Open Thread 2010
This is the place for you to comment about our blog themostsearched or other issues on your mind that may not fit into a particular topic.
Book Review: Arguing With Idiots
Arguing with Idioits (AWI) is the third Beck book we purchased this year (after Common Sense & Christmas Sweater). Our sons gave their Dad "An Inconvenient Book" (AIB) for Christmas so we aren't without good reading for the holidays.AWI is by far the most profound of the three aforementioned Beck books, and it seems keeping in style with AIB the little we've tackled so far. AWI solidly lays out the Libertarian case for politics and we find ourselves agreeing with nearly all of the Libertarian agenda although admittedly as a new convert we feel a bit stretched. That we even describe ourselves as "libertarian-leaning" is an historic political shift for us personally never before experienced. Perhaps we have become more anti-Progressive rather than Libertarian; either way it's a change for good. We do appreciate the Constitutionally-based arguments which support the Libertarian agenda and we already have AWI on our "re-read" list to more deeply guzzle truth.
Though anchored in profound political debate, the book gives a generous modern-art-paint-splat of humor, comics, and sidebar notes to illustrate points. One of our favs was the two-page spread on pp. 130/1: "How to Fire a Tenured Teacher in New York City." We shared this with our sons during a discussion them how notwithstanding their mother--as an incredibly talented teacher in a state-run "public" school--even the best state-run schools lack capitalistic competition to be efficient operators. Similar to the current healthcare debate, citizens should not be forced to hand over our money for our children's education, but rather have choice with our funds where to send them. The Utah voucher bill was a great start in this direction--we support a second try again soon, this time with a smaller voucher amount so our wonderful teachers don't feel so threatened. Good teachers will find good jobs. OK, back to the review.
AWI is hardly a rant solely about education but divides chapters into hot topics including healthcare, energy policy, the Constitution, right to bear arms, illegal immigration, and others. As a student of history, we found the Chapter 10 on Progressive Presidents fascinating as it helped us to frame our previous and current studies of politics by foregoing GOP partisanship and calling out "Progressive-lites" like McCain that exist in our own political party while at the same time shuddering at the thought of the choices during 1912 elections (at least in 2008 we had Conservative Palin!): Democrat Party progressive Wilson (our nominee for worst 20th century President), Bull Moose Party Progressive-Party founder Teddy Roosevelt, or Republican progressive Taft. With choices like this it is little wonder the horrible 16th and 17th Amendments passed during that era (and with enormous braggadocio putting forth economic wonder Utah being the sole state who actually voted to reject both Amendments!)
Criticism
While AWI fully delivers on substance, we have a suggestion with the format. AWI provides a wonderful plethora of documentation in the back complete with unmanageably long URL's (try typing in correctly this averaged-length URL citation from AWI: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=aRyHgTljlyFl")! Beck and likeminded authors should take note from twitterers and provided a second URL short & sweet for hardcover readers to type in. An additional option would be to publish the Citations electronically so readers could click on the references when in front of a computer. We have some concern that the URLs may be scrubbed in the future so concern for permanently linking these come into play although we were able to find all the references we checked. Also, to our dismay the book lacks an index which is always helpful. Lastly, AWI isn't edited flawlessly: such as needing the paragraph header on p. 290 "Public Use" moved up a paragraph to prevent confusion and there is no heading separating the "Bill of Rights" p. 287 from the other seventeen Amendments; such errors are non-substantive and in uniform with modern standards (and no worse than the editor of this blog, we might add!)
The final verdict
We had seen only a couple of Glenn Beck shows back on CNN prior to this year and Beck was largely an enigma to us. With the foray of Beck into Fox News in 2009, we began listening to Beck's radio show which has evolved into our fav. Thus it is with all unabashed bias found in the bestowal of a Academy Award (and yet to tackle Palin's "Going Rogue") we present to Arguing With Idiots by Glenn Beck the 2009 Best themostsearched "Reid" of the Year!
The Grinch steals Christmas 2009
Our Christmas has been destroyed this year by Democratic Senators who decided in a 60-39 partisan vote at 4am Pacific time on Christmas Eve this morning to pass the Democare "healthcare" legislation. Truly, the Grinch stole our Christmas and our liberty this year.
We would rather come together as a nation unified around a celebratory season both as Christians remembering the miraculous birth of our Savior in fulfillment of Biblical (and additionally for Mormons new world) prophecy, this God-incarnate perfect Jesus who made everything possible for us; and as non-Christians celebrating the birthday a man who has arguably made the single most dramatic impact on the history of the world.
Instead, we are dismayed and irate at the level of corruption exhibited throughout this bill and process including this Christmas Eve vote, the first since the Civil War era. Indeed, this is prompting a new Civil War in our nation. Not one of cannons and rifles but of words, civil disobedience, and massive protest. We follow the motto of Patrick Henry: "Give us liberty or give us death." The individual mandate is contrary to the liberty we fought and died for. A new era of tea party-ism has begun.
Our fight has only begun. This bill will be hotly debated at the dawn of 2010 as the Senate and House seek to reconcile their two shameful Democare bills. A blue dog Democrat, Parker Griffith, has already switched parties; it wouldn't surprise us if there is another. We vow to fight this at every step, at every level. We will fight this in Utah as it evades our state's sovereignty. We will bring this unconstitutional bill to the Supreme Court if Obama signs it. We will seek the overthrow of every Senate Democrat and Independent who voted to take away our liberty. We will continue in protest and raise our voice and never, never, never give up.
To all our readers, friends, and even our political adversaries: to you and your family a Merry Christmas.
We would rather come together as a nation unified around a celebratory season both as Christians remembering the miraculous birth of our Savior in fulfillment of Biblical (and additionally for Mormons new world) prophecy, this God-incarnate perfect Jesus who made everything possible for us; and as non-Christians celebrating the birthday a man who has arguably made the single most dramatic impact on the history of the world.
Instead, we are dismayed and irate at the level of corruption exhibited throughout this bill and process including this Christmas Eve vote, the first since the Civil War era. Indeed, this is prompting a new Civil War in our nation. Not one of cannons and rifles but of words, civil disobedience, and massive protest. We follow the motto of Patrick Henry: "Give us liberty or give us death." The individual mandate is contrary to the liberty we fought and died for. A new era of tea party-ism has begun.
Our fight has only begun. This bill will be hotly debated at the dawn of 2010 as the Senate and House seek to reconcile their two shameful Democare bills. A blue dog Democrat, Parker Griffith, has already switched parties; it wouldn't surprise us if there is another. We vow to fight this at every step, at every level. We will fight this in Utah as it evades our state's sovereignty. We will bring this unconstitutional bill to the Supreme Court if Obama signs it. We will seek the overthrow of every Senate Democrat and Independent who voted to take away our liberty. We will continue in protest and raise our voice and never, never, never give up.
To all our readers, friends, and even our political adversaries: to you and your family a Merry Christmas.
Why the Healthcare Scheme is Unconstitutional
Here are three reasons why we believe the healthcare scheme Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590) before the Senate at this late hour tonight--at the Democrats own choosing--to be unconstitutional:
(1) Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." No powers to regulate health insurance are found in the constitution. End of discussion here: states or the people have jurisdiction in the healthcare arena. The bill is unconstitutional.
(2) Eighth Amendment: Protection from "excessive fines" is guaranteed. Never before in the history of our nation have we fined for NOT purchasing something. This bill would require everyone to purchase health insurance coverage under threat of fine and/or jail. Any fine would be excessive. Joining this amendment is the Fourth Amendment which protects against unreasonable searches. To enforce their law of everyone having insurance must needs be a requirement of verification so that we would allow the Government to search our records for insurance coverage verification. If the burden of insurance coverage verification were placed in the responsibility of the people, then they would force anyone without health insurance to violate the Fifth Amendment which prohibits self-incrimination! What a mess!!! No wonder GOP Senators have declared this portion of the bill blatantly unconstitutional and have assured that it will be challenged in court. (Hertitage.org also offers a lengthy but excellent article explaining the unconstitutionality of mandating insurance purchase in detail.)
