting on a win several years in the future by making in-roads into the Red West now.

It's a thought, at least.

The "Instant Gratification" Generation Seeps into Presidential Politics

2008-08-19T07:42:00.001-07:00

I was driving to work this morning listening to the radio (I think it was the Laura Ingraham show) and a clip was played of Obama stating that he had warned against this war saying that it would leave us in an open-ended occupation and the Iraqi government would never be able to govern the nation. He then says that McCain believed that we would stabalize the country, be welcomed as liberators, and the Iraqis would be able to pay for their own reconstruction out of their plentiful oil profits. The punchline for the quote is Obama saying 'For the sake of our country, I wish I had been wrong and Senator McCain was right, but that's just not the case.'

We have all heard the denouncements of those in my generation saying that we want instant gratification - instant potatoes, instant coffee, microwave popcorn, a cushy job with a great paycheck for doing little work, etc. What I did not realize was that my generation is not the first to expect things to happen instantaneously with little to no sacrifice.

Obviously Barrack Obama sees things the same way my generation apparently does. Obama did not want the war because he was morally opposed to it. He was apparently against the war because, as he saw it, it could not be over in two to three weeks without any casualties and with everyone joining hands singing Kumbaya. To me, that sounds like he has allowed this generation of instant gratification to seep into his thinking. He wants wars to be nice and neat - if they can't be, then he doesn't want to fight them.

That's a scary thought when we are talking about giving him control over our military forces. Unfortunately, this idea of a nice, neat, clean war is a fallacy and we are likely to end up shying away from wars that need to be fought with Obama at the helm.

Perhaps it is this desire for instant gratification that allows Obama to relate so well to younger people.

Rocky = Bush?

2008-07-28T07:31:00.000-07:00

Rocky Anderson has recently testified before Congress that President Bush should be impeached for egregious abuses of power and violations of human rights, among other things. Certainly he feels he has a case for the impeachment of this president, and Rocky has made a career out of speaking out against President Bush. It should amuse him, then, to sit down and realize that, while on opposite ends of the political spectrum, Rocky and President Bush have a lot in common.

The biggest common factor between the two is the damage they have each arguably done to their respective constituencies.

Many say that, because of President Bush's willingness to use preemptive strikes on enemies, the US has suffered major loss of credibility on the world stage. Those who like President Bush argue that he did what he had to do in order to protect this nation. Regardless, there is little doubt that America's reputation has been damaged overseas (although arguably most people who have been vocal against the US previously held the US in contempt for a variety of reasons, it's just that President Bush's actions freed them from social bounds to speak out against the US).

Similarly, Rocky Anderson, while mayor of Salt Lake City, did what he felt he had to do in order to protect citizens of Salt Lake City. This included denouncing one of the major economic forces in the city (Davis County commuters), costing the state millions upon millions of dollars in fees by fighting against the legacy highway, and generally speaking out against the LDS Church and various Republican leaders in the legislature. This has done enormous damage to Salt Lake City in its reputation within the state. The legislature is still wary of doing anything to benefit Salt Lake and Mayor Ralph Becker must spend most of his first term in office mending fences.

While most who despised President Bush adore Rocky Anderson, and vice versa, the truth is that both leaders fought for what they beleived in despite political pressure to the contrary. Rocky Anderson may be calling for President Bush's impeachment, but undoubtedly there were those who felt that Mr. Anderson deserved the same.

Being wrong and denying it

2008-07-25T08:07:00.000-07:00

Do you remember in 2004 during a town-hall style debate, President Bush was asked something to the effect of, what are the top five mistakes you've made while in office? President Bush failed to give the appropriate answer (at least by a liberal's perspective) that the Iraq war was a mistake. Bush was lambasted by most op-ed pages as being too ignorant, stubborn, or arrogant to admit when he was wrong.

Fast forward to 2008. "The Surge" has worked in Iraq and Obama now states that he knew it would all along. This, of course, would be followed up by a review of Obama's critical statements regarding the Surge by a media outlet that was not in love with Obama. So far, I've only seen a piece on Obama's flipflop from The Patriot Post:

Barack on Iraq:

January 2007—“And until we acknowledge that reality, uh, we can send 15,000 more troops; 20,000 more troops; 30,000 more troops. Uh, I don’t know any, uh, expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to, uh, privately that believes that that is gonna make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.”

July 2007—“Here’s what we know. The surge has not worked. And they said today, ‘Well, even in September, we’re going to need more time.’ So we’re going to kick this can all the way down to the next president, under the president’s plan... My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.”

September 2007—“After putting an additional 30,000 troops in... we have gone from a horrendous situation of violence in Iraq to the same intolerable levels of violence that we had back in June of 2006. So, essentially, after all this we’re back where we were 15 months ago... It is a course that will not succeed.”

January 2008—“I had no doubt, and I said when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence.”

Now: “What I said was even at the time of the debate of the surge, was if you put 30,000 troops in, of course it’s going to have an impact. There’s no doubt about that.”

This isn't mere flipflopping (the change in positions that arguably doomed Kerry and Romney's presidential bids), this is rewriting reality. Obama was against the surge, said it wouldn't work, fought against it as a Senator. Now that it worked, he was for it all along. It's easy to be on the winning side of a debate every time if you can just reach back in time and change what you had previously said against the winning side.

Most telling, of course, is that the media has failed to focus on these gaffes. Undoubtedly, given their extremely lenient coverage of the Jeremiah Wright affair coupled with the fact that no "mainstream media" outlet has dug deeper on the Rezko relationship, even if the mainstream media did cover these discrepencies between reality and Obama's revisions, it would be all excuses and understanding.

Thank Heavens

2008-06-26T08:27:00.000-07:00

The Court got the biggest case of this session right. It does not make sense to argue that all of the first ten amendments to the Constitution are personal rights except the Second Amendment.

Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Kennedy (who occasionally pulls his head out) got this one right.

Salt Lake Tribune's censorship

2008-06-09T23:12:00.000-07:00

I find it pretty amazing that liberal hypocrisy has reared its ugly head even here in the reddest state in the Union. Ok, so I'm really not that amazed, I just find the manner in which it has been manifested as very interesting.

The Salt Lake Tribune, Utah's "Independent" voice, and proud rabble-rouser (especially if it can create anti-LDS or anti-Republican sentiment) has, like most news outlets, allowed for comments to be made at the end of articles. Obviously the more controversial the news article, the more comments that are attached at the end of the article.

But the Trib has also implemented an interesting feature that allows its commentators to vote certain comments as too "negative" to appear with the rest of the comments. I don't argue that the Trib can't implement such a device or that certain censorship isn't warranted, but it amazes me at the intolerance of some people. Take a look at this article and peruse the 20 or so comments. You can uncover the hidden comments to find that there is nothing derogatory or defamatory about the comments. The only thing that causes these comments to garner enough negative votes to be hidden from immediate sight is that they disagree with Mr. Rebecca Walsh's take on the Lt. Governor's situation.

I find it amazing that the liberals who eat up Ms. Walsh's often flawed reasoning and conclusory writing fail to see the merit in the comments of those who disagree with them. If someone wants to make a valid point that is in favor of the Republican party, those who are undoubtedly the "champions of tolerance" find the difference of opinion simply intolerable.

