politics

The 'Tea Party downgrade'

2011-08-08T16:47:21Z

This last weekend, Standard & Poors downgraded the credit rating of the United States of America from ‘AAA’ to ‘AA+’. This, of course, created an uproar in political circles. Wasn’t the raising of the debt ceiling passed by congress and signed into law by the president supposed to prevent something like this?

Many on the left are blaming the downgrade on the Tea Party, calling it the “Tea Party downgrade.” John Kerry and David Axelrod are both on record using that term.

Others are calling the Tea Party terrorists for holding up the legislative process and preventing proposed legislation from being passed because Tea Party-minded members of the House of Representatives wouldn’t compromise.

David Beers of S & P has come out and explained, specifically, why they downgraded the US’s rating.

“Entitlement reform is important because entitlements are the biggest component of spending, and the part of spending where the cost pressures are greatest,” Beers said according to a story posted by Fox News. He added that “political gridlock has prevented the U.S. from reaching a plausible solution to getting its financial house in order.”

Because the “poltiical gridlock” was caused, largely, by the Tea Party-minded members of Congress holding their ground, yeah, based on that reasoning, you could say they’re responsible for the downgrade. But, what if there were no Tea Party-minded members of Congress? What if the 2010 elections hadn’t given the Republicans a majority in the House (comprised of a number of freshmen Tea Party congressmen?) If the House was voting as it had prior to 2010, there probably would not have been much, if any, debate about raising the debt ceiling at all. Sure, some Republicans would have hollered about it, but more likely the Democrat majorities would have passed new legislation to raise the debt ceiling along with sweeping tax increases in the name of raising revenues accordingly.

We might have been downgraded all the way to “AA.”

While it’s true that Washington currently can’t act cohesively at the moment, I contend the Tea Party contingent in Congress prevented a worse scenario.

The only way our government could have prevented any downgrade at all would have been if congress passed legislation including sweeping entitlement reforms and cuts, across the board cuts of discretionary spending, and some sort of commitment to a balanced budget. Under Obama and Reid, this never would have happened! The credit rating downgrade was completely unavoidable.

Paul Krugman is a walking, talking delusional KoolAid dispenser

2011-07-28T04:51:49Z

One of my good friends over on Google+ posted a link to this New York Times blog/article written by Nobel Prize-winning economist and journalist Paul Krugman.

Krugman’s article is so full of blatant bullshit. He, along with Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter, is living proof the Nobel Prize committee consists of idiots.

First of all, he says “the right is making insane demands.” Do you really think “stop spending so much money” is an insane demand? Let’s say your wife says, “We’ve got X dollars per month coming in and you’re spending X+Y every month. You need to stop spending so much money.” Is she making an insane demand?

Next up is Krugman’s assertion that “the president and Democrats in Congress are bending over backward to be accommodating.” Oh man, I wish that were true. The president has vowed to veto pretty much everything the House has passed or talks about passing. Sen. Reid wouldn’t even allow Senate debate on the House bill that passed. That doesn’t sound like bending over backward at all.

Next, Professor Krugman says (with a straight face), we “have a centrist president — actually a moderate conservative president.” That’s perhaps the most laughable thing in the whole (short) writeup.

Of course, President Obama and his re-election campaign want us to think he’s moderate/centrist. That’s the only way he’s ever going to get re-elected. He’s very good at talking the talk, but facts are prickly, stubborn things. Take his books, for example. They would never be at home alongside other moderate/centrist books. They’re very left-leaning. His record in the Illinois state senate also shows him on a very liberal path. His record as U.S. senator doesn’t really exist. The last 3 years of him as president has included nationalizing banks and the auto-industry, dramatically increasing the amount of regulation at the federal level, and putting in place a framework for a nationalized healthcare system. Not really the handiwork of a moderate or a centrist.

The ADA awarded him a 95% liberal voting record last year; the year before that, it was a perfect 100%. The American Conservative Union gives him a lifetime rating of 8%; Republican moderate Olympia Snowe has a 50% lifetime rating; Joe Lieberman, thrown out of the party for being too conservative, has a 17% lifetime rating. ” (From http://stubbornfacts.us/politics/centrism/barakobamacentrist )

Federal funding for pet projects and organizations

2011-04-10T05:05:57Z

This last week, one of the big items in the news was the GOP proposal in the U.S. House of Representatives to defund Planned Parenthood as part of federal spending cuts in budget negotiations.

It should be clearly obvious at this point that across the board cuts are needed to improve the fiscal crisis the federal government is currently faced with. Planned Parenthood, however, is a darling for those on the left.

You could tell how much of a darling by the hysterics reported in the news:

Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood itself is breaking out the heavy weapons. Hollywood starlet Scarlett Johansson starred in a promotional video for Planned Parenthood in which she says the U.S. House passed a bill to “eliminate our country’s family-planning program.”

(I find it a little amusing Planned Parenthood chose Ms. Johansson as a spokesperson for this campaign spot. I wrote about her before when she was quoted in the media as saying “[Monogamy] is an overrated virtue, because, let’s face it, we’re f*ing animals.” There’s your spokesperson for responsibility.)

Planned Parenthood is in a tough spot. Many only know them as providers of abortion services, but that’s an unfair characterization. They also provide invaluable other services such as dispensing birth control, screenings for cancer and sexually-transmitted diseases, and educational materials on sexual issues.

While some die-hard extreme folks on the right might celebrate the demise of Planned Parenthood, don’t count me as one of them. Many Americans, particularly those who are poor and/or young, may depend on Planned Parenthood for valuable, maybe even life-saving, services and information.