(3) Bill of Attainder: We assert the $1.2B "Cornhusker Kickback" is a bill of attainder which is prohibited in Art. 1 Sect. 9: (from Wikipedia: "A bill of attainder, is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial and includes any legislative act which takes away the life, liberty or property of a particular named or easily ascertainable person or group of persons because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment.") Reid's manager's amendment to the bill was debated in a secret, partisan manner so as to punish those states not in on the bargaining with the Medicare healthcare costs of the state of Nebraska whose Senator Nelson was in on the secret scheme. The bill was released at the beginning of the biggest holiday shopping weekend of the year and is scheduled to be voted on not many minutes from now before the weekend closes.
(1) Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." No powers to regulate health insurance are found in the constitution. End of discussion here: states or the people have jurisdiction in the healthcare arena. The bill is unconstitutional.
(2) Eighth Amendment: Protection from "excessive fines" is guaranteed. Never before in the history of our nation have we fined for NOT purchasing something. This bill would require everyone to purchase health insurance coverage under threat of fine and/or jail. Any fine would be excessive. Joining this amendment is the Fourth Amendment which protects against unreasonable searches. To enforce their law of everyone having insurance must needs be a requirement of verification so that we would allow the Government to search our records for insurance coverage verification. If the burden of insurance coverage verification were placed in the responsibility of the people, then they would force anyone without health insurance to violate the Fifth Amendment which prohibits self-incrimination! What a mess!!! No wonder GOP Senators have declared this portion of the bill blatantly unconstitutional and have assured that it will be challenged in court. (Hertitage.org also offers a lengthy but excellent article explaining the unconstitutionality of mandating insurance purchase in detail.)
(3) Bill of Attainder: We assert the $1.2B "Cornhusker Kickback" is a bill of attainder which is prohibited in Art. 1 Sect. 9: (from Wikipedia: "A bill of attainder, is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial and includes any legislative act which takes away the life, liberty or property of a particular named or easily ascertainable person or group of persons because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment.") Reid's manager's amendment to the bill was debated in a secret, partisan manner so as to punish those states not in on the bargaining with the Medicare healthcare costs of the state of Nebraska whose Senator Nelson was in on the secret scheme. The bill was released at the beginning of the biggest holiday shopping weekend of the year and is scheduled to be voted on not many minutes from now before the weekend closes.
Dems poised to force America into their healthcare scheme
Like the process which began in the Senate on the Saturday before Thanksgiving, now on the Saturday before Christmas, Harry Reid releases the behind-closed-doors-discussed 383 page healthcare manager's amendment. Even as we write, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell forced a reading of the amendment on the amendment (broadcasting live on C-SPAN2) which is expected to take most of the day simply to give some time before Democrats force a vote next week--most likely and most onerously on Christmas Eve--on this horrible and unconstitutional government overreach.
"I'm a Jeffersonian" decried Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska who was the last Democratic holdout before announcing minutes ago his support for the bill. themostsearched is bewildered how anyone could invoke the name of Jefferson in describing insignificant abortion opt-outs for the states while mandating all Americans be forced under threat of fines and jail to have health insurance. Freedom of choice is gone in this bill; your rights as an American to manage your own healthcare have been subserviated to a government that can't balance its budget nor even pay for the laws it passes or proposes.
Nelson, the former Nebraska Governor who once enjoyed the highest approval rating of any Senator in Congress is now on record as supporting a bill 67% of Nebraskans oppose. And this isn't just any bill; it is easily the most significant bill of 2009. themostsearched feels that Corn Huskers will now unite against Ben Nelson to remove him from office in 2012 when his term expires, if not before; in short, Nelson will follow Reid out of office. According to an anonymous Senate aide, Nelson was exhorted by the White House that if he didn't vote for this bill, Offutt Air Force Base would be put on the BRAC (base closing) list. Nelson was also seeking undisclosed large amounts monies for his state in order to effectively sell his vote out (like Mary Landrieu!)
Unbelievably, we find ourselves agreeing with MSNBC liberal Keith Olbermann who denounces this bill because it takes away his freedom to be self insured. Perhaps themostsearched will get to share a jail cell with Mr. O. (and a bunch of other patriotic dissenters) when we excise our right to choose our own "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" when it comes to healthcare. Under our God-given right we refuse to participate in a unconstitutional Federal edict to have health insurance. We never ever gave government the right to require us to be insured; it is simply illegal and we decry ALL SENATORS who will vote for this coal-in-the-stocking Christmas "present."
"I'm a Jeffersonian" decried Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska who was the last Democratic holdout before announcing minutes ago his support for the bill. themostsearched is bewildered how anyone could invoke the name of Jefferson in describing insignificant abortion opt-outs for the states while mandating all Americans be forced under threat of fines and jail to have health insurance. Freedom of choice is gone in this bill; your rights as an American to manage your own healthcare have been subserviated to a government that can't balance its budget nor even pay for the laws it passes or proposes.Nelson, the former Nebraska Governor who once enjoyed the highest approval rating of any Senator in Congress is now on record as supporting a bill 67% of Nebraskans oppose. And this isn't just any bill; it is easily the most significant bill of 2009. themostsearched feels that Corn Huskers will now unite against Ben Nelson to remove him from office in 2012 when his term expires, if not before; in short, Nelson will follow Reid out of office. According to an anonymous Senate aide, Nelson was exhorted by the White House that if he didn't vote for this bill, Offutt Air Force Base would be put on the BRAC (base closing) list. Nelson was also seeking undisclosed large amounts monies for his state in order to effectively sell his vote out (like Mary Landrieu!)
Unbelievably, we find ourselves agreeing with MSNBC liberal Keith Olbermann who denounces this bill because it takes away his freedom to be self insured. Perhaps themostsearched will get to share a jail cell with Mr. O. (and a bunch of other patriotic dissenters) when we excise our right to choose our own "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" when it comes to healthcare. Under our God-given right we refuse to participate in a unconstitutional Federal edict to have health insurance. We never ever gave government the right to require us to be insured; it is simply illegal and we decry ALL SENATORS who will vote for this coal-in-the-stocking Christmas "present."
Logan, Utah LDS Temple
I was born accross the street from this Temple in a hospital that no longer exists. It is now a parking lot.Beautiful Fall Weather In BC
My two sons and I took a hike in the foothills above Brigham a couple of Saturdays ago. The weather was irresistible and I knew that I had to take advantage of it because it wouldn't last. The fall colors were stunning and the temperature was perfect! Take a look at these pictures and imagine that you could stop time. This is a moment that I could enjoy for years!
Book Review: Paper, Ink, & What I Think
About a week or so ago we finished Alfonzo Rachel’s book “Paper, Ink, & What I Think (Zo's Writ of Rants).” We highly recommend the book although if you aren’t familiar with Zo you might want to watch a few of his current videos on PJTV or older ones on YouTube. Here’s our all-time favorite:
Zo grew up in the “da hoody hood” of San Bernardino, CA, and developed into a…(deep breath) rock-hard Christian conservative. He is terribly funny and has a knack and talent for presenting the message in a funny, ebonistic-jive, down-to-earth sort of way you won’t get from Limbaugh or Hannity. He is a professional comedian, musician, political commentator, and proficient at the martial arts. Don’t call him African-American however: he prefers the term “Nubian” (read pages 95-6 for more info).
Zo grew up in the “da hoody hood” of San Bernardino, CA, and developed into a…(deep breath) rock-hard Christian conservative. He is terribly funny and has a knack and talent for presenting the message in a funny, ebonistic-jive, down-to-earth sort of way you won’t get from Limbaugh or Hannity. He is a professional comedian, musician, political commentator, and proficient at the martial arts. Don’t call him African-American however: he prefers the term “Nubian” (read pages 95-6 for more info).
We were rather befuddled by the seeming lack of formal organization of the book at first but if you think of the book as the title indicates “writ of rants” and maybe even read aloud, if you’re like us you’ll soon become endeared. The memorable quotes from the book started coming in so fast that we actually had to write them all down to remember them starting from the first paragraph: “We should be able to drop kick liberalism into the land of missing sock makes.” Or this one later in the chapter: “The Second Amendment is our emergency tool to protect our Constitution, in the event the First is no longer effective in maintaining it.”
We would love to share with you all our fav quotes but don’t want to spoil the book so we’ll limit our sharing to one more: “Many people think [speaking in tongues] is strange but don’t think it strange when jazz singers scat, or when rock singers yell out a bunch of ???????...Christians however, are seen as weird for speaking in tongues. That’s messed up.”