These First Amendment Freedom of Speech fighters are happy to fight for the right of individuals to stand on property owned by the LDS Church and decry the LDS Church for its alleged shortcomings, and yet these same people cannot stand even the sight of comments that are favorable to the Republican party. In fact, these individuals find comments that question Ms. Walsh's conclusions or that defend the Republican party or its members so intolerable that they will spare us all from being exposed to them.

Liberal hypocrisy is inescapable. With the "purplification" of the West, I'm sure we've seen only the beginning of what promises to be a long, insufferable exposure to the points of view of those who believe Government is the answer to all questions and the Republican party is the root of all evil. Still, even though it may be annoying, differing points of view are appreciable and should not be censored simply because someone disagrees with them.

Obama's fist bump

2008-06-06T15:47:00.001-07:00

What the crap?! I just read a headline that states the "fist bump" is catching on as a new trend in the U.S. Did this reporter just wake up from a 20-year coma? Did people in charge at Yahoo (who put the headline on their home page) just start paying attention to American culture? I mean, come on, Obama is being attributed the trend of bumping fists?! What has Howie Mandel been doing for the past year on Deal or No Deal?

When I first caught some noise about the fist bump, I thought that perhaps the newsstory was about how odd it was to have two people apparently in love, on one of the biggest nights in their lives, on the biggest stage of their lives, show their emotion to one another by merely bumping fists.

I can't help but recall "the kiss" between Al Gore and his wife. That was one of the most contrived phony kisses I've ever seen - and yet it still seemed more real than Obama's show of affection to his wife. I mean really, a fist-bump.

I can only imagine how other enormous events in this couple's life are celebrated. Perhaps after their first child was born Barrack took his infant in his arms, walked over to his wife, and gave his wife a pat on the head. Perhaps on the night Barrack won his seat in the Illinois Senate she wrote him a nice congratulatory note and sent it to him via mail. When Barrack took the U.S. Senate seat, the two were witnessed giving each other a high-five.

Is this normal? Doesn't this seem odd that these two would only fist bump on the night that Barrack essentially clinches the Democrat nomination? Yet, instead of covering the oddity of these two bumping fists, all that the news can report is how Obama single-handedly (pun intended) invented a new trend that happened to have existed for a couple of years prior to him doing it. Perhaps the comparisons between Obama and Gore don't stop with the odd way of showing their emotion (or lack thereof) of their spouses. I just hope that the similarities don't end there. I'm fine if Obama wins a nobel prize, as long as he doesn't win the White House.

Obama's health care plan

2008-06-04T14:42:00.000-07:00

While short on specifics, Obama's "blueprint for change" is not short on socialism. Reading the section on health care, Obama makes the promise that his new national health system will lower health care premiums for most families - by as much as $2500!!

There is never a mention of how he plans on paying for the lowering of health care premiums, or providing subsidies for those who still have a hard time paying for the "new lower rates" provided by Obama's national health care plan. His plan also calls for private health plans to provide coverage to individuals with affordable rates that do not depend on the health of the individuals, but again, there is no mention of how this will realistically be paid for.

Obama pays lip service to lowering costs through innovation and moving to a paperless system. In reality, innovating new ideas and moving to a paperless net-based system takes time and money. I doubt he'll wait until everything is in place and paid for before forcing this system on private health carriers.

In truth, the only way to pay for this amazing health plan is to raise taxes.

Let's not forget that Obama is wealthy - incredibly wealthy. His book alone brought in a couple of millions of dollars. I'd love to see how much of that he willingly gave up by paying as much in taxes as possible. Yet, his plan is to steal money from working Americans to pay for the health care coverage of others.

I'm all for being compassionate and giving to charities and the needy. I just think that it should be voluntary and not forced through extra-constitutional measures.

Obama's "change"

2008-06-03T14:17:00.000-07:00

I took a break from work when I saw headlines that Clinton was planning to concede defeat this evening (turns out she is denying any such concession) and wandered over to Obama's website. In order to learn more about this guy's approach I downloaded his "blueprint for change."

The first few points are in regards to transparency in government - ending "special interests" and lobbyists' "control of Congress and the White House." Nothing earth shattering there and there are some interesting ideas. Its pretty obvious that he puts this nonoffensive stuff upfront to make him seem like he really cares about this "change" that he keeps touting.

As part of this transparency, he states that he will reform the political appointee process and then puts his Democrat hat on to make the next statement -

"FEMA Director Michael Brown was not qualified to head the agency, and the result was a disaster for the people of the Gulf Coast. But in an Obama administration, every official will have to rise to the standard of proven excellence in the agency’s mission."

So, apparently, FEMA director personally caused Hurricane Katrina, broke those levees all decades after he convinced a whole lot of people to move to an unstable area that is below sea level right next to the ocean.

Now, I'm no supervillain, but I've seen plenty of them on TV and in the movies. It seems to me that if Michael Brown could cause hurricanes, he'd find a way to make himself absolutely filthy stinking rich rather than attacking people who live in New Orleans.

Obviously Sen. Obama's point is that FEMA did not do enough in the aftermath of the hurricane. Yet, even in this thought process, the politics of change that Obama touts really do not incorporate change. Rather, Obama highlights the long-lasting belief held by most all democrats on the national scene that somehow the federal government is there to save people from bad decisions.

This is not the role of the federal government and the Constitution does not grant the federal government the power to take tax dollars from the rest of Americans, put them on a debit card, and hand them out to individuals claiming to have been damaged in some way by living in an area prone to hurricanes and flooding.

Obama's "change" is not "change" but is socialism brought out from the shadows of the Democrat platform.

Texas Supreme Court Ruling

2008-05-30T14:48:00.000-07:00

I'm a huge fan of Lost (then again, given my waist line, I'm a "huge" fan of anything I like). So, I spent two hours last night with my mouth agape at the different twists and turns the producers of Lost threw into the season finale.

While I enjoyed the show, one thing kept bugging me throughout the broadcast. Toward the end of the show, Channel 4 News would air its promo for the evening news. In that promo the anchor kept saying that the Texas Supreme Court ruling was a big win for the FLDS.

In reality, this is a big win for us all. As I've stated in previous blogs, the Texas raid was not merely an affront to the Fourth Amendment rights of those directly affected, but it was an affront to all of us who still believe that theh Fourth Amendment was designed to protect us from government intrusion into our lives.

These officers marched onto private property and wrenched children from the arms of their mothers in the name of protecting the children from abuse. These same children were then subjected to horrible treatment, devastating fear of losing their families, and ridicule by those who were employed to help the children. Given the latest court ruling, I can only hope that the FLDS people engage the Texas justice system in a civil battle for the violations of constitutional rights that the officers inflicted on these people.

I'll end with another disclaimer that the actions of some of these FLDS people disgust me. The "marriage" and rape of these underage girls is abominable and these men (and those who condone it) will have to answer for their actions some day. However, this blanket destruction of families, homes and this community based on one phony call and a lie regarding a fictitious pregnant girl is almost as disgusting because condoning this ridiculous raid serves to destroy the basis of our free society.

Texas raid ruled improper by Texas appellate court

2008-05-22T11:22:00.000-07:00

You can read the written ruling here (Thanks to CNN.com).

This is a victory for all parents. No one is arguing that the forced under-age marraige and rape of little girls or the other alleged sexual molestation of children should be protected. However, to grant the state the ability to raid a compound (trampling Fourth Amendment rights along the way) is travesty and a violation of constitutional rights.