With that being said, the only way we’re going to solve any of the fiscal problems in the federal government is by eliminating all pet projects and funding to special interest organizations. This doesn’t mean they will instantly cease to exist! Planned Parenthood has done a commendable job in the past marketing itself and you would think they’d have little problems replacing — by way of fundraising — money lost by a cut in federal funding.

Another pet project of those on the left is public broadcasting. I ran across this article that ran yesterday which explains that local public radio stations have had “enormously successful” fundraising drives this year, partially because of the news that federal funding may go away.

Some projects and organizations currently funded in part by the federal government would simply disappear if the faucet delivering those funds were shut off. In a time of crisis, that’s what needs to happen.

Glenn Beck has recently spoken about the problem of “normalcy bias” and I think it applies perfectly here. Many Democrats in Congress would agree the federal government is in bad financial shape, but they protect funding going to things that should only be funded if the government had a surplus or, at the very least, a balanced budget. These representatives are experiencing normalcy bias just like a person who goes back into a burning building to get their purse or jacket or to make sure the lights are turned off.

Wisconsin public employee union mess

2011-03-02T05:42:02Z

I think the situation in Wisconsin is pretty simple: The government has a major budget problem. The teachers are not willing to sacrifice and are raising a stink, whining, and throwing a hissy fit. Maybe it’s from being around kids all day.

Sorry if it seems like I’m being incredibly insensitive, but that’s how I see it. Here in Utah, our legislature and governor have done a far better job of managing the state fiscally than most other states in the US. As a result, we’re not laying off public employees or asking them to make significant concessions in order to prevent a major budgetary meltdown.

Personally, I think public employee unions should be banned. They’re public employees, after all. They already have mechanisms in place to petition their employer (the government and, by extension, the people) for requests be it wages, benefits, working conditions, etc. Unions add overhead costs to both the public employees and the government they work for and siphon government employee pay to political activities, as we can plainly see by the organized activities in the news.

The Wisconsin governor’s and legislature’s decision to cut wages and benefits of public employees makes perfect sense as a strategy to regain some fiscal sanity, but so does restricting union involvement in public employees’ contracts and so forth since that also costs money and could endanger the government’s solvency in the long run.

As for people living and working for the government in Wisconsin, it sucks to be you. If you’re not willing to do what it takes to keep your job, then consider moving somewhere else where people aren’t being asked to sacrifice. Maybe Utah, but I have to warn you, median teacher pay in Utah is about half what they’re making in Wisconsin. Oh, and test scores are much higher. Hmmm. Maybe there’s a connection buried in there.

Do I just hate them and their economic competition?

2010-12-17T05:55:07Z

Recently, Connor Boyack — a fellow conservative/libertarian — posted the following status update to Facebook:

The “secure our borders” crowd isn’t concerned only about securing a geographical delineation from physical threats — they’re more concerned with building walls to exclude people they don’t like, and/or who economically compete with them.

I’ve known for a few months Connor was an “open borders” guy. Mutual friends, acquaintances and I have joked that Connor is young and when he hits 30, maybe he’ll wise up and find common sense on issues like this. But this statement shows a gross misunderstanding of the “secure our borders” crowd, of which I guess I’m a part of.

I responded to Connor’s status update saying that while he and I agree on most issues, this is one we do not and I found his statement to be closed-minded and intellectually dishonest. It wasn’t long until someone asked me to back up my beliefs. It had to wait, of course, until I had some real time to dedicate to espousing my beliefs. So, here we go.

I’m actually all for Shurtleffesque guest worker programs, but believe we need to address the elephant in the room first. Specifically, the millions of illegal immigrants currently living in the US (or, at least, the thousands of them living in Utah). Sure, they’re good people, hard workers, yadda yadda yadda, but they broke the law and, in many cases, broke several laws getting into the United States and procuring employment.

Many in Connor’s camp will say our current immigration policy is bad policy represented by bad laws that shouldn’t be on the books or, at least, shouldn’t be enforced. I say, if a law is bad, it should be enforced to the letter so that its warts, inadequacies, and failings are clearly visible. Then legislators will take the laws off the books.

In Salt Lake County, no one may walk down the street carrying a paper bag containing a violin.

It’s fun to dig up old laws still on the books that don’t get enforced anymore because they’ve completely lost their relevance and have failed the test of time. Why are they still on the books, then? Because nobody enforces them. If someone was enforcing them, there is no doubt legislators would be under increased pressure from their constituents to strike these outdated laws from the code books.

If our current immigration laws are flawed, then they should be enforced to the letter of the law. Selective enforcement (yes, I’m looking directly at you Chief Burbank) either prevents bad laws from being recognized or does a disservice to good laws which should always be enforced. Either way, the law should be enforced.

I’d actually be okay with granting those already here illegally some sort of legal status, but only if they pay some sort of fair restitution for the crimes they’ve committed. The law must be upheld and must be respected.

Many “open borders” folks like to look back to the 19th and early 20th Centuries to show that our country has a rich history of welcoming immigrants. There’s no denying that we welcomed many from other nations into ours. My grandmother and her family emigrated to the United States in the early 20th Century from Armenia to flee the Turkish invasion of their homeland.