To us, this isn’t a book for little kids; after all, this is funny yet serious political commentary for an adult audience. Whoa! We’re not talking “adult” in the porno sense here; just we wouldn’t let little kids watch SNL either. Simply put, Zo speaks his mind, and that’s Zo at his best. Even if you're apolitical, the book is worth its weight if nothing but the wonderful jive (ie: "daaaaaaang guuuuurrrrlll!')
To order Zo’s book, visit his website at: http://www.machosauceproductions.com/merchandise.html We picked up the book for a bargain under $15 which included postage.
Today the Last Day of Capitalism?
themostsearched is unequivocally opposed to the tax-raising, 2000-page, $2.5 trillion, socialized healthcare bill before a vote in the Senate today. In our opinion, this is the single most significant vote of the Senate for 2009 (if not longer) and urge all Senators to vote NO! We will be taking note of every Senator voting today to discuss this socialized healthcare behemoth.
Utah conservative GOP-er Diedre Henderson has a new blog entitled The Daily Dose with some powerful and concise information on the socialized medicine bill debate. In her post "U.S. Senate to Commit Harry-Kerry" she describes the sly tactics used by the Democrats to force this unpopular bill through the Senate. In her post Shadegg's One Man Revolt she describes how Congressman John Shadegg (AZ-03) recognized the Stupak Amendment as a way for Pelosi to shepherd votes for Obamacare knowing full well the amendment would be stripped. Shadegg posted his own thoughts on his website.
The whole process is reminiscent of the significant corruption that exists in our country as exhibited in this famous John Murtha Youtube video:
themostsearched has pondered much whether with the government takeover of automakers, banks, railroads, and mortgage companies along with massive entitlement/welfare programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, America remains a capitalist country or if we have slouched into socialism. We believe passage on debate of the public option socialized healthcare bill before the Senate today will almost inevitably lead to the public option becoming law. Should healthcare which represents 1/6th of our economy become socialized through this public option, themostsearched will no longer be able to accurately describe our economy as capitalist; it is the last leaf.
We support those sacrificing their time in today MillionMedMarch and wish them well. Consider this post our cyber-walk with you!
To the dwindling number of Obama supporters, when you weigh in this massive government expansion, perhaps you can understand the rationale of why many of us fully consider Obama a radical socialist.
Utah conservative GOP-er Diedre Henderson has a new blog entitled The Daily Dose with some powerful and concise information on the socialized medicine bill debate. In her post "U.S. Senate to Commit Harry-Kerry" she describes the sly tactics used by the Democrats to force this unpopular bill through the Senate. In her post Shadegg's One Man Revolt she describes how Congressman John Shadegg (AZ-03) recognized the Stupak Amendment as a way for Pelosi to shepherd votes for Obamacare knowing full well the amendment would be stripped. Shadegg posted his own thoughts on his website.
The whole process is reminiscent of the significant corruption that exists in our country as exhibited in this famous John Murtha Youtube video:
themostsearched has pondered much whether with the government takeover of automakers, banks, railroads, and mortgage companies along with massive entitlement/welfare programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, America remains a capitalist country or if we have slouched into socialism. We believe passage on debate of the public option socialized healthcare bill before the Senate today will almost inevitably lead to the public option becoming law. Should healthcare which represents 1/6th of our economy become socialized through this public option, themostsearched will no longer be able to accurately describe our economy as capitalist; it is the last leaf.
We support those sacrificing their time in today MillionMedMarch and wish them well. Consider this post our cyber-walk with you!
To the dwindling number of Obama supporters, when you weigh in this massive government expansion, perhaps you can understand the rationale of why many of us fully consider Obama a radical socialist.
Eagar Momentum Growing
We are pleased to report that Cherilyn Eagar, the conservative frontrunner in the Utah 2010 race to replace Bailout Bob Bennett, is making strong headway in the campaign. (Cherilyn was visible at today's Salt Lake 912/tea party rally and looked vibrant!) The most crucial time for the campaign is during these next six months as we are trying to get 60% of Republican delegates to commit to Eagar at the state GOP convention on May 8, 2010, and thus avoid an expensive GOP primary runoff presumably against Bailout Bob who has already spent a whopping 1/2million (including large donations from the banks he bailed out!)
First, we (literally we as my honeybunny is joining me) are excited to join Cherilyn and Joe the Plumber this Wednesday, November 18th, for a fundraising dinner (click here to purchase yours or visit http://www.eagar4senate.com/). We have never participated in a fundraising dinner before, but indeed these are times that try men's souls and we believe Cherilyn is a key part of the solution.
If a fundraising dinner is too much commitment at this time for you, here is the complete list of events for Utah and Salt Lake counties that day (note: paying for your own meal is part of the conservative philosophy of not trying buying your vote--unlike Bailout Bob who will and has bought your breakfast before):
- Buy Your Own Breakfast with Joe the Plumber 7:30 - 9:00 a.m. @ IHOP Restaurant (850 S 1250 W, Orem -- across from UVU)
- Clean Up Washington with Joe the Plumber Town Hall 9:30 - 10:30 a.m. @ UVU, Center Stage 12:00 noon - 12:30 p.m.: News Conference, Utah State Capitol Rotunda
- Clean Up Washington with Joe the Plumber Rally 12:30 - 1:30 p.m. @ Utah State Capitol Rotunda, Salt Lake City
- Delegate Training & Constitution Class to be held right after Rally at the Capital 1:45 - 2:45 @ The Utah State Capital
- Salt Lake County: Dinner with Joe the Plumber - Eagar for Senate Fundraiser 6:00 p.m. Reception: $100 7:00 p.m. Dinner: $100/plate; $150/couple; $600/table@ Grand Building Ballroom, Utah State Fair Park (155 N 1000 W, Salt Lake City)
Additional statewide tours dates and places are available at http://www.eagarforsenate.com/. If you are unable to attend the events, themostsearched asks a personal favor to stop by www.eagar4senate.com and make a donation of any size during the month of November to her campaign. (A suggested donation of $9.12 is great as it sends a message well noted by Cherilyn; yet even $1 would send a huge message about the number of supporters there are out there!)
Second item. Earlier this month Cherilyn was interviewed by Art Wayland of 912 Project Truck, a perfect example of the 912 grassroots project we are proud to associate with. Art praises her as being a "highly conservative, very well versed, amazing American Patriot." We concur! Here is the video from the interview:
NY-23 not quite yet over
It appears now from statements by the Hoffman campaign that conceding defeat on election night was premature. Apparently in Oswego County, with the largest number of voters in the election, 84 out of 245 county races called in incorrect totals (Syracuse Post-Standard) resulting in a significant undercounting of Hoffman votes.
The NY State Board of Elections now has the race with Hoffman trailing Owens by only 3,000 votes or 46.5% to 48.7%. Considering the 10,200 absentee ballots issued have not been counted it is within the realm of possibility that Hoffman could still be declared winner. We believe that the ballots will break for Hoffman, but the question remains by how much?
Meanwhile as Hoffman conceded victory to Owens predicated on false return summaries, Owens was sworn in by Pelosi and voted for Pelosicare the next day. We believe that this vote alone will not be forgotten by NY-23rd voters and should Hoffman not prevail when all the votes are counted, voters will unite Republican and Conservative parties in 2010 to replace Owens.
One final thought before leaving this race: considering the fusion party politics of New York, as Scozzafava dropped from the race and the Republican party endorsed Hoffman, wouldn't that render the vote for the Republican a count for Hoffman? That is, in fusion politics aren't you essentially voting for the party not the candidate? If so, Hoffman would pick up the 5% from the Republican candidate and run away with the race. We don't know fusion-voting politics well enough to make this case, but it seems logical. Perhaps someone might want to challenge this idea in court?
With all this in hindsight, it seems really too bad Hoffman conceded but themostsearched does formally recall our earlier post declaring Owens a victor and will not declare either candidate in this race a victor at least until this race is certified.
The NY State Board of Elections now has the race with Hoffman trailing Owens by only 3,000 votes or 46.5% to 48.7%. Considering the 10,200 absentee ballots issued have not been counted it is within the realm of possibility that Hoffman could still be declared winner. We believe that the ballots will break for Hoffman, but the question remains by how much?