As a conservative, I am always advocating for less government involvement in our lives. I agree that where an appropriate agency can demonstrate with sufficient evidence that a child faces imminent harm, that the state should take some action to prevent the harm to that child. However, to grant any agency such blanket authority to march into private citizens' homes without proving the imminent harm that a child faces is an affront to the limitations the Founding Fathers sought to place on all governments. (Argument regarding Incorporation notwithstanding.)

The Obama problem

2008-05-08T07:22:00.001-07:00

Obama has spent the last few days and weeks attempting to distance himself from Jeremiah Wright (an ironic name given his political leanings). Better writers than I, including Charles Krauthammer and Thomas Sowell, have done excellent jobs in pointing out Obama's consistently inconsistent stance on the Reverend Wright and the troubles Obama has run into in embracing and then distancing himself from his reverend of 20 years.

The problem that I wanted to reference relates to an old political adage. The saying goes, you move to the extreme during primaries and then back to the middle for the general election. Obama's problem is that he's had to move himself from the extreme far left (a la Reverend Wright's positions on America, whites, and terrorism) more toward the middle just to be accepted by his own party. When the general election comes around, he'll have a hard time taking any positions that resound with the majority of Americans.

The solution to his problem (which remains a problem for the rest of us) is handed to him on a silver platter by the left-leaning "mainstream media." They don't seem to care that this guy has been attending a racist's sermons for 20 years, nor do they seem to care that this guy's soundbites come more from Karl Marx than any original thinking. Obama has been given a free pass by all mainstream media outlets. They really don't care what this guy says, as long as it causes them to swoon they will endorse him and fall all over themselves attempting to look like the more tolerant entity.

The irony is that, right after 9-11 liberals constantly harped on their new mantra "to criticize the U.S. does not make one un-patriotic." While I agree with that statement, liberals would often use it to avoid being criticized on any ground by labeling the critics as right-wing nuts who believe America is infallible.

Now the shoe is on the other foot. Liberals will jump all over any individual who criticizes Obama's policies, lack of substance, and associations by making blanket statements about the critic being racist or intolerant. Whereas before they could criticize the U.S. without reproach, now they denounce anyone who criticizes Obama as improper.

The inconsistencies, and unwillingness to allow Obama to be truly vetted is the biggest cause for concern for any American, whether they love America or wish that God would damn it. Unfortunately, the latter group welcomes this lack of media scrutiny with open arms.

Automatic delegates in the Salt Lake County Republican Party

2008-04-03T13:40:00.000-07:00

I attended my neighborhood caucus meeting and came away somewhat dismayed. While we engaged in the usual aspects of this meeting (election of precinct officers, delegates, etc.) we also opened the floor and had a few discussions regarding various issues concerning our party. By far, the most important issue to those there that night was the issue of automatic delegates.

I, personally, am torn on the issue of automatic delegates.

I think that having elected officials serve as delegates, without taking away from the delegates who are apportioned throughout the county's precincts makes sense. Obviously, if the County Chair is elected by the members of the county party, he has gained the approval of the people he serves. This does not place him above the rest of us, but solidifies his support of the members of the party. The same goes for other elected officials within the party.

However, on the other hand, the fact that a county chair has been elected does not mean that he will be re-elected. If he is unpopular and facing a tough opponent at the organizing convention, why does he get to vote for himself without winning support at his local caucus.

The most frustrating part about this debate is that there are few who fully understand every facet of the issue. For instance, at my caucus meeting there was some question as to who becomes automatic delegates. Obviously there are elected officials who gain that status, but there were those present who questioned whether the "cronies" of the elected officials don't also gain status of automatic delegate. Then there was a question raised regarding what happens when some delegates don't show up to convention and whether they are replaced by friends of "those in power."

All of this serves to prove my main point. One thing I think we struggle with in our county party is transparency. The issue of automatic delegates has been around for years and years. Each year there is a push to make some headway in the matter, and each year, those interested go home disappointed. From my experience as a delegate, this is generally what happens:

The delegates show up to convention ready to tackle the election of candidates. There are groups hell-bent on getting the issue of automatic delegates resolved, but they remain a minority. The rest of the delegates really don't seem to either know enough about the issue to have an opinion, or they just don't care about it.

Since the main reason why everyone is there is to elect candidates, the voting gets pushed to the front of the agenda. Once the voting has taken place, most delegates leave. Before the issues of the inner-workings of the party can be addressed, debated, and determined, someone calls for a quorum count or moves to adjourn and the meeting is suspended or ended.

Some believe that this is a concerted effort by those in power to retain their positions as automatic delegates. Others claim it is a lack of support for those against the automatic delegates that causes this issue to remain in the background.

Regardless, it seems that this issue keeps making noise and keeps surfacing giving the Republican Party in Salt Lake County and the state a black eye. So, considering that we have central committee meetings, executive committee meetings, organizing conventions and nominating conventions where this issue is discussed, why has no one with authority come out and explained exactly what happens with automatic delegates or replacement delegates (for those slots where no one shows at convention)? Further, why has no one stepped forward with a clear and convincing explanation as to why the automatic and replacement delegates should continue the way that they do?

What harm can come from having a clear, civil debate on this issue? If there is fear that the issue will b muddled in the debate, why not strike the first blow and explain the whole process?

Talk about compassion

2008-04-02T08:33:00.001-07:00

“Look, I got two daughters—9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.” —Barack Obama

Stories have surfaced regarding Barack Obama's extremely liberal stances on most issues. Apparently his staffers had a hard time getting him to moderate his stances in order to make him more electable. I think that this quote (thanks Patriot Post!) demonstrates exactly how liberal, and dangerous, this guy is.

Most people think of a baby as a wonderful thing in this life. Barack Obama sees a new life as a punishment!!

The thing that makes Barack Hussein Obama most dangerous is that, like the Clintons last decade, the rules do not apply to him. He can talk out of both sides of his mouth and the media fall over themselves trying to demonstrate how his double-standards merely show how much a man-of-the-people he is.

Honestly, if anyone other than Barack had said something so banal, so stupid, so immoral, the media would have ended that person's presidential bid. Also, if John McCain had attended a church at any point in his life where the pastor made such racist and anti-American comments as Obama's preacher, John McCain's bid for the presidency would be over.

For those of you who happen to stumble onto this blog, be very wary of Obama. He puts on a good show full of style and grand rhetoric. But he does not lack substance as some have accused. Rather, he has substance that is so offensive to most Americans, that he must keep it hidden until after he (heaven forbid) gets elected, otherwise his candidacy would be over by now.

The media is too busy demonstrating to everyone that they are tolerant and not racist to give this guy a real hard look and uncover some of his appaling stances on the issues. It's scary when an individual gets a free pass from the media throughout the primary process.

Continued Erosion of the 4th Amendment

2008-03-17T11:42:00.000-07:00

One of the defining principles of freedom is limiting government. For the past year or so, I started my career as an attorney after having spent a year as a law clerk to a state court judge in Alaska. That year in Alaska was eye-opening for many reasons, not the least of which was the constant barrage of attacks on our 4th Amendment rights.

Most police officers are doing their best to fulfill a needed and very dangerous role in our society. However, there are those who overstep their bounds in order to investigate a "hunch" that they have. I don't doubt that most of these "hunches" turn out to be wrong and the officer has engaged in an extra-constitutional action by causing an innocent person to be subjected to a 4th Amendment search and seizure.

The loss in applying the exclusionary rule to evidence seized in a manner outside of the 4th Amendment is not that occasionally an innocent man might go free. The danger lies in the principle that without the 4th Amendment (or at least if the constant dilution continues) we are faced with a police force to whom the law does not apply.