Things should be no different now, right? This comparison has some merit, but for the most part, it’s apples and oranges. Those who came to the United States a hundred or so years ago did it through “proper channels” and most became legal U.S. citizens. They didn’t sneak in, steal someone’s identity, and “live in the shadows.” No, this is what they did:

Went through a thorough registration process
Were inspected and screened by doctors for communicable diseases (and, unfortunately, physical disabilities)
Were turned away if they participated in belief in political philosophies that were incompatible to the constitutional republic of the United States
Learned the predominant language (English)
Most pursued U.S. citizenship
Most had little or no interest in returning to live in their “home” country someday
Most were not taking money they earned in the U.S. and sending it to family in their “home” country.

There is a lot of argument to be made that our current immigration policy is unfair, that only those who are well-educated, white-collar workers can get legal status to come here and work. “Unskilled laborers” don’t really have much of a chance of coming into this country legally. I agree with all who believe that policy should change.

During the heyday of “Ellis Island” immigration, the U.S. wasn’t making sure people who traveled across the ocean had graduate degrees and/or work experience in technical fields of expertise. I’d wager most of the immigrants in those days were blue collar workers. Most in those families would not see any kind of college degree for at least one or two generations.

Today, the “secure our borders” argument is more than just keeping illegal aliens out of the U.S. It’s also about keeping out terrorists and drug-related criminals. The southern border is rife with criminal activity thanks to the Mexican mafia and the illegal drug trade. Senator John McCain claimed Phoenix, Arizona is the number two kidnapping capital of the world. Only Mexico City has more kidnappings, he said. I’ve read articles that refute this claim, but regardless, Phoenix remains the kidnapping capital of the U.S.

The docile, serene story of a small Mexican or Latin America family, independently crossing the southwestern desert in hopes for a better life in America is far from what is typical. Border land is patrolled, not just by the U.S. Border Patrol, but also by criminal agents involved in either the drug trade or the human smuggling trade. Moving people (and drugs) across the border has become a big (illegal) business. People who want illegal entry into the U.S. typically must pay, often thousands, to garner (hopefully) safe passage in a group. Individuals in these groups often endure physical and emotional hardships during their passage that can only be compared to those many African slaves endured being transported to the U.S. on board ships hundreds of years ago. Physical and sexual abuse often occurs in these groups as well.

Our “compassionate” support of perpetuation of illegal immigration also, inadvertently, supports the perpetuation of all this criminal and immoral activity.

The illegal smuggling of people and drugs needs to be stopped. Those who have come here illegally should be identified and charged with crimes they’ve committed.

Utah Freedom Conference - Federalism, sovereignty, and the 10th ammendment

2010-09-18T20:28:46Z

This breakout session was hosted by Gary Wood and Ken Ivory of Heritage Training Center in Salt Lake City.

Ken Ivory, incidentally, is running for a seat in the Utah House of Representatives after having beaten Republican incumbent Steven Mascaro in the 2010 Primary Election. He’ll be going up against Democrat candidate John Rendell in November.

This session began with a simple question: “What is the greatest check and balance?”

The answer: “States’ rights” or Federalism.

There’s a lot of information here, I’m probably just going to include my notes verbatim with some added commentary.

Voices of influence

John Dickinson - “In short, the government of each state is, and is to be, sovereign and supreme in all matters to relate to each state only. It is to be subordinate barely in those matters that relate to the wholel and it ill be their own FAULTS, if the several states suffer the federal sovereignty to interfere in the things of their respective jurisdictions.”

Ivory added, “The states are CRITICAL constitutional actors.”

Thomas Jefferson: “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid of this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”

One person commented: “You hear ‘Commerce Clause’ and ‘Supremacy Clause’, except Clause is spelled C-L-A-W-S.”:-)

What is the federal government?

“Actually the federal government is a combination of the one centered in Washington and those located in States for it is this combination that constitutes the federal system.” — Felix Morley, Freedom and Federalism

Federal government or Federation; government of a unit of states in which sovereignty is divided between a central authority and component state authorities.

Changed meanings of words in 1787. Federal vs anti-federalists

“The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes.” — James Madison, Federalist 46

Double-security. Different governments will control each other.

Are we supporting federalism or are we supporting nationalism?

How is ‘separation of powers’ divided?

Horizontal separation consists of three distinct branches (legislative, executive, judicial)

Federalism - states are where experiments are done. Case in point: Massachusetts was the experiment of the 3 branches of government.

Vertical separation of powers: National and state governments

Who holds sovereignty under our federalist republic?

Is there sovereignty at the national level?

Where is sovereignty at the state level?

Stephen Pratt says this is absurd.

“You have a ‘just claim’ to your life but that doesn’t mean you’re invincible.”

What level of sovereignty do the people retain?

Was the 10th amendment issue settled after the Civil War?

A common assertion is the principles outlined in the 10th Amendment no longer hold true due to the victory of the North over the South.

10th amendment is still on the books, still keystone.

Is secession the issue of the 10th amendment?

“We don’t want to secede. We want our country back. We want our general government operating appropriately.”

Madison “If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may establish teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the union, they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads; in short, every thing from the highest object of state legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.”

Do states, as sovereign partners in United States, still hold the power to interpose between the people and the general government?

Is the general government supreme based on supremacy clause?

The constitution, and the Laws and the laws of the US which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made… — Article VI, Sect 2

What is the Doctrine of Interposition?

Official action of the state government on the part of the state govt to question the constitutionality of a policy established by the central govt.

A resolution of Interposition, like that of Kentucky and Virginia of 1799, can result in the nullification of legislation deemed unconstitutional by the States or States.