Meanwhile as Hoffman conceded victory to Owens predicated on false return summaries, Owens was sworn in by Pelosi and voted for Pelosicare the next day. We believe that this vote alone will not be forgotten by NY-23rd voters and should Hoffman not prevail when all the votes are counted, voters will unite Republican and Conservative parties in 2010 to replace Owens.
One final thought before leaving this race: considering the fusion party politics of New York, as Scozzafava dropped from the race and the Republican party endorsed Hoffman, wouldn't that render the vote for the Republican a count for Hoffman? That is, in fusion politics aren't you essentially voting for the party not the candidate? If so, Hoffman would pick up the 5% from the Republican candidate and run away with the race. We don't know fusion-voting politics well enough to make this case, but it seems logical. Perhaps someone might want to challenge this idea in court?
With all this in hindsight, it seems really too bad Hoffman conceded but themostsearched does formally recall our earlier post declaring Owens a victor and will not declare either candidate in this race a victor at least until this race is certified.
Shurtleff withdraws from Senate Race
All over the political news across Utah today was Attorney General Mark Shurtleff's withdrawal from the 2010 U.S. Senate race. Shurtleff cited the need for family time particularly during a time when his adopted daughter had acute mental health needs. Having familial mental health experiences, we strongly sympathize and wish the Shurtleff family God bless.
Fellow pundits and media outlets have already begun to speculate as the stock of other candidates in the race. Although they raise interesting points, themostsearched will refrain for the moment from public comment on the impact of the Shurtleff announcement on other candidates out of respect for the Shurtleff family.
Notwithstanding themostsearched’s endorsement of another candidate, Shurtleff has gained our respect both through this commitment to family and through his willingness to recognize that running a U.S. Senatorial race is not done by jumping in late in the game hoping to get one’s name into the ring. We suggest a way of supporting our great AG through this time of distress might be the reading of Shurtleff’s newly-released historical: "Am I Not a Man, the Dred Scott Story” though we confess we haven’t done so ourselves. We reiterate our stance that Bennett is wrong for Utah and stand by our previous endorsement in this race as a strong alternative to Bailout Bob.
Overtime:
- John Curtis' gracious acceptance video for Provo Mayor
- David Harmer loses by 10pts. There are two positives in this loss. First, the loss is that this is slightly less than the Cook PVI of D+11 with a Republican neophyte making a great showing against the top ranking Democratic executive in the state. More importantly, Democrats will likely lose a Lieutenant-Governorship with Schwarzenegger having an opportunity to appoint a fiscally-conservative Republican to fill Garamendi's vacated position. With Schwarzenegger being term-limited, this appointee stands to receive a tremendous boost in the upcoming gubernatorial elections. Finally, a Schwarzenegger appointee would add a rare Republican to a near Democratic monopoly in California on executive-branch offices.
- Poll: Do you support parental notification of abortion? http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/chi-teen-abortion-law-02-nov02,0,6313456.story
New York: con-Fusion Voting
Lesson to be learned by outsiders on Hoffman's loss in New York's U.S. Congressional District 23: don't ever allow "Fusion Voting" in your state!
Yesterday, twitterer @RightKlik posted a URL to a sample ballot in NY23 which we post below:
Yesterday, twitterer @RightKlik posted a URL to a sample ballot in NY23 which we post below:
So say you've decided as a voter to vote for Doug Hoffman. Can you find him on the ballot? Not too easy. How about William Owens, his Democratic counterpart--well he's a lot easier to find because his name is on their TWICE. Or how about Dede Scozzafava who withdrew from the race? Yes, she's easy to find as well as she, too, is listed TWICE.
So how in the world does a non-candidate get listed TWICE, your opponent get listed TWICE, but your name is listed once? Welcome to the world of fusion voting where political parties get power not candidates.
If you happened to know that Mr. Hoffman was running on the "Conservative Party" ticket, he is much easier to find. The problem is that Hoffman was often described as an "Independent" in the media which can be confused with the "Independence Party" which endorsed Scozzafava (and later Owens). When Scozzafava withdrew, the Republican Party endorsed Hoffman, so one might also think that one could find Hoffman under the Republican Party line. What a mess, indeed!
The solution for solving these problems under con-fusion voting rules lies in the creation of multiple parties cross-endorsing the desired candidate to provide maximum exposure. For example, you could create the "9/12 Party" which could cross endorse Hoffman and bingo! Hoffman has his name twice on the ballot like everyone else. But we wouldn't stop there. Let's get the "Tea Party" Party on there with a "Rush Limbaugh" Party and a "Matt Drudge" Party and heck, lets just throw in the "Obamanation" Party for good riddance! Now we've got Hoffman's name on the ballot six times and you'll have to hunt for anyone else running in the race.
The point is fusion voting is ridiculous and while we won't blame Hoffman's loss solely on a terrible ballot we need to be alert in all our states for nonsensical voter reforms such as New York's.
So how in the world does a non-candidate get listed TWICE, your opponent get listed TWICE, but your name is listed once? Welcome to the world of fusion voting where political parties get power not candidates.
If you happened to know that Mr. Hoffman was running on the "Conservative Party" ticket, he is much easier to find. The problem is that Hoffman was often described as an "Independent" in the media which can be confused with the "Independence Party" which endorsed Scozzafava (and later Owens). When Scozzafava withdrew, the Republican Party endorsed Hoffman, so one might also think that one could find Hoffman under the Republican Party line. What a mess, indeed!
The solution for solving these problems under con-fusion voting rules lies in the creation of multiple parties cross-endorsing the desired candidate to provide maximum exposure. For example, you could create the "9/12 Party" which could cross endorse Hoffman and bingo! Hoffman has his name twice on the ballot like everyone else. But we wouldn't stop there. Let's get the "Tea Party" Party on there with a "Rush Limbaugh" Party and a "Matt Drudge" Party and heck, lets just throw in the "Obamanation" Party for good riddance! Now we've got Hoffman's name on the ballot six times and you'll have to hunt for anyone else running in the race.
The point is fusion voting is ridiculous and while we won't blame Hoffman's loss solely on a terrible ballot we need to be alert in all our states for nonsensical voter reforms such as New York's.
Election Wrapup
John Curtis elected Provo Mayor!
Race tonight was a wild one as PR36 with a 41% best-of-all-voter-precinct-turnouts dumped in early voting 4:1 for Clark giving Clark a huge early 60%/40% over Curtis. This was Clark's stronghold and as Clark had represented these voters as State Rep. in District 63. But Curtis came back winning comfortably in the end with 53% of the vote and winning 35 out of 49 precincts. Our PR20 had a respectable 26% turnout with Curtis losing by a mere 6 votes. Yet for PR20 this is a Curtis victory as residing in our boundaries was former mayoral contestant Don Allpin (and posterity) who came in 3rd in the primaries and endorsed Clark on Oct 24th.
Maine votes down same-sex marriage!
Leading 53% to 47% with 87% reporting, voters in Maine gave a voter veto to a bill passed by their legislature that would have allowed same-sex marriage in the state. No matter how liberal the state, whenever the decision has been put to the voters instead of a few liberal judges, same sex marriage has been defeated and tonight was no exception.
Bob McDonnell elected VA gov in landslide; Republicans sweep trifecta of seats!
With all precincts reporting McDonnell won 59% to 41% bringing with him a Republican Lt. Gov. and A.G. in a state that went for Obama just 12 months ago. Just last week, Obama had "campaigned" for McDonnell's opponent Deeds by saying: "He may not be perfect -- my wife reminds me I'm not. (Applause.) She is, just like our spouses are perfect, but we're not. (Laughter.) You know, Creigh, sometimes his tie gets a little askew, and you know, his hair is a little -- (laughter)..." (Yahoo News) We don't think the patronizing of Deeds by Obama helped Deeds at all.
What next...
Tonight was a huge bounceback from the losses suffered twelve months ago. It also shows where we need to shore up support and educate on the evils of Socialistic ideas in getting ready for 2010, which officially starts....well, now! For starters, we can begin by rallying at the Utah State Capitol on Saturday, Nov. 14th, for a combined 9/12 and Utah Tea Party rally. Let us use our victories to motivate us to replace Bennett, throw out Harry Reid, and get some good Conservative Republicans back in both houses of our Congress in 2010.