Unfortunately, as highlighted here the erosion continues and people are uncertain of their rights and their ability to refuse entry into their home to the officers. Some may call it a slipperty slope, but considering what is constantly proposed in all 51 legislatures in this nation, it is only a matter of time before we find ourselves subject to more and more police control in our lives.

Sweet Justice

2008-02-18T13:04:00.000-08:00

The Democrats' fast and easy manipulation of elections after the votes are cast and counted is now being used against one of their own. See Hope Yen's article fromt he Associated Press as reproduced on deseretnews.com here

For those who still believe that Bush somehow stole the election in 2000, it remains a mystery how, recount after recount, only one candidate continued to receive more and more votes. The only logical conclusion is that with each recount, votes were somehow manipulated into being in favor of Al Gore. The funny thing is that the Democrats were adamant about continuing the recounts and would have been (were it not for the Supreme Court ending the madness) up until the point where the ballots were manipulated enough to give Al Gore more votes than Pres. Bush. But, once that happened, any attempt to have the votes recounted again would have been vehemenently denounced by the same Democrats.

Still, if nothing else, this attempt to have the delegates seated from a flawed election for the Democratic party in Florida and Michigan shows exactly how desperate Hillary Clinton is at this point in time. These maneuvers, coupled with the sudden media divorce from the recent love-fest for Obama, may just push Clinton into a win on March 4.

Regardless, whether Obama wins the nomination and faces the moderate, but experienced McCain, or Clinton manages to steal this one from Obama (and faces the disappointment of all those voters who are "all whooped up" for Obama) things are starting to look good for McCain. While some may argue that what looks good for McCain does not necessarily look good for the Republican Party, I can only imagine what the Court could look like were Obama or Clinton to be elected.

So, while we may not be fond of McCain, as our standard bearer, he will likely do more good than harm to conservative principles.

2008-02-05T12:54:00.000-08:00

“The fact that the market is not doing what we wish it would do is no reason to automatically assume that the government would do better. There are too many examples of government interventions that made things worse, the Great Depression of the 1930s being the most tragic. Those on the left love to believe that the stock market crash of 1929 showed the failure of the free market and that the New Deal interventions in the 1930s saved the day. But the stock market crash of 1987 was just as big and Ronald Reagan resisted loud calls for him to intervene. The result was not another Great Depression but the beginning of a decades-long period of prosperity. Before Presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt came along, there was no expectation that the federal government would intervene when the stock market crashed or when there was a downturn in the economy. Previous stock market crashes and previous downturns in the economy worked themselves out faster and less painfully than the Great Depression of the 1930s, just as the 1987 crisis did. The track record of government intervention is far less impressive than its rhetoric.”—Thomas Sowell (Thanks to the Patriot Post)

This, if nothing else, is the second best reason (the first being constitutional grounds) to avoid allowing the federal government to get involved in any sort of national health care system. The Democrats are always clamoring for more government. What remains to be seen is anything that the government does well.

Yet another example of Reaganism vs. FDRism and a clear win by Reaganism.

Compassionate Conservatism

2008-02-04T12:01:00.000-08:00

As much as Pres. Bush likes to soften the media's viewpoint of conservatism, here, in the words of the Great Communicator, is true compassionate conservatism. (Thanks to the Patriot Post!)

“I’m sure everyone feels sorry for the individual who has fallen by the wayside or who can’t keep up in our competitive society, but my own compassion goes beyond that to the millions of unsung men and women who get up every morning, send the kids to school, go to work, try and keep up the payments on their house, pay exorbitant taxes to make possible compassion for the less fortunate, and as a result have to sacrifice many of their own desires and dreams and hopes. Government owes them something better than always finding a new way to make them share the fruit of their toils with others.”—Ronald Reagan

Great Quote III

2008-01-30T08:34:00.000-08:00

“[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.”

-- James Madison, Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 6, 1788

Thanks to Utah Policy Daily.

The issue of federalism was, unfortunately, discarded as an issue back in the 1930s. That was the last time any government program was discarded as extra-constitutional. We haven't really looked back since and now we have a government that ever increases its role in our lives. Politicians are quick to describe how their proposed government programs will help us with the problems that allegedly run rampant in our lives.

In truth, the government has never done anything effectively or efficiently, other than take our money - and even that is hardly efficient. Take a look at FEMA. Liberals, especially, decry the way in which that government agency handled the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. It was abysmal, but instead of questioning whether it could be handled through different channels, Democrats responded the only way they know how, criticize Republican-appointees, blame the Republican administration, and set out to throw more money at the ineffective government program.

What we should be getting back to is the basic question of whether the federal government has the authority to conduct the actions we wish to attribute to it. If we focus on the enumerated powers, and abide by the 10th Amendment, I think we would find more money in our pockets and problems with solutions that make sense for our individual communities. After all, how is someone in Washington D.C. going to know better than someone here, locally, how to act where the Constituion allows, solve problems where the government can help, and stay out of the way when things are going well?

The federal government has run rampant. It needs to be stopped and we need to restore the power of the federal government to the limits placed upon it by the Constitution. Without that, we will find ourselves increasingly regulated to the point where we no longer have control over much of what goes on in our lives.

Great Quote II

2008-01-23T08:33:00.000-08:00

“No man’s life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session.” —Judge Gideon Tucker

Take a look at what our Legislature is doing. HB 10 states that if you do not identify yourself to a police officer, then you can be charged and found guilty of a Class B misdemeanor. Granted, in order for an officer to be able to charge you under the statute, he has to have reasonable articulable suspicion that some criminal activity is afoot. However, it is rare for an officer not to have some reasonable articulable suspicion when he's had a couple of weeks to prepare to testify at trial.

Then there's SB14 whereby the Legislature wants to prohibit smoking in cars while a child is there. While it is a noble cause that Senator Scott McCoy is attempting to fight, the means of reaching into a privately owned vehicle and regulating activities that happen there do not justify the end of attempting to protect children from their parents. I will say that this bill has a better approach than, say, a bill that attempts to do the same thing only in a private residence. The trouble is that once government has established a precedent of regulating such activities, there is little left to stand in the way of overstepping the bounds and reaching into a private residence.

Great Quote

2008-01-21T08:57:00.000-08:00

This came from The Patriot Post.

“A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers.” —Ronald Reagan

Unfortunately, on a national level, there is this push for what liberals call bi-partisanship. In reality, it is a push for conservatives to compromise their standards while liberals continue to break down the structure of this country to make room for socialist programs. More and more Republicans are buying into that idea, and we have found our party being pushed to the middle in the hopes of appeasing more people.

If there is a lesson to be learned from Reagan's 1984 landslide victory, it is that when the national party has a leader who is sincerely invested in true conservative ideals, and has the ability to communicate those ideals to the people, it only makes sense for the people to vote to implement those conservative principles.

Extra-constitutional

2008-01-11T09:45:00.000-08:00

I got this from Utah Policy Daily's website.

"Jan. 11, 1944: President Roosevelt in his State of the Union speech to Congress proposes a National Service Act and a new set of rights that included: a right to a job, a right of decent income to farmers, a right to a decent home, a right to medical care, etc. (Source: Perspicuity)"

Even if you believe people are entitled to these things, there is no authority for the federal government to get involved on any of these fronts. The federal government does not create authority (as President Roosevelt purported to do here), rather, it is granted authority by the people via the Constitution. There is no authority in the Constitution to guarantee these rights. It just does not exist.

