Recently in Politics Category

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.

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.

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.

This country -- the product of reason -- could not survive on the morality of sacrifice. It was not built by men who sought self-immolation or by men who sought handouts... It could not live by the mystic doctrine that damned this earth as evil and those who succeeded on earth as depraved. From its start, this country was a threat to the ancient rule of mystics. In the brilliant rocket-explosion of its youth, this country displayed to an incredulous world what greatness was possible to man, what happiness was possible on earth. It was one or the other: America or mystics. The mystics knew it; you didn't. You let them infect you with the worship of need -- and this country became a giant in body with a mooching midget in place of its soul, while its living soul was driven underground to labor and feed you in silence, unnamed. unhonored, negated, its soul and hero: the industrialist...

-- Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"

As a constitutional conservative, I am generally disappointed with the gains the progressive Democrats have made in the U.S. Senate and House Of Representatives. I'm also disappointed that we are now faced with four years of leadership by Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

Many of my online colleagues -- members of the "young geek" crowd -- were vocal advocates for Obama during the presidential campaign. I admire their conviction, dedication and involvement in a political campaign. Normally, I don't think they would pay that much attention to a presidential race, but because of the state the country is in and because Mr. Obama has proved to be attractive to young voters, there is an unusually strong sentiment for him in these young, technologically-aware voters.

The Obama campaign seemed to have run a much better Internet campaign than anyone ever before. Many lessons can be learned from this by all who hope or plan to participate in a political campaign in the future.

I'm not entirely upset republicans lost races. As a good friend of mine remarked, "The GOP needs to be benched for four years," to get their bearings.

Many political commentators have observed today's republicans are not the same as republicans from 20-30 years ago. My observation is republicans are generally a lot further left of conservative than they used to be. I suppose the same could be said about the democrats: They are also a lot further left than they used to be. Without a significant pull to th right, we are looking at a significant policy shift toward socialism.

Because of this, the Republican Party either needs to return to its conservative roots or we will need to create a new major conservative party to keep conservative interests represented.

The key to enacting a shift back toward the right, I believe, is education and study. For example, I've been involved with the Free Capitalist Project for the last several weeks and have found it to be an excellent step in the right direction.

There seems to be many organizations with similar values and goals. The trick will be getting many of these organizations to cooperate toward a common goal.

The first step, I believe, is helping more people to understand (or to become reaquainted) with some of the basics of the founding of our country.

Life, Liberty, Healthcare, Education, Bailouts, Income Protection, and the Pursuit of Happiness?!

Quoting from "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat:

Once you understand the rightful place for the government, or "the law," you will begin to see why our government is... well, askew.

Someone told me recently they felt it was the government's proper role to "improve our lives." That fallacy is a popular one, but it is a fallacy nonetheless. It is, however, the government's rightful place to protect your ability to improve your own life. That distinction is significant!

These fundamental principles were employed by those that penned their names on our Declaration of Independence in 1776 and participated in the writing of the U.S. Constitution in 1787.

I implore all those who read these words I've written to stop and ponder them. Read "The Law" yourself -- it's available for free from several sites in HTML or PDF formats and does an excellent job of explaining these things in a way that's easy to understand and digest.

If you ran a business and the walls figuratively came crashing down around you like they have in the United States economy the last few months, what would you do?

You could just call it quits and walk away.

You could make calls into every person you know and beg them for help and support.

There are many directions you could go, but there is one thing I can't imagine anyone would do: try to go on living like nothing has happened.

The problems in our financial markets and talk within the ranks of legislative and executive leadership of propping up failed institutions have brought to light another very glaring miscalculation: The U.S. government is already in a terrible amount of debt. These are all signs of the seriousness of the situation we are in. These signs suggest a calculated, careful, well thought-out response.

More importantly, these signs demand that we, as a people, forget political loyalties, forget the frivolity of our lifestyles, forget luxury and conveniences, and forget about the thoughts of others.

We must concentrate on one thing: Getting through this together in one piece. That means making serious sacrifices and planning for the future.

Why, during all that is going on, do I see that the U.S. Mint has announced a forthcoming set of commemorative pennies to celebrate Abraham Lincoln's 200^th birthday?

It's not much in the grand scheme of things, but this is a perfect example of how government is just going on doing what it has always done when it should be doing much, much less.

The U.S. Mint operations should probably scale back to one standard set of coin and paper currency. The U.S. Postal Service could probably minimize postal options. The U.S. Department of Transportation could make a quick decision of which construction projects currently underway can be suspended immediately, which projects can be brought to a point at which they can be suspended, and how costs can be minimized on other projects.