Using interposition or nullification is like putting a proverbial ‘finger in the dam’ while the cause of the breach requires further investigation and solutions. It is a useful tool yet not the ultimate solution usurpation.

Nullification — Thomas Woods “Not a silver bullet.”

If I don’t take it, someone else will

One of the presenters illustrated a concept with this story: A little girl sees a bicycle she wants in a store window. To raise money to buy the bicycle, she does bake sales, lemonade stands, babysitting, anything she can do to earn the money. When she finally has enough money, she puts her piggy bank in her wagon and pulls it to the store. Along the way, the wagon hits a bump and the girl’s bank falls out of the wagon. The girl, excited to buy her bicycle, fails to notice the bank is no longer in the wagon, and continues on.

A bystander says to himself, “If I don’t take it, someone else will.”

This is often the rationalization for accepting money from the federal government.

We’re bringing in $200B, we’re spending $300B.

We must commit, in our own homes, to resist govt handouts and to be self-reliant.

Utah Freedom Conference - Utah grassroots: accountability at every level

2010-09-18T19:30:12Z

The first breakout session I went to, after lunch, was the grassroots session.

Bill Barton

The first speaker was Mr. Bill Barton — my father — on Utah Grass Roots.

The Utah Grass Roots organization rates state legislators and the governor each legislative session based on their votes on various bills.

Lowell Nelson

Lowell Nelson, from the Campaign For Liberty was the second speaker in the breakout session and, following up on Bill Barton’s presentation, said, “A recorded vote on a controversial issue is the most sincere political expression.”

Nelson pointed out some of the differences between a Statesman and a Politician and then discussed ways activist organizations can make a difference: by dealing “political pleasure” and “political pain.”

For an elected official, political pain is defined as the following:

Acute pain - Losing an election
Sub-acute - Being challenged in an election
Chronic pain - Angry voters, angry delegate

During the legislative season, activists can inflict political pain by making personal visits, sending postcards or e-mail. etc. One important point is to be specific and direct. Politics is a number game. 100 postcards is more impact than one hand-written letter.

Nelson discussed the value of getting involved at the party level as a delegate, precinct officer, or party officer, and having a hand in state party constitution.

Nelson recommended reading and learning Robert’s Rules of Order and state bylaws.

Finally, Nelson left us with this gem: “Silence is consent.”

Independent Caucus

The final presentation of this breakout was by the Independence Caucus. This organization’s claim to fame was ousting former Utah congressman Chris Cannon in the 2008 primary and ushering in wildly-popular Jason Chaffetz to represent Utah.

The presentation given at this meeting discussed how the Independence Caucus has gone national, helping candidates in both major parties strategically win races. It hasn’t all been successes, but most have been.

Utah Freedom Conference - Welcome session

2010-09-18T14:40:15Z

I had meant to get this out a lot sooner, but then our neighborhood nearly burned down. That set me back a couple of days.

I had the fortune of attending the first ever Utah Freedom Conference on Saturday, 18 September held at the Radisson Hotel in downtown Salt Lake City. Things outside and around the hotel were made more interesting by the fact The Dew Tour was going on across the street.

There was a prayer breakfast held beginning at 7:30, but I didn’t attend that. I showed up in time for the main 8:30 meeting in the Ballroom. Rod Arquette, the new “live and local” guy from KNRS welcomed everyone. I was really looking forward to hearing more from Rod as I’ve become quite enamored with his show since they started running it in the afternoons (4-7pm), but that was pretty much the last we heard from Rod.

The Freedom Conference was being financed, apparently, by Bert and Kathy Smith (of Smith & Edwards fame, my dad told me).

Bert Smith spoke after Rod Arquette, mentioning the talk that Stephen Pratt gave at the breakfast, which I did not attend. He garnered some applause after simply stating “We want our local lands back.”

Kathy Smith, Bert’s wife, then recognized the host committee.

There was mention of “Milestones of Freedom,” which describes what immigrants experienced going through Ellis Island. I’m afraid my notes don’t mention what exactly this is, a book, a video, or what. Maybe someone can help me identify this.

Carl Wimmer, the official Master of Ceremonies for the event, talked about being prepared to defend the Constitution. Carl was followed by an invocation.

Christina Lowe, Miss Utah 2010, sang an amazing version of the national anthem without any musical accompaniment at all.

Jason Chaffetz

Our amazing congressman, Jason Chaffetz, spoke next. He spoke of the reverence he has about serving as congressman. He mentioned he was able to lead discussion in congress for the Republican leadership the previous Thursday about the Constitution

“People like to talk about separation of church and state,” Chaffetz said, but went on to point out that without God, we fail to be the great country we’ve been. We are “United under God.”

Jason quoted Abraham Lincoln and said our founders were rooted in an understanding our liberties are God-given.

Some metrics Congressman Chaffetz shared:

We are $13T in debt, not counting unfunded liabilities.
This is $5-600M dollars/day in interest.
In comparison, the state budget of Utah is $10-11B
Since Obama took office, more than 130,000 new federal workers have been added to the payroll.

Jason also expressed his admiration for George Washington and mentioned that at the height of power, he could have done whatever he wanted. He chose to walk away. He understood power was not vested in him, but “We The People.” The nation didn’t need one particular person to lead them.

Chaffetz also said he is very encouraged that support for Freedom is brewing, even in congress. To illustrate this, he mentioned that a fellow congressman wants to pass a resolution to support of the tenth amendment.

In conclusion, Jason read a couple excerpts from George Washington’s Farewell Address citing separation of power and the Constitution’s amendment process.