This was one of the biggest steps in creating extra-constitutional movements by the president and congress. It has all been downhill since then. What a sad day for our country.

Public School Funding

2007-09-14T13:27:00.000-07:00

Here's a general question that no one seems to be able to answer. If Utah spends more than $5,000 on educating a child currently enrolled in public school, and that student opts out of public school to attend private school, and Utahns pass referrendum 1 this fall, what happens to the money that is collected from taxpayers but not used on that child's public education?

After all, even if the child receives the largest amount available under the proposed voucher system, that still leaves more than $2000 that is not being used by that student but still collected from the taxpayers. What happens to that money? I can't imagine that it would no longer be collected. So, if it is collected and not used for the education of that child, where does it go?

Taxes

2007-07-11T15:58:00.000-07:00

According to this story, Utah redistributes the least amount of money to "poor families with children."

This is a study of per capita spending and doesn't tell us how many in each state receive that funding. So, in reality, Utah could spend more per person than the other 49 states by having fewer people who fit into the category of "poor families with children" and spreading any money collected from taxpayers over that smaller group.

According to the computations by the Utah Taxpayers Association of Utah's tax burden (seen here) is at 16% (5th highest in the nation).

I would wager a guess that if Utah were to take much more from its taxpayers, the number of people who would qualify as "poor families with children" would increase decisively.

I'm all for giving to one another. It is the only way to become truly rich. I just don't know why the government should be involved.

I would guess that one of the reasons for such low governmental redistribution of money is that we, as a people, are generally much more giving than any other state. Certainly the LDS Church plays a significant role in that area. However, I have seen more people of all faiths, creeds, and walks of life willing to help a neighbor more often in Utah than anywhere else. Giving to others is a worthwhile venture and anyone who is willing to make a donation of time or money to another receives dividends that cannot be measured.

Having your money taken from you is rarely met with the same dividends or received with the same appreciation.

Utah's tax collectors may not dole out the most money per capita in spite of collecting the 5th highest percentage in the nation, but Utah's streets are not littered with those who have gone without. We must be doing something right.

Cell phones and drunk driving

2007-06-24T00:58:00.001-07:00

Rocky Anderson has taken a great approach to a growing problem. He has sponsored this site as a way for residents of Salt Lake City to pledge to hang up while they are driving. More power to him.

The thing I like the most about this approach is that it is voluntary. While Rocky's preferred approach would undoubtedly be to legislate this issue, fortunately the state legislature tied Rocky's hands by passing HB 423 during the 2006 session.

HB 423 prohibits any municipality or county government from banning the use of cell phones within its borders. I applaud this legislation because it prevents a situation where someone driving in South Salt Lake City and driving on a cell phone from being ticketed for carrying on that conversation as the driver crosses into Salt Lake City. Not only is this legislation to prevent further legislation, the inconsistencies from city to city would cause headaches galore.

However, there is another reason why I like this bill. We already have laws preventing us from driving erratically. If you are driving down the road and you swerve between two lanes without signaling or break other traffic laws, you are subject to being pulled over and ticketed. It does not, nor should it matter whether that is because you are talking on your cell phone, attending to a baby in the backseat, doing your makeup, or eating your lunch. If there are laws already in existence banning an action, why create a law that punishes someone for doing something that MIGHT lead to that action?

Studies have shown that driving while on a cell phone may distract some people so that an affected person's reaction times are similar to those of a drunk driver. I have yet to see what the comparison is between the reaction time of a drunk driver and that of someone driving while doing their makeup, attending to someone else in the car, carrying on a discussion with someone else in the car, or eating while driving. If those prove to cause a driver's reaction time to become similar to that of a drunk driver should we pass legislation to ban those from happening in the car too?

At what point is there too much legislation?

Unlike the physiology of alcohol in the system, the effect of talking on the cell phone while driving may not be an impairment whatsoever. For me personally, even talking to someone in the car with me can cause me distraction when I am driving in the city. In those situations, the conversation usually suffers to the point that it isn't worth continuing until after we are out of the car or until we are driving on a stretch of highway with few cars. That is my choice, and it should remain a choice. Others certainly have better and different skills than me and I would hesitate to decrease their freedom because of my different abilities.

I like the pledge offered to those driving on Salt Lake's streets. It places before us the greater issue of safe driving and pushes us to avoid driving while distracted. The voluntariness of this program asks us to evaluate our own driving habits and determine whether we should also hang up and drive. We don't need the state or city to do our thinking for us, but we should have leaders who present us with issues and suggest solutions that we may adopt in our lifestyles without the solution being legislated upon us.

Immigration in America

2007-06-19T23:31:00.000-07:00

At the heart of the debate as to what to do about the illegal immigration problem is the question of why people want to come to this country so desperately that they'd leave life as they know it behind in pursuit of the unknown. The likely reason is because life as they know it isn't worth sticking around for.

Immigrants come to America for the opportunities this land provides. Perhaps, in a way, the opportunities provided are too great in that the likelihood of finding a better life here is so high that immigrants don't want to wait to be sifted through the legal process.

Underneath this premise, however, is the truth that immigrants are good for America. There is certainly the argument that we all come from families who were, at some point, immigrants (except, perhaps American Indians). Much could also be said regarding how much America has benefited from allowing immigrants into this great land. But what, if anything, do immigrants offer now?

While I disagree with the argument that immigrants take jobs that Americans don't want, I do believe that immigrants take jobs at a lower cost than most Americans would. This is evident given that an immigrant (whether here legally or not) is much more willing to take a job at $7/hour than the average American because for those of us accustomed to life here, $7/hour isn't very much money at all. However, if an immigrant comes here from a life where he made $7/day or even $7/week, then suddenly $7/hour means the guy is quite wealthy.

But who can live off of $7/hour, one might ask. I can't imagine making $7/ hour now. I've got school loans to pay off, debts to family and other creditors, as well as a standard of living to which I've grown accustomed. However, if I have created a life where I'm used to living off of $7 a day or a week, and suddenly I am making that much in an hour, I can afford to increase my standard of living while still saving money to help out friends and family and to save for a rainy day.

That's great, but as an American, what good does that do me? Well, just as I benefit from outsourcing to other countries, I also benefit from in-sourcing less expensive labor. If dry-walling an entire house costs me $500 in labor with a crew made up mostly of immigrants who are willing to work for lower wages, then I benefit when the same work would cost me two or three times that much with an American crew.

Does that make me less of a patriot? Not at all. I am a firm believer in the American dream. Neither of my parents graduated from college in spite of their incredible intelligence. However, through some hard work, support, and determination from both my parents and us kids individually, my parents can now boast that all six of their kids are at least college graduates. While my Mom and Dad provided a good home and a lot of support, we kids were also able to draw on scholarships and programs to help us afford getting through that door to a better life. I want to ensure that those who are so willing to come to America are afforded the same opportunities that I was and that each generation of a family becomes better than the last.

While the initial generaion "pays its dues" in making a fraction of the wages that an American worker might demand, the sons and daughters of that immigrant generation will grow in a much different world where they will be given more opportunities and have the ability and the skills necessary to make more money.

Immigration also provides America with less expensive "unskilled" labor. It also provides, however, an influx of international "skilled" labor. During my two year LDS Church mission in France, I often ran into doctors, PhDs, researchers and scientists who dreamed of coming to America. Why? Because, with the free market system that defines America, they can make a lot more money and feel that their efforts and contributions are more justly rewarded.