Everything our government does needs to be assessed and evaluated for fat that can be trimmed so that only essential services are provided. programs will need to be scrapped, shut down, or scaled back. To help those in need who have traditionally relied on government services or assistance, groups outside the government will need to step forward and help.

The failed businesses have failed. Propping them up will cost more money. Figuring out why they failed will cost more money. Reorganizing them, placing them in a conservatorship will all cost more money. Money... money we don't have and can't afford to keep borrowing.

Can we set an example, as a country, for what should be done?

I hope so.

Can you believe the hypocrisy, lies, and just all-out lack of respect the media, blogosphere, and the far-left are demonstrating with regard to Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin?

Here's an example of a blatant disregard of the facts.

On his television show last night, Glenn Beck had a short segment where he debunks some of the flat-out ridiculous crap Barack Obama has said about Palin. Beck laid it all out and told it like it is. Here's part of the transcript.

Today, John McCain announced his choice of running mate in the presidential race to be Sarah Palin, current governor of Alaska.

In my opinion, this is the smartest thing McCain could have done, short of bringing Mitt Romney or Ron Paul on board.

Good job John McCain. This brings me significantly closer to actually supporting the guy.

While the Democrat-led congress vacations, tensions between the U.S. and Russia have spiked as Russia has engaged in military operations inside the neighboring country Georgia. Many people I talk to have no idea why Russia has taken this action, what it means to the United States, or what it means, period.

Georgia is a small country just south of the western region of Russia. It borders the Black Sea on the west and Ajerbaijan to the east. Turkey and Armenia lie to its south.

As an aside, my paternal grandmother and her family left Armenia and came to the United States of America during the early 1900s to escape the invasion and (alleged) genocide by the Turks.

This region is no stranger to conflict. It would seen the unification of the USSR during the 20th century was one of the most peaceful times for the region. However, the people lacked freedom.

Since the fall of the old Soviet government, Georgia was established as a sovereign nation independent of Russia. At first, the new government was rife with corruption, but that began to change when Mikheil Saakashvili took office as president in early 2004. Saakashvili studied law in the United States in the 1990s and has strived to establish a very US-like domestic policy. Since becoming president, Georgia has risen to number 18 in term of ease of doing business, according to the World Bank. Georgia has also been named the top economic reformer country in the world.

Georgia's domestic policies are pretty revolutionary by US standards. Saakashvili has implemented a low 12-percent flat tax and frequently talks about the need for government to "get out of the way" of business so they can operate and grow unfettered by regulation.

Relations between Russia and Georgia have been tense over the years. Georgia's close ties with the United States, it's petition to be admitted as a member nation in NATO, and it's free market economy have not sat well with Russian officials. Georgia also cooperated with Turkey and Azerbaijan to build and operate an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea to the Black Sea that would compete directly with Russian oil pipelines.

Finally, there's the issue of the South Ossetia province. This is a province in north-central Georgia that borders Russia. The Ossetians have expressed interest in becoming an independent breakaway state. Saakashvili has instead granted South Ossetia full autonomy as a state under the Georgian federal government.

Reportedly, a majority of South Ossetians hold Russian passports and Russia has claimed one reason for their military movement into Georgia was to protect their citizens. What isn't widely reported is that Russia offered free passports to the people of South Ossetia.

While the situation in South Ossetia is difficult to understand, what is clear is that Russia's move into Georgia was far more than a "reaction" to Georgia's actions. Not only that, but Russian military has gone much further into Georgia than just the contested lands of South Ossetia.

What is clear is that Russia is no longer the timid, floundering democracy it was during the 1990s. Under Vladamir Putin, Russia has amassed large amounts of wealth and power through the oil exploration and production. Russia is again poised to be a formidable military world power and its alliances with China, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba and Libya paint a pretty clear picture of which side they're on relative to the United States.

Nicolas Sarkozy of France had his own Neville Chamberlain moment last week as he negotiated a cease-fire with Russia, but the fighting continued and Russian military incursion further into Georgia continued after Sarkozy returned to France with a false sense of accomplishment.

The United States has formally admonished Russia for its role in the South Ossetian hostilities and has insisted Russian military action must stop at once and Russian troops should leave Georgia. Secretary Of State Condoleeze Rice personally went to the Georgian capitol of Tbilisi late this last week to help broker a peace plan and was successful in getting parties to sign a peace plan.