Bill Howell

State representative Chris Herrod introduced Bill Howell.

Bill Howell started by recounting an experience he had listening to a liberal talk-radio host who couldn’t understand why people say “We want our country back.” Perhaps people who feel we are losing our country aren’t expressing their beliefs with sufficient clarity, he suggested.

Howell explained that the federal government should obey the Constitution, but this demand is too general. We need to be more specific and detailed.

He added that it’s even difficult to single out a specific Constitutional principle, that the Constitution is a “fabric” or akin to a mathematical formula. If you change one thing, lots of things change.

His example was the 17th amendment which changed how US senators were elected. This affected the states’ voice on judicial appointments, treaty ratification, and more, not just the composition of the Senate chamber.

Howell spotlighted one principle he feels should be given more attention: State territorial sovereignty. He talked about some historic court cases to illustrate how state territorial sovereignty has changed over the history of the country.

Some key points made by Howell:

Federal govt is not defined by territory
Founders valued state sovereignty. Point: D.C. limited to 10 square miles
Constitution opposed to unlimited power in any hand.

“Who understands constitutional principles in detail sufficiently well enough to defend them?” Howell asks. Good point. We should all become more familiar with the Constitution and the principles behind it to the point we can defend it.

Chris Herrod

I don’t know much about Chris Herrod, but I did videotape a townhall meeting he participated in about a year ago where he spoke about the dangers of socialized medicine. His wife is a legal immigrant from Russia and they’ve had some experiences first hand with state-run medicine.

In his address to the Utah Freedom Conference crowd, Herrod spoke of the Patrick Henry Caucus, the 77 oil leases that were pulled by the federal government right after Obama became president.

“People of Utah are actually not free,” he said. “There is undue influence of the federal government on the state.”

Stephen Sandstrom

Stephen Sandstrom is best known right now for introducing a new bill that go before the Utah Legislature in 2011 regarding illegal immigration. Some priceless quotes he delivered included:

“We should only welcome the immigrant who will assimilate.”
“Illegal immigration is a brick in the melting pot that will never melt.”

Karen Budd-Falen

Karen Budd-Falen is apparently a long-time friend of Bert and Kathy Smith and an attorney who has lots of experience dealing with property rights issues.

“Daniel Webster didn’t create the first dictionary so y’all could spell better,” she said, indicating that the first Webster’s Dictionary was intended to help the masses understand the language of our nation’s founding documents.

“The Constitution doesn’t give you rights. God gives you rights,” she added.

Budd-Falen’s time was spent mostly highlighting her experience fighting Western Watershed, an environmental activist group that allegedly intimidates and litigates ranchers.

It’s interesting that the federal government does not track the money it gives to environmental groups to turn around and sue the federal government.

In 9 years, for 9 environment groups, the federal government gave 36 million dollars to fight the federal government. Not including settlements.

Using the legal system, Western Watershed extorted $22 million from El Paso Corporation, to specifically eliminate livestock grazing.

But there was no environmental change after the Ruby Pipeline coughed up the $22M.

“It’s really stressful when an environmental group sues to end your livelihood,” Budd-Falen added.

Dan Byfield

Dan Byfield is from Texas and spoke on Coordination, a strategy for local leaders to fight against federal encroachment and other issues. His claim to fame is stopping the “Trans Texas Corridor” project that would have built a huge international highway through the middle of the country.

Dr. Michael Coffman

Michael Coffman, author of “Rescuing a Broken America”, began his speech talking about two competing worldviews that have been prevalent for centuries:

The Skowsen/Jefferson worldview, established on the philosophies of John Lock. Alsao known as “People’s law”
The Feudal-Ruler model, established by Jean-Jacues Rosseau, father of modern European socialism and communism

“Arizona lawsuit is extremely important from this perspective,” Coffman said, in proving the Federal Government is sovereign over the states.

Coffman quoted Bastiat, which is nice to hear.

Finally, Coffman illustrated what Thomas Jefferson and others have been warning us against for hundreds of years: The more power the federal government has, the more people clamor to have their voice heard by government (lobbyists, special interests) and the more division there is as one group of people vies for power over another group of people.

Thomas Pratt

Thomas Pratt was the next speaker of the morning session. His presentation was polished and rehearsed and included a synchronized slideshow.

Thomas Pratt’s website is AmericanLibertyVideo.com.

Pratt asserts that state sovereignty and national sovereignty can not co-exist, that there is no such thing as “dual sovereignty” or “mixed sovereignty.”

Pratt’s presentation went by so fast (he was short on time), I only have nuggets of notes from it. Rather than expounding on each of them, I’ll include them verbatim as I typed them up.

Albert Taylor Bledsoe - National Fed govt vs Sovereign states
Unitary republic vs republic of republics
Able Parker Upshur - ~1840
Walter Neal - The Sovereignty of America
Declaration Of Independence - 13 nations unitedly declared independence.
Delegation vs Cede power from the states to the Fed. govt?
Convention of States.
The Republic of Republics - by Bernard Janin Sage
Madison - Each state is a sovereign body, independent of others.
Compact between the states, not between fed govt and the states.
“This leads to the solecistic absurdity.”
Dual sovereignty, etc.
Think of sovereignty as pregnancy. You either are or you’re not.
Jefferson - Maintain free, sovereign independent states.
August 14, 1866 - Nationalists declare victory - Andrew Johnson
The insurrection against the supreme authority of the nation has been suppressed.
After that - states were just administrative agencies carrying out the work of federal govt.
“By arrogation of power…”
Tenth amendment is the foundation of the nation.
Either the Constitution means something or it means nothing.
Nullification by Thomas E. Woods
View of the Constitution of the United States - St. George Tucker
Necessary that every man knows his own rights.
Washington added to oath: “So help me God.”
Roy Moore - “So help me God.”
There is indeed a cause, and God is waiting for His people to stand in faith — to let the light shine in on the darkness.