America has always benefited from allowing immigrants to come here. America is immigration. The opportunities presented here far out-shine most other legal opportunities presented in other countries. They need us and we need them.

There are not only economic benefits that come from immigration. We also benefit socially from allowing these other cultures to influence our way of thinking. I doubt you'll be very well employed south of the border as a collector for a credit card company or as a divorce attorney. Jerry Springer and Montel Williams would have a hard time broadcasting in Spanish because questions of paternity arise in many other nations at a frequency far below the levels we see here in America.

As Dinesh D'Souza explained in his book, Letters to a Young Conservative,
"[I]mmigrants are frequently the solution to [America's] cultural and moral decline. Immigrants often have very strong family values, as shown by low divorce and illegitimacy rates. Immigrants have a strong work ethic and practice the virtues of frugality and deferred gratification." One might even suggest that America's culture would benefit from opening our borders even more to allow immigrants into this nation.

Regardless of how many immigrants we let into this great country, we must establish some order in which they enter so as to avoid allowing those we know who want to do harm to this nation and its people from entering in. Successful measures have been taken along various points of the border to build fences and walls so as to stem the tide of people pouring over the borders. Furthering those efforts would provide the stability needed to ensure that we know who is entering this country.

However, no wall high enough or long enough will keep those out who are determined to come here unless there the process for coming here legally is streamlined. What is the process and how do we streamline it? I don't know. But when an immigrant here is told that the process to bring friends and family here won't even begin until five years or more after the paperwork is filed, the fence on the border will be tested to its limits.

America and Americans benefit from immigrants and immigrants benefit from coming here. We need to do what we can to ensure that those who come here do so safely and orderly to protect them and to protect us. Once they are here, neighborhoods and communities should create programs to facilitate assimilation and to create collaborative feelings among neighbors old and new. Perhaps my vision of immigration is a little from Kumbayah-land, but it certainly beats the alternative where we lose the opportunity to benefit from immigrants and immigrants cannot take full advantage of the opportunities in this land that make it great.

Money in Education

2007-06-02T09:35:00.000-07:00

Your money won't buy you happiness - at least that's what my Mom always tells me.

Yet in education, money is everything. Much is made of how many dollars the state spends in per pupil expenditures. Last week a newsstory reported that we had slipped back into the 51st spot on a list of 51. We apparently spend about $5200 per student which is $1000 less than Arizona - which is in the 50th spot. The article also highlights the $216.6 million increase in spending on education thanks to this year's legislature but laments that even such an increase in spending will do little to move us from last place.

So, the question becomes, when is more money ever going to be enough?

The traditional method of funding education has done little to help us out. The reasons may range from lack of funding oversight (I've heard several anecdotes about administrators making a very large sum of money while teachers struggle to stay above the poverty level)to simply being impossible given our propensity for large families and a small tax base. Regardless, the point is traditional methods of funding education are not working and likely will not work without a revolutionary change in the funding process. So, why not give vouchers a try?

Vouchers may not be the perfect system, but the two laws that implement this voucher program certainly give us a chance to try a different approach to education funding. It gives parents an option to try to get a better return for their money while leaving classrooms fully funded. I've yet to hear an argument against vouchers that was anything more than conjecture and speculation.

If our current system isn't working, how is putting more money through the system going to make it better?

RCIP Meet the Candidates Night (Friday Night!)

2007-04-26T18:58:00.000-07:00

Salt Lake County Republican Party Delegates:

The County Party’s Organizing Convention will be held on Saturday, May 5th. At this convention you will be electing new County Party Officers. To give you an opportunity to speak with and listen to the candidates for these positions, Republicans for Civil and Informed Participation (RCIP) cordially invites you to attend the following:

Meet the Candidates Night
6:30 pm
Friday
April 27, 2007
Council Chambers, Salt Lake County Complex
2001 South State Street

For more information, please visit the RCIP website at www.danishgrove.net/rcip or contact us via email at nicegop@yahoo.com.

Micah Bruner, Vice Chair
Republicans for Civil and Informed Participation

Vouchers

2007-03-26T23:41:00.000-07:00

I love the idea of a good referendum. What better way to include the ultimate check and balance than by allowing the consent of the governed to be withdrawn by the governed. While we live in a democratic republic, there should always be a manner whereby we can directly question the actions taken by our legislature. The republic aspect of our government allows for the practical approach to concentrating power in the hands of a few who can dedicate their time and efforts to learning the specific details of an issue and to vote according to their view of what will be best for those whom they represent.

Still, to simply rely on "the government" to tell us everything that we should be doing (see San Franciscos ban on plastic grocery bags) we should have a method whereby we can rebut our legislators' thought process. The referendum retains power in the hands of the people of this country. That is where it originates and that is where it should remain.

Once the process is initiated, however, we take upon ourselves the responsibility of carefully reviewing and researching the question before us. The legislators who voted on it initially certainly put in the time and effort to understand this voucher system. We owe it to ourselves to do the same.

That having been said, I have to ask the question, where is the harm done by the twin bills that enacted the voucher program? The two bills allow for those who, with an extra $500 - $3000, can send their child to a charter or private school while keeping the amount of money in the child's former public-school classroom unchanged. Isn't it at least worth a look?

We have spent billions of dollars attempting to cover the amount it costs us to educate our children. Each increase is followed by a call for more increases. At some point, we have to ask ourselves, isn't it worthwhile to at least attempt something other than that which we have been doing for the past couple of decades? The old adage comes to mind referring to a definition of insanity.

Rather than buying into the myth that more money will solve all our problems, why not try a different approach now when we have the money to buffer the current funding system from ultimate failure? Plus, if this system does suffer some catastrophic failure, are we really worse off? Would starting fresh not allow us to readjust where the money is spent. I constantly hear anectdotes about how much money school district administrators make. Perhaps revamping the entire system would be a good idea.

Still, the way in which the twin voucher bills are designed, now is a good time to try a different approach to funding schools. If the referendum sponsors comply with the requirements to get this issue directly before voters, great! I just question how violently most people oppose this new idea that could very well lead us down a path to solving our education funding woes at a time when we can afford to look at other options.

So, if the voucher process goes forward (and the requisite number of signatures are obtained) then the system is put into work. However, I admonish all to carefully review the voucher program and ask if it wouldn't be better to give this a try now when we can afford it than to have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea of vouchers. Otherwise, we exchange the legislature for the NEA and other "special interests" who have the money to engage in a slander campaign.

So, if we have a referendum on the balance, let's do what the process was intended to do. If we don't trust the legislature with this vote, we shouldn't trust the NEA, UEA, or any of the pro-voucher interest groups with the task of doing the studying and research of this issue.

45 Days of Glory

2007-03-11T18:01:00.000-07:00

As a Republican and a conservative, I am often underappreciative of what having a 45-day legislative session really means.

I was once in a conversation with former Rep. Lorraine Pace. I asked her if it wasn't a little unfair that the session was only 45 days considering that it kept a lot of people from serving. Many individuals really are kept from being able to serve because they cannot take a 45 day leave of absence from their jobs to conduct the state's business. I was surprised when she stated that while some may not be able to serve, it is far better to have those who do serve return to their homes and live under the laws they spent 45 days creating.

I couldn't agree more.