I think there are many things we can learn from what has happened in Georgia this last week or so.

Oil is power. While one of the major issues in the 2008 US election season is oil and energy, Democrats in congress are very reluctant to increase domestic oil exploration and/or production. Presidential candidate Barack Obama insists alternatives to fossil fuels are the only energy sources we should be investing in. Meanwhile, other countries such as Russia, Venezuela, and China are growing their oil production at record pace. As a result, these countries are collecting large amounts of wealth and power while we here in the US watch the value of our currency languish.

One of the concerns on the left of the oil issue is that oil drilling, production, refinement, and consumption impact the environment negatively. While there is little doubt that is true, I find it hard to believe Russia, China, Venezuela, Iran, and others who would use their increased power against the United States are currently going about their petroleum business with an eye on environmental impact. If there is any country on the planet that can set the standard for clean, responsible, and environmentally sensitive exploration, production, and use of fossil fuels, it is the United States of America. But, instead, we seem poised on tying our own hands and watching our economy crumble.

The United States is beginning to look like it's "all talk." Georgia has committed thousands of troops to fight alongside the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan. Its desire to be a NATO member country represents a great deal of where its alliances lie. If the NATO member nation is attacked, it is expected that other member nations of NATO would respond in kind to its aid and defense. Aside from formally issuing a few words critical of Russia, sending some humanitarian aid, and putting Secretary Rice on the ground in Tbilisi, we're looking pretty impotent next to Russia's tanks, missiles, and planes.

Russia is back. You'd better believe it. Saakashvili said recently in an interview he believed the bombs Russia was dropping on Georgia were meant for us. "This is for America. This is for NATO. This is for Bush," Saakashvili said were (figuratively) inscribed on the bombs dropped on his country.

Some critics of this theory say Saakashvili attacked South Ossetia first and Russia just responded to protect its citizens. The shear size of their "response" invalidates this theory. Something that big had to have been planned weeks in advance.

What do you think?

A couple nights ago, I posted a quick entry here about Barack Obama on domestic oil.

Levi Pearson, a friend and a fellow local geek, got right on my case about some issues he had with what I said and left some comments. He had some really good points and most people will miss out on these because now they're buried in the thread of comments attached to the original article.

Also, this weekend, Pete Ashdown, owner of Utah Internet service provider XMission and former candidate for US Senate, posted a status update on his Facebook site that the Salt Lake Tribune had published an opinion piece he wrote about Utah's national GOP delegation and their... seemingly hypocritical grandstanding on energy and domestic oil production issues.

As a result of the back-and-forth with Levi and Pete, and my own research and introspection, I decided it would be best to write another entry explaining what I've learned and what I've concluded.

I'll admit, looking over what I originally wrote in my previous entry, it was a fluff piece. I was ranting without any facts or figures to back me up. That's not to say I think I was wrong. In fact, I think I've found information to back me up.

Pete's opinion piece was a pretty level-headed argument that Utah's GOP representatives (and presumed congressman-elect) and senators are unfairly pointing fingers at democrats and generally just adding to the dysfunction that is our congress.

Rob Bishop

I completely agree with Pete that Sen. Hatch and Sen. Bennett have way too much non-action under their belt to answer for to be out touting their newly discovered position on energy policy. This is especially the case for Hatch who has plenty of seniority. They both need to be voted out of office as soon as possible, in my opinion.

Rep. Bishop, I actually like. I looked at his voting record both since the Democrats have gained majority control of congress and before and found, while he treads a little closer to the party line than I would like, he votes the way I would like on most issues.

Now, I was concerned that I saw he vote NO on a bill last year (HR 6), the Creating Long-term Energy Alternatives for the Nation act. This sounds like the kind of bill I would want an elected official representing our state to vote for, but then I looked at the details. This was one of the "first 100 hours" bills that Pelosi pushed when the Democrats first took control and contains broad, sweeping legislation to enact price controls on oil companies, remove select subsidies and deductions given to oil and natural gas producers, and add taxes on oil imports and domestic production to fund investment in alternative fuels and alternative energy.

California representative Wally Herger had some remarks on this legislation that were spot-on:

"A truly balanced energy bill would begin with the serious problem of record gas prices and reducing America's dependence on foreign sources of energy and then proceed with creating incentives that would unleash the power of American inventiveness and creativity in order to develop the next generation of energy technology and supplies. H.R. 6 relies on an outdated and failed belief that Washington knows best. Over 1,000 pages of legislative text contains little in the way of broad-based incentives, but is chock-full of new regulations and a higher tax burden, which will do little, if anything, for consumers. A better approach would get Washington out of the way and allow market-oriented solutions to provide for an affordable, diverse, and secure energy supply for America."
-- 17 December 2007

Another representative, Don Young of Alaska made a more ideological remark about the proposed legislation.