Race tonight was a wild one as PR36 with a 41% best-of-all-voter-precinct-turnouts dumped in early voting 4:1 for Clark giving Clark a huge early 60%/40% over Curtis. This was Clark's stronghold and as Clark had represented these voters as State Rep. in District 63. But Curtis came back winning comfortably in the end with 53% of the vote and winning 35 out of 49 precincts. Our PR20 had a respectable 26% turnout with Curtis losing by a mere 6 votes. Yet for PR20 this is a Curtis victory as residing in our boundaries was former mayoral contestant Don Allpin (and posterity) who came in 3rd in the primaries and endorsed Clark on Oct 24th.
Maine votes down same-sex marriage!
Leading 53% to 47% with 87% reporting, voters in Maine gave a voter veto to a bill passed by their legislature that would have allowed same-sex marriage in the state. No matter how liberal the state, whenever the decision has been put to the voters instead of a few liberal judges, same sex marriage has been defeated and tonight was no exception.
Bob McDonnell elected VA gov in landslide; Republicans sweep trifecta of seats!
With all precincts reporting McDonnell won 59% to 41% bringing with him a Republican Lt. Gov. and A.G. in a state that went for Obama just 12 months ago. Just last week, Obama had "campaigned" for McDonnell's opponent Deeds by saying: "He may not be perfect -- my wife reminds me I'm not. (Applause.) She is, just like our spouses are perfect, but we're not. (Laughter.) You know, Creigh, sometimes his tie gets a little askew, and you know, his hair is a little -- (laughter)..." (Yahoo News) We don't think the patronizing of Deeds by Obama helped Deeds at all.
Chris Christie(R) elected NJ governor!
How a conservative Republican can win a dark blue state like NJ was extremely encouraging for conservatives in 2010. NJ wanted their highest-in-the-union property taxes cut and were fed up with Corzine and the flight of business from the state. Obama had his clout snubbed here as well with multiple plugs for Corzine while Christie racked in 49% of the vote and led Corzine by 5%.
Doug Hoffman loses to Bill Owens
Doug Hoffman loses to Bill Owens
In a gut-wrencher for conservatives, with 92% reporting Hoffman loses to Owens 45% to 49%. Conisdering the disarray of the campaign and Scozzafava who withdrew receiving 5% of the vote, there is much to be proud of in this loss. The district will vote again next year and if Owens dares to vote for a public option and the GOP puts up a Conservative, Owens might just be a pop on the 4th of July.
Dave Harmer loses to John Garamendi
With 50% reporting, Harmer is losing 55% to 40% to Lt. Governor and carpetbagger Garamendi who, like Hoffman, doesn't live in the district. Getting Harmer elected was our biggest challenge going into election day and obviously Californians despite their May referendums just haven't had enough of folks who promise a better life through raising taxes. If it were just District 10's taxes he were raising, we probably wouldn't even bother with the post.
What next...
Tonight was a huge bounceback from the losses suffered twelve months ago. It also shows where we need to shore up support and educate on the evils of Socialistic ideas in getting ready for 2010, which officially starts....well, now! For starters, we can begin by rallying at the Utah State Capitol on Saturday, Nov. 14th, for a combined 9/12 and Utah Tea Party rally. Let us use our victories to motivate us to replace Bennett, throw out Harry Reid, and get some good Conservative Republicans back in both houses of our Congress in 2010.
Re: Mudslinging by an Attack Dog
Preface note: Although this is formed as a response to a reader's comment, its both its length and introduction of new material justify a separate blog entry.
Anonymous: Thanks for stopping by; you are welcome to remain anonymous, but we feel it would have empowered your premises had you (1) revealed the status of your citizenship in Provo (2) if you are tied into the authorship (IE “RMC”) of the anti-Curtis blog you cite TWICE and (3) if you are a member of the Clark campaign or family. Understandably, we have our suspicions though you are welcome to refute these thoughts of ours (emphasize thoughts rather than accusations.)
As a five-year Provo resident, sole author of this blog, and a vocal supporter and endorser of but not part of the Curtis campaign, we shoot straight here which gives us a bit more authority in the debate than someone who hides behind an Anonymous posting. Although we already have “pulled the lever” for Curtis in early voting, we owe it to our readership to respond.
First, your accusation that we have not “really educate[d] [my]self beyond one-worded campaign slogans” goes right along with the mudslinging of the Clark campaign. Even RMC who you quote TWICE hoped the debate would not be about “slinging mud” (bottom of page; first post by RMC). Let us elaborate upon the “literally hours upon hours of listening to Curtis” we have done. Coming into this election we hadn’t a clue who either candidate was; we aren't related to anyone in Provo (does the wife count? LOL) and admittedly had never heard of Action Target. At some length even before the primaries, we met both candidates personally and asked them direct questions one-on-one eye-to-eye. We attended our neighborhood’s meet-the-candidates night at Amelia Earhart Elementary, attended a number of open houses and the first mayoral debates at the Provo city center, and been in communication via email until our concerns were satisfied. We reckon (pardon the Missouri-ism here) based on the effort of eligible voters to stay informed, we rank in the top 1%. Your accusation of us not being educated is simply baseless, biased, and demeaning to a private citizen doing their civic duty.
We will however, address your two underlying premises of debate. In reading the posting on the anti-Curtis blog you point to, we believe you are bringing up non-relevant, partisan material into the campaign. Gee whiz (sorry, our age is showing...), Glenn Beck grew up a drunk Democrat; David Horowitz was a commie—and while Curtis was neither but simply trying to bring some “common sense” back to the Democratic Party—do we really care? Is past partisan politics relevant in a non-partisan local election? The point is this isn’t a partisan race but Clark (who if you want to bring partisanship into this race in our opinion is more Democratic than Curtis sponsoring bills like HB290) is trying to make it one with these campaign fliers (see newest below). As Republicans we denounce AG Eric Holder’s forced reversal in Kinston, NC, of the non-partisan status of their local elections; but you tolerate--even advocate--Steve Clark repeatedly bringing up partisanship into this race? Hogwash.
Partisan Clark attacks continue against Curtis in non-partisan race (red underlines ours)
To your second point on the green sweater comment: perhaps Curtis “lost his cool”; don’t know, wasn’t there, but Curtis did apologize. So we concede the point. Yet you know it seems a bit double-standard: like Clark attacking Curtis for not owning dogs? Clark also seemed to be losing his cool when we asked him one-on-one what he was going to do about our city’s “sanctuary city” label. So wow, both candidates have human emotions; passion is better than apathy and both these men are decent in their hearts and neither at all like Democrat Harry Reid.
On funding, Curtis has consistently said that for special projects the voters should have a say, not forced upon us like Iprovo. If we want a new rec center or whatever, are we willing to support that with higher levies? Curtis’ plan for four officers on gangs instead of one is deficit neutral; directing police who are told to “go write tickets” to actually fighting crime. As a businessman, he is keen to eliminating inefficiencies in government so that we can balance our budget as well as making Provo more business friendly to grow our tax base. Clark on the other had wants to add a layer of government by having “mentors” assigned to developers; to us growing the scope of government is not a desirable ideal.
Anonymous: Thanks for stopping by; you are welcome to remain anonymous, but we feel it would have empowered your premises had you (1) revealed the status of your citizenship in Provo (2) if you are tied into the authorship (IE “RMC”) of the anti-Curtis blog you cite TWICE and (3) if you are a member of the Clark campaign or family. Understandably, we have our suspicions though you are welcome to refute these thoughts of ours (emphasize thoughts rather than accusations.)
As a five-year Provo resident, sole author of this blog, and a vocal supporter and endorser of but not part of the Curtis campaign, we shoot straight here which gives us a bit more authority in the debate than someone who hides behind an Anonymous posting. Although we already have “pulled the lever” for Curtis in early voting, we owe it to our readership to respond.
First, your accusation that we have not “really educate[d] [my]self beyond one-worded campaign slogans” goes right along with the mudslinging of the Clark campaign. Even RMC who you quote TWICE hoped the debate would not be about “slinging mud” (bottom of page; first post by RMC). Let us elaborate upon the “literally hours upon hours of listening to Curtis” we have done. Coming into this election we hadn’t a clue who either candidate was; we aren't related to anyone in Provo (does the wife count? LOL) and admittedly had never heard of Action Target. At some length even before the primaries, we met both candidates personally and asked them direct questions one-on-one eye-to-eye. We attended our neighborhood’s meet-the-candidates night at Amelia Earhart Elementary, attended a number of open houses and the first mayoral debates at the Provo city center, and been in communication via email until our concerns were satisfied. We reckon (pardon the Missouri-ism here) based on the effort of eligible voters to stay informed, we rank in the top 1%. Your accusation of us not being educated is simply baseless, biased, and demeaning to a private citizen doing their civic duty.