Looking at Congress, there is nothing I would love more than to see these 535 individuals actually attempt to live life as an average citizen under the laws that they spent the majority of the year promulgating. As it is, the members of Congress generally spend most of their time living in the federal city making laws that attempt to control the lives of the more than 300 million people who live in this great country.

Even more, the 45-day session limits the reach into our lives that our legislators attempt to extend. In the general election last November, the citizens of Alaska approved a proposition to limit the legislative session to 90 days. It had been as long as 120 days. The debate that surrounded the citizens' initiative boiled down to those who thought the government needed more time to "better serve" the citizens of the state and those who thought that the less time the legislators spent trying to justify the time they were spending in Juneau, the more free from unnecessary laws the citizens of Alaska would be.

The same truth holds true here in Utah. With only 45 days to accomplish much in the way of general state business, there is not a lot of time to waste on bills that are otherwise unnecessary.
The idea of having legislators removed from society is not only dangerous because they often would not feel the effect of their legislative actions, but it will also lead to the idea that we need the government to help us in our day-to-day lives. A California legislator's proposed bill to criminalize spanking one's own kids and a New York legislator's proposed bill to make it illegal to operate an iPod in a cross-walk are perfect examples of the statist thinking that results from having a full-time legislature. Instead of focusing on the important state business, frivolous nanny bills are passed because those elected as full-time legislators find themselves vested with some authority to run the lives of their constituents.

Our legislators (whether you like them or not) are hard working individuals who spend a lot of their time working to better our state. However, by limiting our session to 45 days, we are insulating ourselves from creating a Frankenstein that suddenly takes over our lives. While we will never be rid of statist thinking (see SB17) the short 45-day full session of our legislature will certainly keep us from becoming subject to absurd laws such as those that plague us from our nation's capital.

A Hollywood Republican

2007-03-06T23:47:00.000-08:00

Can there be such a thing? I've found that too often conservatives and Republicans are portrayed as those ignorant of how life truly works. The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, The West Wing are all premised on the idea that Republicans are ignoramuses who have their heads too deep in the sand to "get it." Most liberals can't fathom that conservatives are intelligent individuals who truly believe that the best way for Americans to function is with as little governmental intervention as possible.

This article highlights Hollywood writers' inability to write dialogue for a true conservative. Perhaps more telling is the author's inability to understand that most conservatives haven't adopted their ideals simply because they haven't seen the light. Instead, we are conservative because we have researched and thought about pertinent issues and have concluded that the conservative viewpoint is the best viewpoint.

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20013253,00.html

Sec. Leavitt announces his candidacy...

2007-02-19T10:08:00.000-08:00

for Vice President.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_5248184

I don't pretend to know anything about Washington politics, but from what I've read about Leavitt, he has to be hoping to be picked up as the number 2 man on a ticket. Regardless, ideas like this will get him noticed by all of the candidates on this side of the aisle.

And why not? He's a former governor with executive experience. Now that he's had experience as Secretary of HHS, he has some Washington experience as well. This could certainly be his path to the top.

Rudy Giuliani a Republican?

2007-02-16T22:58:00.000-08:00

I have read Giuliani's book on leadership. He certainly created some impressive statistics during his time as mayor of New York City. Throughout his book, Mr. Giuliani trots out example after example of how he, along with his team, lowered crime rates, lowered the number of people on welfare rolls, and made the government more responsive to the residents' needs. He also details his personal approach to life and leadership roles. All of what he has done in New York demonstrates his ability to get things done.

I question, however, his Republican credentials. First off, his well publicized liberal stances on social issues are ready examples of why this man should not be the GOP's chosen candidate. Perhaps more disturbingly, however, is the fact that the examples he gives demonstrate a rather serious dependence on government action. His plans created a more efficient, effective government but often resulted in government action being central to his "solutions."

Certainly efficiency, effective governmental action is better than a cumbersome unproductive monstrosity of a government. However, government is rarely ever the answer. While he is certainly proud of his achievements, Giuliani's approach still placed an emphasis on government as the solution instead of focusing on the private sector for solutions to problems faced by New York. The last thing we need to follow the current administration is another statist.

In lowering the number of people on the welfare rolls, he used taxpayer money to fund programs helping people find jobs. When faced with the problem of adult bookstores attracting undesirable individuals to Times Square, Giuliani used the government to force them to relocate. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for fewer people on wellfare rolls and fewer adult bookstores everywhere. What I am not for is reaching such ends by forcing the taxpayers to pay for someone else's job search or replacing market forces with police and government force, I wouldn't sign up for it. Furthermore, no true republican would.

Mr. Giuliani may talk a Republican game, but he sure seems like he's playing for the other side.

Utah's fourth district

2007-01-14T15:03:00.000-08:00

The plan to incorporate two new seats into the House of Representantives is constitutionally questionable at best. At worst, it is far from equitable for Republicans regardless of what Tom Davis and all of H.R. 5388's proponents say.

Washington D.C. will never vote for a true Republican. In every recent presidential election, the percentage of votes for the democrats' nominee has been 10%. In 1984, 49 out of 50 states voted in favor of Reagan over Mondale. Even Minnesota, Mondale's home state and lone win, was within a percentage point or two from going for the Gipper. Yet D.C. held fast to the democratic nominee with a whopping 85% going for Mondale. By granting D.C. a vote in the House, the democrats will be able to put that one away for good. Even the most contemptible Democrat would still likely walk away with a win in any political contest in D.C.

In Utah, however, we have voted for Democrats in the past and are likely to do so again. Former Governor Matheson, Bill Orton, Rocky Anderson, and Jim Matheson all demonstrate that there is a force of Democrats and middle-ground Republicans who will vote for a Democrat.

By expanding the House by two votes just to give Utah what it deserved five years ago, we would essentially be trading one Republican vote for two Democratic votes. D.C. would assuredly vote Democrat each and every election. But also Jim Matheson's seat would be safe for him and future democrats if/when he decides to move on to something else. In exchange, Utah would end up with one more Republican seat but that would be cancelled out by D.C.'s vote leaving the democrats up by one vote.

This doesn't make sense and should be abandoned by Utahns and Republicans alike.

Vote Yes on Proposition 3

2006-10-30T19:56:00.000-08:00

I am a big fan of having as many transit choices as possible. Every time a new method of public transportation is made available, even those who do not take advantage of theses services benefit from the reduced congestion on our roads and highways, the reduced pollution, and the increased safety. The truth is that we are all better off for having made such an investment in our community.

The thought of adding more TRAX lines and having commuter rail extend to Utah County thrills me. The proposed property tax increase was fortunately changed to a sales tax increase. I am also pleased the proposed sales tax increase, which would pay for such expansion, is being put directly before the voters in the form of Proposition 3. I heartily endorse this ballot measure and urge my fellow citizens to join me in voting for its passage.

Having said that, I am honestly disappointed the provision is not explicit in earmarking the funds specifically for light and commuter rail expansion. I think that is a mistake. This is our money and it would have been best had we been able to determine exactly what we were paying for.

However, I trust our elected officials have seen the polls and know that is how we voters intend our money to be spent. Otherwise, they should know there will likely be unpleasant consequences when they seek re-election.

How do people committed to civility participate in the political debates inherent to our democracy?