Congressman Rob Bishop

Rob Bishop began by teaching a little history. Progressive era politicians, he said, didn’t like the Constitution because it prevents them from doing “great and marvelous things.”

Bishop pointed out that the federal government has grown under both Republican and Democrat control. Why is the federal government always going to grow? he asks. “Because it’s rigged in their favor.”

The solution is “individual liberties.” Not many people in public schools know what “individual liberties” means.

We’re talking about BALANCING power between states and the federal govt.

Maybe under federalism, you don’t have fewer programs, but you have power with the people and you have choices.

Rob Bishop was a far more dynamic speaker than I remember him being. I probably shouldn’t be surprised, though, considering he was a school teacher for many years. He clearly knows how to command an audience.

Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor

2010-08-31T05:50:01Z

This last Saturday was 28 August, 8/28, the day of Glenn Beck’s Restoring Honor event in Washington D.C.

I didn’t attend the event in person, but I did donate some money to the Special Operations Warriors Foundation which was the beneficiary of the event. It’s not the same as actually sacrificing to be there, but I hope it’s something.

The rally was carried live on C-SPAN Saturday morning, so I recorded it on my DVR and watched it later. The actual rally was about three and a half hours long.

True to Glenn’s word, the rally was not political. Sure, there were a couple comments made during the rally that could have been perceived as political, but by and large, it was not political. Instead, it was religious, spiritual, and pious. It was also patriotic and reverent. There was lots of tribute during the first hour or so to those who serve, and who have served, in the branches of the U.S. military. That portion of the program could have been held in late May as part of a Memorial Day program.

If you’ve listened or watched Glenn Beck much over the last, say, three or four years, you may have caught him talking to, or about, Jon Huntsman Sr., a prominent businessman from Salt Lake City, Utah. I remember hearing about the Huntsmans when I was growing up and my dad was in the state legislature. I also remember the Christmas cards we’d get from the Huntsman family. There was always a picture of a HUGE family that always seemed so much bigger than it was the year before.

To say Glenn Beck admires Jon Huntsman would be a terrible understatement. I would say Glenn is in awe of Jon’s philanthropic work, his integrity, and his character. So, it was no surprise that Huntsman received the first Badge of Merit for Charity at the Restoring Honor rally. Unfortunately, he was unable to attend to receive the award (He was attending the marriage of one of his grandchildren- something he probably does a couple times a week these days… Remember the family photo? Yeah.)

The last half of the rally was about turning to God.

It’s been quite a journey for those of us who have followed Glenn Beck over the years. Since 2007 and especially since the 2008 election, Glenn has been spending most of his time presenting to his listeners, viewers, and readers the threats of Progressive, Marxist, and socialist movements to the republic our Founding Fathers designed.

He has demonstrated. over and over, how we have allowed our country to be taken over by progressives, from both major parties, He also introduced a long lost revolutionary idea to the masses, that voting for a candidate because they have an “R” or a “D” next to their name was stupid; We should be voting the candidates that share our values and principles, that have character and integrity.

Is it any surprise we have seen candidates like Doug Hoffman in New York’s 23rd congressional district come out of nowhere and make a spectacular showing in a race. People are waking up and looking at elected officials in a way they haven’t in a long, long time.

Glenn’s also reminded us and taught us how religion played such an important role in the early days of this country. Our founders never meant for our government to be free of all religious influence.

The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that the federal government and the states shall not ESTABLISH any official state religion or interfere with the free practice of religious worship. Somehow, over the years, the Progressives and other well-meaning interpreters of the Constitution, have misconstrued the intent of this law to mean that religious observance has no place in the public sphere. But, in fact, our founders insisted, on several occasions, that our public officials, and the people at large, should be a “moral and religious people” in order for the American experiment to survive.

The first sessions of congress after the new federal government was instituted under the U.S. Constitution included hours of prayer and bible study. These men elected to represent their constituents believed the best way they could possibly serve was to be sure they were in prayer with God.

Benjamin Franklin believed it was only through God and through the various representatives to the Constitutional Congress humbling themselves and turning their hearts to God that agreements could be made to bring about the U.S. Constitution.

So, in the end, Glenn was surrounded by 240 religious leaders, each pledging that their organizations would be teaching their congregations it is time to turn to God, to rally behind God, and to recognize the importance of equal justice and individual liberty.

By doing this, Glenn has reinstituted the “black-robed regiment” to fight for the soul of the country. Pretty heavy stuff.

Now, I understand many people these days are bound to feel uncomfortable about what Glenn Beck is doing. Even if you do not believe in God or are not that religious, this is a good thing. Glenn made it very clear on his radio show today that when he approached these religious leaders about including them in his rally that he wasn’t creating a political force like the Christian Coalition or the Moral Majority. He told them, if this is political, it won’t last. It seems like most of them agreed with him.

I listened to Glenn’s radio program today. I don’t usually have time to do that, but today I had some driving to do and had time to listen. I wasn’t sure what to expect the first day back on the air after the rally. There was some time spent talking about the number of people that came and re-iterating some of the messages that were delivered, but what really struck me… What really stood out were the callers that called into Glenn’s show today. Did they call and say, “Oh man, Glenn, you were the most awesome guy on Saturday!?” Did they call and tell him he was right, that they felt in their heart he did the right thing? No, not exactly.