We will however, address your two underlying premises of debate. In reading the posting on the anti-Curtis blog you point to, we believe you are bringing up non-relevant, partisan material into the campaign. Gee whiz (sorry, our age is showing...), Glenn Beck grew up a drunk Democrat; David Horowitz was a commie—and while Curtis was neither but simply trying to bring some “common sense” back to the Democratic Party—do we really care? Is past partisan politics relevant in a non-partisan local election? The point is this isn’t a partisan race but Clark (who if you want to bring partisanship into this race in our opinion is more Democratic than Curtis sponsoring bills like HB290) is trying to make it one with these campaign fliers (see newest below). As Republicans we denounce AG Eric Holder’s forced reversal in Kinston, NC, of the non-partisan status of their local elections; but you tolerate--even advocate--Steve Clark repeatedly bringing up partisanship into this race? Hogwash.
To your second point on the green sweater comment: perhaps Curtis “lost his cool”; don’t know, wasn’t there, but Curtis did apologize. So we concede the point. Yet you know it seems a bit double-standard: like Clark attacking Curtis for not owning dogs? Clark also seemed to be losing his cool when we asked him one-on-one what he was going to do about our city’s “sanctuary city” label. So wow, both candidates have human emotions; passion is better than apathy and both these men are decent in their hearts and neither at all like Democrat Harry Reid.
On funding, Curtis has consistently said that for special projects the voters should have a say, not forced upon us like Iprovo. If we want a new rec center or whatever, are we willing to support that with higher levies? Curtis’ plan for four officers on gangs instead of one is deficit neutral; directing police who are told to “go write tickets” to actually fighting crime. As a businessman, he is keen to eliminating inefficiencies in government so that we can balance our budget as well as making Provo more business friendly to grow our tax base. Clark on the other had wants to add a layer of government by having “mentors” assigned to developers; to us growing the scope of government is not a desirable ideal.
Evils of a Dole: A Mormon Perspective on Harry Reid's Socialism
Much has been said of late concerning liberal Democrat and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's(*) stance in the Mormon church vis-Ã -vis his political philosophy. For those not familiar with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the church maintains political neutrality. Every election cycle members of the church--via letters read in meetinghouses across the nation from the ranking "First Presidency" of the church--are advised be responsible and informed citizens in their communities, but not to use the Church in any means for direct political advocacy.Nevertheless, the question has been raised this week by the Salt Lake Tribune of how the Church can allow a member with such blatant Socialist philosophies such as Harry Reid to be allowed full privileges in the Church. This is because the church has consistently allowed membership to be predicated on personal testimony and adherence to moral guidelines and excluded the promotion of Socialism from that list of requisites for worthy membership. Unless the Church reforms its membership guidelines, we recognize Harry Reid as a worthy member of the Church though we stand strongly against the vast majority of his efforts and political tenants.
This is not to say the Church has been silent on the evils of Socialism. Indeed Ezra Taft Benson, a past President and Prophet of the Church, was one of the most vocal leaders in his denunciation of Socialism. Last month, a favorite blogger of ours--True Politics USA--had these well-sourced articles on these past denunciations by LDS (or Mormon) leaders: Ezra Taft Benson describing socialism, Conference definitions of socialism, and Prophetic Quotations on Politics. True Politics even had a enlightening discussion with us on Why don't LDS prophets discuss socialism more today?
Although Church leaders do not denounce the word Socialism today, there is much talk on the "evils of a dole." For example in an April 2007 discourse in the Church's worldwide General Conference, Presiding Bishop H. David Burton who oversees the temporal affairs of the Church, quoted past Prophet Heber J. Grant (founder of the Church's respected welfare program) as saying: "Our primary purpose was to set up … a system under which the curse of idleness would be done away with, the evils of a dole abolished, and in-dependence, industry, thrift and self respect be once more established amongst our people." Indeed, a search on the Church's online "Gospel Library" for the term "dole" reveals 91 citations of the term, none of which are done so in a favorable light (...and none refer to "Bob Dole" either, ROFL). Included in these "dole" articles is one by James E. Faust, who as a member of the high ranking group "Quorum of the Twelve" sustained as prophets of the church and as a former leader of the Utah Democratic Party stated in an October 1982 General Conference address: "It [giving a full day’s work for a full day’s pay] will also help us avoid accepting government doles which rob us of our dignity and our self-respect."
To us it is evident that the Church is manifestly against government handouts or doles and Socialistic ideals. Surely Harry Reid's proposed healthcare bill in Congress is a dole and a Socialistic ideal to give a handout, grow government largess, and does not promote independence and self-reliance. The bill includes taxes taking money out of our hands, our neighbors hands, and our current and future posterity's hands to support it--$1T worth of money! We furthermore decry the lack of constitutional support for such a nationalized healthcare plan! Although the Church hasn't spoken out directly against the bill (and would likely not do so), it indubitably would be in keeping with the teachings of the church if it so chose to do so.
*A genealogical footnote: For the record we have no traceable genealogical link going back several generations to Harry Reid (or for that matter two other notable Mormons with that surname: Andy Reid and Roger Reid; indeed historically, our Reid progenitors were hardshell-Baptist and likely anti-Mormon having migrated into lands immediately vacated by the Mormons fleeing Missouri Governor Boggs'(D) infamous extermination order).
Right Across from the Tabernacle
The location for the Brigham City LDS Temple was announced in the Box Elder News Journal on Wednesday, October 28th, 2009. Here are a couple of pictures that I took on Thursday of the empty lot across from the Tabernacle where the Temple will be built.
Interestingly enough, I was talking to the parents of Dhat just the night before the announcement and they told me that the news of the location of the Kansas City Temple took over a year from when it was announced in general conference. I was hoping that Brigham City's Temple wouldn't take that long! And it didn't.My wife and I ran into President Monson's brother at the school on Wednesday after work. I hadn't seen the newspaper yet, so I asked Mr. Monson if he had any inside info on the location. He said yes and my wife also chimed in, saying that the announcement was in the newspaper. I felt chagrined, but excited.
By the way, I was watching general conference when President Monson was speaking and just about to announce the 5 new temples. Before he had mentioned any cities, the image of this empty lot across from the Tabernacle popped into my mind. Then, President Monson said, "Brigham City, Concepcion, Chile, ..." I don't remember any other locations after the first two because I was so excited and surprised.
Galveston Model for Social Security
On today's Glenn Beck program, Glenn highlights a fantastic alternative approach to Social Security called the "Galveston Plan":
In doing further research on this plan, we discovered that three Gulf-of-Mexico counties near Houston (Galveston, Brazoria, and Matagorda) opted out of the Federal Social Security plan for their county workers just before such an option was closed with the 1983 Social Security reforms.
In 2005, the National Center for Policy Analysis gave a thorough analysis of the results of this program and found it to be highly successful; we highly recommend the reading. "Workers' contributions were put into conservative fixed-rate guaranteed annuities, rather than fluctuating stocks, bonds or mutual funds" yielding an impressive 6.5% annualized yield over 24 years (and much higher than the Federal Gov't as shown in the Beck video above).
With such a successful program, we are left wondering why we are stuck with such an awful leviathan that Social Security is today and what we can do to start such a program in our own county--not only for public workers but for private ones as well.
In doing further research on this plan, we discovered that three Gulf-of-Mexico counties near Houston (Galveston, Brazoria, and Matagorda) opted out of the Federal Social Security plan for their county workers just before such an option was closed with the 1983 Social Security reforms.
In 2005, the National Center for Policy Analysis gave a thorough analysis of the results of this program and found it to be highly successful; we highly recommend the reading. "Workers' contributions were put into conservative fixed-rate guaranteed annuities, rather than fluctuating stocks, bonds or mutual funds" yielding an impressive 6.5% annualized yield over 24 years (and much higher than the Federal Gov't as shown in the Beck video above).