2006-10-18T09:38:00.000-07:00

Yesterday an anonymous Republican blogger using the name "Lars Larson" posted the following on SLCSPIN in response to my last message:

"...May I suggest that Micah Bruner, one of the nicest and best men in the Republican Party, stop allowing someone else to put poison pens in his hand and decidedly "uncivil" words in his mouth?...Civility isn't something needed just within the Republican Party itself, but in all our public discourse. Yes, even with—especially with—Democrats....It is not a light thing to take-on another person's reputation. Once you start throwing mud, you can't call it back. It's out there forever. Are you so confident that you know the truth that you are willing to damage someone else's good name? Please think about that before you allow yourself to be used as a slingshot again...."

What follows is my answer to him:

Lars, Thank you for your kind comments. I appreciate your opinion of me. I hope that you will also trust me to choose the company I keep.

However, I think that your critique does raise an interesting question: How do people committed to civility participate in the political debates inherent to our democracy?

In many ways our country's political system is comparable to its legal system. It is designed to be "adversarial." Opposing parties present their respective positions, and then a jury or judge hands down a verdict.

The system supposedly works because each party makes its case and aggressively represents its own interests. For example, you can see that if the prosecution always agreed with the defense, and actually assisted the defense in making its case, that the system would surely fail.

This is so because no one would be delivering the arguments that flow naturally from the other side of the debate, and which need to be heard in order to reveal the complete picture. As a result, no one would ever successfully be prosecuted. No one would ever be held accountable for the crimes that are actually committed. The end result would be that dangerous villains would roam our streets and victimize our citizenry.

Would that outcome be civil?

No, civility is not the result of us pretending to be without differences. It does not result from us saying only nice things about one another. It actually comes about when we frankly discuss the issues, expose our differences, and enable a just verdict to be reached.

As a Republican partisan, I see my role as being that of someone who makes the case for my party's candidates--sometimes that even includes prosecuting, if you will, the Democrat candidates.

Having said that, in a court of law a certain level of decorum is also mandated. An everything goes, free-for-all, food fight atmosphere simply would not produce justice. Thus, like so many other things, it comes down to finding the right balance.

Besides being clear, honest, and direct, we must also be composed, reasoned, and respectful.

If on this or any other occasion I have crossed that line, lost my balance, and treated any of the Democrat candidates unfairly, I sincerely apologize. Further, I encourage my Democrat friends to hold me accountable. Please show me where I have erred. I want the truth to be told, nothing more and nothing less.

Micah Bruner
Vice Chair
Republicans for Civil and Informed Participation (RCIP)
www.danishgrove.com/rcip
www.micahbruner.blogspot.com

Comparing Crosses: Who is worse, Foley or Floros?

2006-10-13T21:25:00.000-07:00

Today a Democrat blogger named "bob" posted the following on SLCSPIN in response to my last message:

Micah-

Was Floros's conduct with minors?

Yes, Sexual Harassment is wrong. However, it is even worse with a minor.

-Bob

What follows is my answer to him:

Bob, In answer to your question, I am unaware of any allegation that Nick Floros sexually harassed minors. To my knowledge, all of the women who have come forward with claims against him have been over the age of eighteen. It is also my understanding that not all of the pages Representative Mark Foley (R-Florida) is accused of harassing were minors either, but I take little comfort in that fact.

I suspect a good man like you would agree with me that the alleged acts of Mr. Floros and Mr. Foley are reprehensible, unjustifiable, and wholly unworthy of our defense. As for which is worse, I will take your word for it. But, I would be equally heartbroken if either my seventeen year old son, or eighteen year old daughter, were subjected to the kind of abuse these men are accused of committing. Personally, I would prefer not to compare either kind of cross.

My purpose is to expose the double-standard being applied to these equally offensive scenarios by certain local media members and Democrats. Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Illinois) is correctly being held accountable during an election year for how he has dealt with Mr. Foley. But, neither District Attorney David Yocum (D-Salt Lake) nor County Clerk Sherrie Swensen (D-Salt Lake) is having to face this same kind of scrutiny for how they handled Mr. Floros. Why?

Both Mr. Foley and Mr. Floros allegedly committed their crimes over the past several years. The alleged actions of both were supposedly communicated long ago to the appropriate authorities over them. Both were allegedly protected by the inaction and cover-ups of their political allies. Both sets of political allies are now having to face the judgment of the electorate.

The only difference is that the local media and Democrats would rather endlessly wail and moan over the misunderstood remarks of Representative Chris Cannon (R-Utah) than to properly inform the citizens of this community concerning a very real issue worthy of their attention. Again, I ask why? The only thing I can come-up with is that the Democrats have better timing with leaks than do the Republicans. I guess that we simply overestimated our collective attention span.

The one ray of light I have seen concerning this issue has come from our own Ethan Millard. Last night he actually did briefly address the Yocum/Swensen combination, but there is so much more to tell. I don't know if his superiors at the Nightside Project will let him do it. One of the on-air personalities has apparently become rather chummy with Swensen after she hand delivered his voter registration card. He even went so far as to publicly praise her on the radio for doing such a great job! (Oh, how easily we mortals can be bought!)

Now, in fairness to the good people who work in the media, I know that they are sincerely trying to do the best they can. I also know that it is not an easy job having to navigate the endless "wailing and moaning" from folks like me and my counterparts in the other party. But, I hope that they will seriously consider the issues I have addressed here. I honestly believe that they have merit.

As for you, Bob, as a Democrat, your job is to advocate for your candidates. I am not blind, you have some good people running. But, so do we. Let's hope that the good folks on either side do well, and that the not so good ones stumble just a bit. Take care, and thanks for visiting with me.

Micah Bruner
Vice ChairRepublicans for Civil and Informed Participation (RCIP)
www.danishgrove.com/rcip
www.micahbruner.blogspot.com

Democrats and Media are Hypocritical

2006-10-12T00:50:00.000-07:00

Like most Americans, I have been disgusted by recent revelations that US Representative Mark Foley (R-Florida) is alleged to have had a history of inappropriate sexual interaction with congressional pages. As a result of this disturbing news, legitimate questions are being raised of Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-Illinois): Was he aware of these allegations much earlier? And, if so, why didn't he investigate and then discipline Foley if the charges proved true?

What further discourages me is the hypocritical double-standard shown by certain representatives of the local news-media and Democratic Party. They have been quick to pound their chests and bemoan the fate of Foley's poor victims, even to the point of launching what became a despicable feeding frenzy against Chris Cannon when his accurate observations were deemed to be insufficiently sensitive. But, where were these same bleeding hearts when the alleged Democrat sexual predator, Nick Floros, was purported to be engaged in similar kinds of misconduct for years within Salt Lake County government?

Where is the accountability for Democrat District Attorney David Yocum and Democrat County Clerk Sherrie Swensen who are alleged to have protected Floros? Both of these long-time public officials have been accused of staffing their respective offices with friends and relatives, constituting a "good old boy's network" whose members provide favors to one another. To his credit, Democrat County Council member Jim Bradley has expressed his anger and hinted that Floros had been protected by just such a "good old boy's network," but where are the other Democrats? Where is the press coverage? Why the outcry about Foley, but silence regarding Floros?

Both Sherrie Swensen and Yocum's anointed successor, Sim Gill, are running for office this fall. If elected, they will undoubtedly keep this allegedly corrupt network of friends and relatives in power. Am I the only one who thinks that the voters have a right to know about this? Shouldn't they have the opportunity to make an informed choice? Come on, somebody please speak-up!

Micah Bruner
Vice Chairman
Republicans for Civil and Informed Participation (RCIP)
www.danishgrove.com/rcip
www.micahbruner.blogspot.com