"I am wearing this red shirt today; it's the color of the bill that we are debating, communist red. It is a taking."
-- 23 January 2007

Anyway, back to Pete's article! It's probably just a coincidence this opinion piece came out the Sunday after a group of House republicans took to the floor of the house after the House had adjourned, to protest Pelosi not allowing an up or down vote on a bill that would allow more domestic oil production. Rob Bishop was the only member of the Utah delegation to join this group and I applaud him for standing on the issue like he did.

Where was Chris Cannon? Who cares? There's a reason he got tossed in the primaries and his absence almost says it all.

Jason Chaffetz

Pete threw a barb at Jason Chaffetz for going on a trip to Alaska telling the press he believes all our energy woes are attributable to the democrats. I agree with Pete that such a comment is, well, stupid. I went and looked for a media report on Chaffetz's comments. Sure enough, it's a pretty glaring comment and shows Chaffetz is, in some regard, just like every other person who has ever run for office and made vague, unsubstantiated criticisms of the opposition party.

"There's no doubt that Democrats are the problem. We've done what they've suggested, and look at the results -- since (House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi took over, gas prices have doubled,"
-- 18 July 2008

I know enough about the factors that have fed into the rising gas prices over the last five years to know that a Democrat majority in congress beginning January 2007 isn't to blame. However, I do think the factors that led to the Democrat Party wresting power from the Republicans is part of the problem.

That being said, Chaffetz was quoted in the same article saying something that reminded me why I'm glad I helped make him the GOP nominee for the congressional race:

"We have to explore every facet of development that's available -- wind, solar, hydro, nuclear -- we have to move forward on all fronts."

Pete's proposed solution... Re-run Carter?

Pete praised Jimmy Carter (which makes me a little worried about Pete) and his energy policy.

"It is more revealing to look further back to the much-maligned President Carter who, in 1979, during the first oil crunch, set goals for our country so we'd never see a second energy crisis. "Carter proposed that U.S. automakers attain a whopping 48-mile-per-gallon fuel efficiency by 1995. He demanded that we curtail imported oil by imposing fees. Finally, Carter proposed windfall taxes on oil companies to fund alternative energy and a goal of generating 20 percent of our power from solar by 2000. "

I think we now know solar power still isn't a viable source of "core" electric power. Otherwise, Pete would be running XMission on solar power, right? I've read some estimates that solar power might begin to be viable in as little as five years. I think it's fair to say President Carter's plan was a wee bit unrealistic.

And then there's Carter's "double-edged plan" to impose fees or tariffs on imported oil and then tax the heck out of domestic oil compnnies or penalize their profits.

I fail to see how this would have helped anything or how doing the same thing today would help anything. All this would do is hurt consumers more (with even higher prices at the pump) and possibly result in gasoline shortages.

Hurray for Jimmy Carter!

Oh, and while we're talking about windfall profits, consider that oil companies make about 8.5% profit. If that's going to be considered a windfall profit, what happens to companies in other industries like Publishing (34% average profit), Health Care Facilities (48% average profit), or Hotels (10.6% average profit)?!

Generally, I agree with Pete that we need to do something big, akin to the Apollo program or the Manhattan project, to get our country into a better energy situation. I also believe it will take years to accomplish the goal.

I believe the solution is for the government to get out of the way of business, within reason. Pete seems to think a massive government program is called for and he even insinuates that we may need a repeat of The Great Depression before the public agrees with him.

Maybe the ideal solution is something in between.

Levi and relief from gasoline prices

Levi criticized my claim that simple policy changes could lower gas prices to as low as $3.00/gallon or $2.50/gallon. That would represent a 33 to 42 percent drop in price. Yeah... Levi... I think you're right on this one. I don't know what I was smoking, but that's clearly quite a long shot.

That being said, I do believe that a combination of Summer driving season ending within the next month and, possibly, congressional policy changes on increased domestic production, could very well result in lower gas prices. Perhaps a more realistic estimate would be 10-15%. That would bring us down to the neighborhood of $3.65/gallon. You won't be hearing much complaining from me if that happens.