With such a successful program, we are left wondering why we are stuck with such an awful leviathan that Social Security is today and what we can do to start such a program in our own county--not only for public workers but for private ones as well.
Mudslinging by an Attack Dog
In today's hardprint Daily Herald as well as online at both the Daily Herald and Salt Lake Tribune was the following superb letter-to-the-editor by Troy and Angie Carter entitled "Beware of D party":
The Carters really hit the issue on the head. Curtis has worked day and night to try and bring our city together around a pro-business (grow our sales tax base), fiscally responsible, and city safety agenda. He listens and cares deeply about our city and brings a tremendous amount of executive experience. Below is the copy of the mudslinging campaign mailer we received in the mail from Clark and surely representative of the one referred to by the Carters:Recently, we received a campaign mailer from Steve Clark. If we hadn't known better when we read it, we would have sworn the Provo mayoral race had become partisan. Clark claims he's showcasing Curtis' inconsistencies, but it appears he's really appealing to the Demophobia rampant in our county. (Demophobia: fear of all people and ideas belonging to the D party, a fear that Democrat equals liberal.)
His mailer tries to paint Curtis as a liberal. However, the label fits neither man. Both are Republicans who espouse conservative principles. As Republicans, we are disappointed with Clark's attempt to turn a non-partisan race into a partisan one.
As for consistency, that is exactly why we are voting for John Curtis. He has consistently demonstrated an attribute we find sorely missing in our society: an open-minded, non-partisan nature. He possesses a unique quality: he is neither afraid nor ashamed to change his mind when warranted. He understands that clinging to a weak idea will never make it strong, even if it is his own. Imagine that -- humility in a leader.
•Troy and Angie Carter, Provo">
In case you are not familiar with the Democratic Party Platform of Utah County, the platform is surprisingly moderate including pro-life and marriage-between-one-man-and-one-woman stances and maybe not pro-gun but at least acknowledging gun ownership rights. In fairness the Democrats are liberal on government social issues, although tend to be quite ethical. The epitome of a Utah County Dem is recently-deceased Bill Orton who represented Utah County several years ago. We think Curtis is a Conservative who happens like many of us to see some faults in the Republican Party and are willing to consider alternative approaches when the party fails us (as it is doing right now in not condemning Tim Bridgewater's FEC violations).
For Clark to openly insinuate that Curtis does not espouse Conservative or Republican ideas--even amidst a non-partisan race--is frankly, a farce and demeans the accuser. We love Republicanism but we hate this putrid and vile mudslinging over non-issues. Do we really care if Curtis was a Democrat for a brief period during his life: NOOOOO! Do we care that Curtis has a plan for ridding ourselves of gang violence while Clark denies we have a problem? YESSSS!
We have had ample opportunities to meet with Curtis even one-on-one and found Curtis to be extremely respectful of his opponent as Curtis tried to sell us on the positive he had to offer us. After literally hours upon hours of listening to Curtis, we cannot remember a single negative thing Curtis has ever said about Clark: that my friends tells you the high caliber of this candidate for mayor and why we have been proud to financially contribute in a modest way to the Curtis campaign.
2009 Election Endorsements
There are a handful of elections being held a week from today, and being looked upon to see the relative strength and impact of the growing conservative, tea party, and 9/12er movements across the country. We are focused on these races.
Provo Mayor: John Curtis (np) Curtis, a conservative businessman against an attack-dog opponent (Clark) in non-partisan race. Curtis easily won the debate with Clark attacking Curtis for not owning a dog (trust me pet ownership is the #1 issue in Provo—LOL—Curtis owns 2 dogs for the record). Curtis is strong on safety and anti-gang which among our city’s top issues. No known polling but general expectation is a nail biter with edge to Curtis.
Provo City Council citywide: no endorsement; although we have a candidate in mind, we don’t feel strongly enough to endorse.
***NATIONAL (in order of need for help)***
California 10th District: David Harmer (R) Could we summarize where he stands on all the issues with “anti-Pelosi”? He’s a lawyer (smart), a family man (principled), and a Boy Scout merit badge counselor (down to earth). Running in a strong (+13) Democratic district and endorsed by our local Congressman and hero Jason Chaffetz. Victory is possible if Republicans turn out in force in this election. See: An Upset in California? (Wall Street Journal) and The Hill: Republican in CA Special Election Competitive
New York 23rd District: Doug Hoffman (C) Hoffman, a Conservative in this fusion-voting state, pitted against a liberal Democrat and a liberal Republican. Race is drawing national attention with latest polls showing Hoffman surging to a lead. Nail biter.
New Jersey Governor: Chris Christie (R) Pro-life tax cutter; his election will rescue the NJ economic disaster under Corzine’s reign. Maybe not as strong 2nd amendment as we are but no RINO either. Nail biter in 3-way race.
Virginia Governor: Bob McDonnell (R) Believes in marriage, life, guns, cutting taxes; expected to win again in rematch against opponent.
We believe a win in 3 out of 4 of these races will send a strong message that our movement is snowballing and will have Democratic strategists reeling. Should God bless us to win all four, the blue dogs in Congress will have ample ground to justify any opposition to nationized healthcare.
Here are the candidates we endorse. Our endorsement is our way of recommending to you that you urgently examine these candidates and if you agree with our endorsement after examining them yourself, to vote for them if you live in one of these areas and if not to support one or more of these candidates with a financial contribution and a social media plug (twitter/blog/in person etc). If one were going to give a financial contribution, it should be done NOW as early voting is already underway.
***LOCAL***
Provo Mayor: John Curtis (np) Curtis, a conservative businessman against an attack-dog opponent (Clark) in non-partisan race. Curtis easily won the debate with Clark attacking Curtis for not owning a dog (trust me pet ownership is the #1 issue in Provo—LOL—Curtis owns 2 dogs for the record). Curtis is strong on safety and anti-gang which among our city’s top issues. No known polling but general expectation is a nail biter with edge to Curtis.Provo City Council citywide: no endorsement; although we have a candidate in mind, we don’t feel strongly enough to endorse.
***NATIONAL (in order of need for help)***
California 10th District: David Harmer (R) Could we summarize where he stands on all the issues with “anti-Pelosi”? He’s a lawyer (smart), a family man (principled), and a Boy Scout merit badge counselor (down to earth). Running in a strong (+13) Democratic district and endorsed by our local Congressman and hero Jason Chaffetz. Victory is possible if Republicans turn out in force in this election. See: An Upset in California? (Wall Street Journal) and The Hill: Republican in CA Special Election Competitive
New York 23rd District: Doug Hoffman (C) Hoffman, a Conservative in this fusion-voting state, pitted against a liberal Democrat and a liberal Republican. Race is drawing national attention with latest polls showing Hoffman surging to a lead. Nail biter.
New Jersey Governor: Chris Christie (R) Pro-life tax cutter; his election will rescue the NJ economic disaster under Corzine’s reign. Maybe not as strong 2nd amendment as we are but no RINO either. Nail biter in 3-way race.
Virginia Governor: Bob McDonnell (R) Believes in marriage, life, guns, cutting taxes; expected to win again in rematch against opponent.We believe a win in 3 out of 4 of these races will send a strong message that our movement is snowballing and will have Democratic strategists reeling. Should God bless us to win all four, the blue dogs in Congress will have ample ground to justify any opposition to nationized healthcare.
Tim Bridgewater Violates FEC Law
Tim Bridgewater, Utah's newest entry into an already large field of GOP candidates (including solid conservatives) who have been campaigning for months, appears to us to have violated FEC rules. Watch our two-part video below for explanations:
Here are links to articles online:
(1) Salt Lake Tribune Article: http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13611222?source=rss#
(2) FEC candidate brochure on testing waters: http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/candregis.shtml
(3) KSL GOP convention story and video http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=6810199
(4) Tim’s current facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=71608052128
(5) FEC candidate filing search: http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norcansea.shtml
One might ask why we are pointing out the bad about a Conservative candidate. Believe us when we say in the hours of doing research and putting together these videos for you, we asked ourselves that question many times!! But the reality is that if any conservative candidate is to stand against a powerful incumbent senator, they are going to have to be solidly vetted. As we don't see any news organizations doing investigations into these obvious FEC violations, we felt it our duty to do so. Indeed we might just be saving Mr. Bridgewater a ton of his money on a race he isn't going to win when the truth gets out.