Most of the callers that had been to the rally called to tell stories of exceptional, extraordinary experiences they had while attending the rally. One caller, a disabled black woman from the northeast, spoke about how she and her daughter decided to rent an electric scooter so she could be mobile enough to attend the rally. When they had difficulty using the subway and navigating through the crowds going to and from the rally, a man and his family befriended them and treated them as one of his own family and helped them for the entire event.

Another caller spoke of her husband losing his wallet containing the money they had to live on while they were visiting Washington D.C. A man nearby heard their distress and handed over four $100 bills.

Another woman spoke of pushing a stroller and pulling a cooler through the National Mall to meet up with her husband who was saving them a spot to listen to/watch the rally. She said the crowd was more than helpful in helping her and her children move through the sea of people to her husband, even cheering when they finally made it.

These stories of people helping people are incredibly uplifting and, in a way, demonstrate exactly what the rally was about.

If you want to read a political message into it all, it’s probably this: Looking to government for guidance out of darkness is hopeless. The best path out of the mess our country is in right now is for us to serve each other; Find ways to help one another. The best place to start is in supporting our churches.

The oil "spill"

2010-07-04T22:02:27Z

I recently read Obama’s Oil Spill To-Do List by Heritage Foundation Director of Strategic Communication, Rory Cooper and found it to be a sensible task list that identifies and enumerates things I think most on the right side of the political spectrum wish the administration were doing to address the oil “spill” in the Gulf Of Mexico.

The very first item mentioned in this list is to “waive the Jones Act,” which, as Cooper explains, “requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried in U.S.-flagged ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens.”

This law obviously restricts what ocean-bound vessels can be used in the cleanup efforts. But, the restriction can be lifted, as it was by DHS secretary Chertoff during the Hurricane Katrina aftermath. Doing so would allow a much greater diversity of equipment to be used in the cleanup effort.

In recent news, BP and the U.S. Coast Guard are apparently testing a giant Taiwanese oil skimmer. I assume using this ship, owned by a Taiwanese shipping company, will require a Jones Act waiver or exclusion. If that’s the case and they get the legal right to use this skimmer, that’s good news for everyone.

A lot of the talk about the Gulf oil “spill” has been about enormous amounts of money. It is apparently going to cost a lot of money to clean up the oil out of the water. It will apparently cost various Gulf Coast industries (fishing, tourism, etc.) lots of money in lost business. It will apparently cost the oil industry a ridiculous amount of money if the administration gets their way with these ridiculous moratoriums.

One area which I wonder if the money might be spent in vain is the cleanup efforts. I’ve read many sources that indicate that oil in water is pretty well handled by nature. We can maybe add a little fertilizer to speed up the growth of natural bacteria that break down the oil particles, but other than that, nature handles it.

The outlook becomes more muddied — no pun intended — when oil reaches land. Nature will take care of it, but it will take longer… years longer. So, it’s shocking to learn that the administration is seemingly blocking many attempts to do sand-berm dredging along the coast that would catch oil before it reaches coastal beaches and wetlands.

Finally, I completely agree with Cooper that the administration should stop using the oil “spill” as a wedge or lever issue to promote climate change (i.e. “Cap and Trade”) legislation.

The deal with Net Neutrality

2010-04-16T06:46:57Z

A whole lot of talk has taken place recently about Net Neutrality. The histrionics and grandiose claims on both sides of the issue are quite disappointing. And that seems to be biggest problem.

In his recent FOX News program, Glenn Beck highlighted the group Free Press and their support of Net Neutrality legislation and regulation. Beck makes some points and observations about the leftist agenda of Free Press and its co-founder founder, Robert W. McChesney. There’s no doubt that McChesney is out of step with mainstream America with regard to his views on media, government control, etc. His comments do seem like those of a socialist or, dare I say, a Marxist.

But, stop! Net Neutrality wasn’t created by Marxists! No, it’s just being co-opted by them… and probably lots of other groups that see government control over Internet service providers as a means to an end for them.

The problem with Net Neutrality right now is that many groups are trying to claim it as their poster-child issue. Libertarian conservatives are saying Net Neutrality is an example of government overbearance or even tears at the fabric of the Constitution.

On the flip-side, we have leftists who apparently have incredible amounts of disdain, distrust, and suspicion toward corporations who might alter, affect, control, or in any way or form touch content from the Internet as it’s being delivered to their computers.

I’m opposed to Net Neutrality. Not because it’s a conspiracy to usher in totalitarian government control over the Internet and not because I don’t care about freedom of speech or freedom of the press.

Let’s look at some history.

In 2007, some customers of Comcast’s Internet service complained they were having problems downloading files using the BitTorrent file-sharing protocol. BitTorrent is a common method for sharing and distributing large files such as Linux distribution installation images that can grow to several gigabytes in size. To be frank, however, most BitTorrent traffic is largely downloads of music, movies, and TV show content. I think it’s fair to say most of this data is for entertainment purposes.

Apparently, Comcast was experiencing some problems with BitTorrent users creating congestion on their networks. Comcast chose a highly unorthodox means of dealing with the congestion and basically tricked the users’ BitTorrent clients into thinking their connections had been closed, thereby killing the BitTorrent downloads.