Levi, facts, media, and Glenn

One thing in Levi's comments really hit me hard:

"Most of my googling turned up articles reporting on opinion polls, which show that a majority of respondents believe that drilling for oil will reduce gas prices in the short-term. This, frankly, disgusts me. We're not lemmings, we should get facts and draw our own conclusions, not get our coverage of the issue solely based on some vague percentage of support in the polls. What a tremendous failure of the media!"

Levi's right. There's a symbiotic relationship between elected officials, public opinion, and media coverage of issues. The rise of a plethora of cable news sources, Internet news sources and more has resulted in news (and opinion) that is short on facts. In fact, it seems increasingly obvious that opinion makes the news as much as news does.

Levi has commented to me before that he thought a certain stance I had on an issue was indicative of "Glenn Beck thinking." I took that to mean he was inferring that I didn't really have a substantive opinion of my own on the issue, that I was just repeating what I had heard from talk radio.

Talk radio does get a bad rap for that -- that listeners are nothing more than lemmings or foot soliders lined up for marching orders.

I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh a lot. That was before I got hooked on Glenn Beck. Looking back, I think Rush is more of, dare I say, a shill for the Republican Party, than I was willing to admit. He's been very vocal about not liking John McCain this year and that would represent some independence from the party, but I think he's still quite beholden.

But Rush Limbaugh isn't the "blowhard" a lot of people like to make him out to be. If a caller phones into Rush's program and whines about this or that and says something like "Rush, I know we live in a democracy, but this is insane!" Mr. Limbaugh will stop everything and take five, ten minutes, however long it takes, to help this caller (and all the people listening) understand that we do not live in a democracy, we don't want to live in a democracy, and here's why: bam, bam, bam. He'll lay it all out and I have to respect the guy for using his forum to actually educate his listeners and not just indoctrinate them.

Anyone who has listened to (or watched) Glenn Beck for any significant length of time knows he's got a pretty cool team of researchers working for him on both his radio program and his TV show. They fact-check just about everything before it goes on the air. In addition, Glenn seems very sensitive about the typical talk-radio rumors that always go around. For example, lately it's that Barack Obama won't pledge allegiance to the flag, that he's not a Christian, etc. In fact, this last week, a guy called into Glenn's radio program to point out Obama's hypocricy in saying he was embarrassed that Americans don't know many foreign languages but that he delivered all his Europe speeches in English. Then, the caller thought it would be funny to add a little something. Read below and observe as Glenn deals with it.

CALLER: Well, you know, I'm not really sure about when he went to, oh, the Muslim countries. But I have a feeling he speaks their language, though.

GLENN: See, now wait a minute. I don't even know what that means. Why would you even go there?

CALLER: Well, because I'm just the evil conservative.

GLENN: Well, you know what? You know what? You give conservatives a bad name when you -- no, listen to me, Cliff.

CALLER: Okay.

GLENN: When you insinuate that Obama is a Muslim and he's not a Muslim, you give conservatives a bad name. You give people a bad name because that is the kind of argument where you lose immediately. You say something like that and nobody worth their salt listens to you anymore about what you have to say about Barack Obama. Don't say those things. There's no reason to say those things. You know what? You say something like that and then I stop looking to see if Obama ever, the elitist, ever did say, "You know what, you go over to other countries, I'm sick of these Americans" because I no longer believe you. I don't think you have any credibility at all.

--28 July 2008

To kind of get back on topic here, I admit a chunk of my opinion is shaped by what Glenn Beck says, but I'm willing to go with it because I know he (and his people) have done their work. Plus, Glenn encourages his listeners to learn for themselves and often gives them the sources where they can find the facts  themselves.

Facts to back me up

So, I went out looking for articles written by "experts" in energy policy and found a lot of what I was looking for at The Heritage Foundation.

• Supply, demand and gasoline prices by David Kreutzer, Ph.D.
• Oil speculators help consumers at the gas pump by David Kreutzer, Ph.D.
• Oil: Open up federal lands by Ben Lieberman
• No drilling? No excuses by Ben Lieberman
• More Energy Supplies, Not More Taxes and Regulations, Are What We Need by Ben Lieberman
• Lifting the Offshore Drilling Ban: A Positive Step in the Fight against High Energy Prices by Ben Lieberman

• Death of Reason, Again? - Article on windfall profits by Bruce Bartlett
• Oil Company Profits and Tax Collections: Does the U.S. Need a New Windfall Profits Tax? by Jonathan Williams and Scott A. Hodge of The Tax Foundation

Whew. I'm tired.