As word got out about the experiences of the Comcast users who had been affected by Comcast’s tactics, Comcast denied doing anything. When users showed proof of what was going on, Comcast confessed. Eventually, Comcast said they would adopt a “protocol-neutral stance” on managing traffic on their networks.

I think Comcast was out of line doing what they did. I think someone should have been fired, if they weren’t, for doing what they did. I’m surprised, really, that Comcast didn’t have more integral methods for dealing with “bandwidth hogs.”

Internet protocol networking has long supported the notion of Quality of Service (QoS) measures of traffic control for prioritizing certain kinds of traffic over others. For example, voice-over-IP (VOIP) traffic might be deemed high-priority because it’s a service people depend on and can’t tolerate congestion affecting the service.

I’m surprised, to say the least, that Comcast didn’t have priority-based queuing in place for their networks.

But some free-speech advocates are crying foul saying any attempt to regulate the flow of data by an Internet service provider essentially equates to censorship or stifling speech. Bull crap!

That’s almost like crying censorship because a newspaper didn’t quote everything you said, verbatim, at that pro-spotted owl rally. No, they had limited space and had to prioritize.

Now, I’m not a fan of Comcast… or Qwest (both are the major providers of broadband Internet service in my area), but I do believe they should not be regulated, controlled, or otherwise overseen by the federal government in how they carry Internet traffic.

Any Internet service provider’s business model is built around giving its customers the best Internet experience possible. I firmly believe that, within reason, any ISP is going to do as much as they can do accomplish that goal. However, if certain users abuse the freedom they’ve been given by the provider and that threatens to affect the experience of other users, the provider has every right to do something to protect the overall network performance. I contend that the business objective of Internet service providers already promotes the best service possible for the bulk of customers.

Net Neutrality, on the other hand, could force less-than-ideal performance on everyone in the name of equality. It could force providers into charging tiered rates like Time Warner explored doing in 2008, much to the disapproval of their customer base.

The federal government was responsible for creating the Internet through Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) projects in the 1960s that created the ARPANet, the great-granddaddy of the Internet. In 1998, the National Science Foundation (NSF) released its last talons from the backbones of the Internet and allowed complete privatization of the burgeoning network. It’s arguable, based on what happened from 1998 until today, that allowing the Internet to thrive completely out of the government’s control was the best thing that could have happened. I don’t see any benefit of returning any aspect of the Internet back into the government’s hands.

Glenn Beck: The ever-widening gap

2010-04-14T05:03:18Z

I caught the tail-end of Glenn Beck’s radio program today and was impressed to write about it. Here is my transcript:

May I read this to you?

“What no one seemed to notice was the ever widening gap… between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with… And it became always wider. You know, it doesn’t make people close to their government to be told that this is a people’s government, a true democracy, or to have a civilian defense force, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing, to do with knowing one is governing.

“What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with [a leader], their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

“This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.”

That is from a chapter “Then It Was Too Late” from the book “They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45” ( See here ).

That could have been written today!

That doesn’t mean we are headed for that… Let me rephrase that. Let me be more clear.

It doesn’t mean that this president or this congress will take us there, but it does mean that the more power we give this government, the more we allow them to become more and more remote to us, indifferent to us; The more power we give them to decide our fate and decide who should be listened to and who shouldn’t be, who should live and who should die, who is politically correct and who is not, who should succeed and who should fail; The more we let them decide those things… It may not be this president. It may not be this congress. But will be in our future because all we have to do is elect the wrong person… once… and they have all the structure they need. Let’s not finish the job Germany started in 1898.

We’re headed down the same pathways and both parties have been involved.

I’ve had a few conversations recently with people who think Glenn is a “nutjob,” a “kook,” and a “loon.” Or… perhaps the most amusing characterization is that he’s a shill for the Republican party and an apologist for George W. Bush.

It’s obvious to me that these people have never really listened to the man.

Ezra Taft Benson on free market philosophy

2009-12-01T16:25:07Z

Another excerpt from This Nation Shall Endure by the late Ezra Taft Benson, former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture and President of the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

The principles behind our American free market philosophy can be reduced to a rather simple formula. Here it is:

Economic security for all is impossible without widespread abundance.

Abundance is impossible without industrious and efficient production.

Such production is impossible without energetic, willing, and eager labor.

Such labor is not possible without incentive.

Of all forms of incentive, the freedom to attain a reward for one’s labors if the most sustaining for most people. Sometimes called the profit motive, it is simply the rights to plan and to earn and to enjoy the fruits of one’s labor.

This profit motive diminishes as government controls, regulations, and taxes increase to deny the fruits of success to those who produce.

Therefore, any attempt through government intervention to redistribute the material rewards of labor can only result in the eventual destruction of the productive base of society, without which real abundance and security for more than the ruling elite are quite impossible.

Thomas Jefferson quote

2009-11-30T07:10:55Z

“… with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens—a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits or industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”

— Thomas Jefferson, in his first inaugural address, 1801

Ezra Taft Benson quote

2009-11-30T07:08:55Z

I’m reading this book right now and ran across this great quote tonight.

“If reference is made continually to weaknesses of the private enterprise system without any effort to point out its virtues and the comparative fruits of this and other systems, the tendency in this country will be to demand that the government take over more and more of the economic and social responsibilities and make more of the decisions for the people. This can result in but one thing: slavery of the individual to the state. This seems to be the trend in the world today. The issue is whether the individual exists for the state or the state for the individual.”

— Ezra Taft Benson, This Nation Shall Endure, 1977