In the end, this is a stand for truth and principle rather than standing behind a businessman we like and share values with.
Here are links to articles online:
(1) Salt Lake Tribune Article: http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13611222?source=rss#
(2) FEC candidate brochure on testing waters: http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/candregis.shtml
(3) KSL GOP convention story and video http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=6810199
(4) Tim’s current facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=71608052128
(5) FEC candidate filing search: http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norcansea.shtml
One might ask why we are pointing out the bad about a Conservative candidate. Believe us when we say in the hours of doing research and putting together these videos for you, we asked ourselves that question many times!! But the reality is that if any conservative candidate is to stand against a powerful incumbent senator, they are going to have to be solidly vetted. As we don't see any news organizations doing investigations into these obvious FEC violations, we felt it our duty to do so. Indeed we might just be saving Mr. Bridgewater a ton of his money on a race he isn't going to win when the truth gets out.
In the end, this is a stand for truth and principle rather than standing behind a businessman we like and share values with.
Brigham City, Utah
Brigham City, Utah, named after the Mormon prophet Brigham Young, is a small community of 17,000 in Northern Utah, nestled between the western base of the Wellsville Mountains and the Great Salt Lake.
A view of Brigham City from the microwave towers above the "B"
Brigham City at duskUtah North Area Conference
Elder Rasband spoke to 76 stakes, including 10 at Utah State University, in the Northern Utah Area this morning. He mentioned the new Brigham City Temple, the 151st in the Church. He explained the purposes of temples and quoted Malachi 4:5-6, Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.
He then explained that Elijah did come in 1836 and restored the sealing keys. Doctrine and Covenants 110: 13 - 16 After this vision had closed, another great and glorious vision burst upon us; for Elijah the prophet, who was taken to heaven without tasting death, stood before us, and said: Behold, the time has fully come, which was spoken of by the mouth of Malachi—testifying that he [Elijah] should be sent, before the great and dreadful day of the Lord come— To turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers, lest the whole earth be smitten with a curse— Therefore, the keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands; and by this ye may know that the great and dreadful day of the Lord is near, even at the doors.
Lastly, he spoke of the great protective blessings available in the Temples in the last days and quoted Alma 26:5 - 7; Behold, the field was ripe, and blessed are ye, for ye did thrust in the sickle, and did reap with your might, yea, all the day long did ye labor; and behold the number of your sheaves! And they shall be gathered into the garners, that they are not wasted. Yea, they shall not be beaten down by the storm at the last day; yea, neither shall they be harrowed up by the whirlwinds; but when the storm cometh they shall be gathered together in their place, that the storm cannot penetrate to them; yea, neither shall they be driven with fierce winds whithersoever the enemy listeth to carry them. But behold, they are in the hands of the Lord of the harvest, and they are his; and he will raise them up at the last day.
I am very anxious to see this Temple built!
He then explained that Elijah did come in 1836 and restored the sealing keys. Doctrine and Covenants 110: 13 - 16 After this vision had closed, another great and glorious vision burst upon us; for Elijah the prophet, who was taken to heaven without tasting death, stood before us, and said: Behold, the time has fully come, which was spoken of by the mouth of Malachi—testifying that he [Elijah] should be sent, before the great and dreadful day of the Lord come— To turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers, lest the whole earth be smitten with a curse— Therefore, the keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands; and by this ye may know that the great and dreadful day of the Lord is near, even at the doors.
Lastly, he spoke of the great protective blessings available in the Temples in the last days and quoted Alma 26:5 - 7; Behold, the field was ripe, and blessed are ye, for ye did thrust in the sickle, and did reap with your might, yea, all the day long did ye labor; and behold the number of your sheaves! And they shall be gathered into the garners, that they are not wasted. Yea, they shall not be beaten down by the storm at the last day; yea, neither shall they be harrowed up by the whirlwinds; but when the storm cometh they shall be gathered together in their place, that the storm cannot penetrate to them; yea, neither shall they be driven with fierce winds whithersoever the enemy listeth to carry them. But behold, they are in the hands of the Lord of the harvest, and they are his; and he will raise them up at the last day.
I am very anxious to see this Temple built!
Location Location Location
The location of the Brigham City, Utah LDS Temple has not yet been announced, but as soon as it is, I will keep you updated. I plan to have weekly updates with photos of the construction.
Oct/Nov 2009 Gay Business Report
In This Issue
Spotlight on Destination Marketing
Utilizing Facebook, Twitter, Blogs, Photos and Video to Market a Destination to both Gay & Lesbian Travelers and Locals as well
The formula commonly in use today incorporates a Facebook fan page, a blog, a Twitter account, a Flickr account, and occassionally a YouTube channel... all dedicated exclusively to featuring the best of a local destination....
Other Highlights
- Updates on our Social Network Marketing Webinars
- What Are Other Destinations Doing in Social Media
- HOW TO: Use Twitter Hashtags for Business
- Proud Out coverboy or dangerous stereotype?: Sacha Baron Cohen’s “Brüno” gives LGBT media much to report and ponder
- “CBS News on Logo” is LGBT media’s latest economic casualty
- A Bear’s Life Gold Card Program
- Appreciate Marketing: Sendout Cards
- Paranormal Activity - A Film & Social Network Marketing
Download PDFSocial Network Marketing for Hotels, Resorts and Guest Houses
At times, I like writing my replies to clients in this blog as well... it provides me, as well as you, the reader, with a contemporary snapshot of what our company sees as the best overall strategy and formula for social network marketing at this moment in time. In 6 months from now, perhaps this strategy will change a bit, but overall, we believe this strategy does better than the old 80/20 rule of reaching 80% of your audience with a minimum of effort... we believe it's getting closer to 90/10 now!
Hi Marti,
I reviewed your website at http://www.xxx.com and I believe that for your cottage, what you would want to do is:
- Create a Facebook fan page
- Create a Twitter account
- Link these two up at www.facebook.com/twitter
- Set up a blog and link this to the Facebook page using their “Notes” section and to Twitter using either TwitterFeed.com or HootSuite.com
- Next, come up with unique content for your blog, written in first person, that keeps your content and your property’s “story” alive and well in the social networking world you’ve set up. Include any new seasonal promotions, specials, etc., as well as fun and unique stories related to life at your accommodation, the neighborhood, and the interesting guests you’ve had stay with you.
- Set up a photo account on Flickr.com and begin uploading some photos there and on your Facebook fan page about your property. When you have guests, upload those photos and identify the guests on Flickr, as well as ask them to stop by your Facebook fan page and leave a positive testimonial and tag themselves in the Facebook photos.
- Unique to hotels of all sizes, be sure to have a TripAdvisor.com profile and monitor the reviews. Ask your folks to leave reviews there as well. For the GLBT audience, there is also GayCities.com, OutAdvisor.com and PinkChoice.com for GLBT accommodation reviews.
Thanks,
Matt Skallerud
Eager to Know Eagar
News From CougarlandCaitlin Bronson published a great article today in the Daily Universe (BYU's student newspaper) on Cherilyn Eagar.
In the article, Eagar attached herself to voluntary term limits, (a position that should be adopted by every member of congress):
"If elected, Eagar said she will limit herself to two terms, unlike Bennett, who is currently [seeking] his fourth term. “He’s drunk the Potomac poison,” Eagar said. “But I think being a career politician is a shameful thing.”
Cherilyn also made the cot pledge (sleeping on a cot saves taxpayers money--albeit a small amount--the cot has become a symbol of commitment to the citizens to follow a path of fiscal conservatism), following in the Chaffetz tradition:
Eagar also said she will follow Chaffetz’s example of using a cot to sleep in her congressional office. “Only mine will be a queen-sized cot,” she said.
It would be a cold day in Obamaland for Bailout Bennett to sleep on such a cot; and yes, any Bennett supporters out there, you have been challenged!
From the KTKK achives
Here are links to talk shows Cherilyn has hosted or participated in on K-TALK, courtesy KTKK archives. You can get a real sense of Cherilyn's adherence to principles and values through her discussions as well as her wisdom and currency on a vast range of issues important to Utahns. The links point to mp3 files which can also be downloaded to your computer.
09-12-2008 Eagar and Duncan discussing Marriage Law hr1
09-12-2008 Eagar Discussing community organizing hr2
03-06-2009 Maryanne and Eagar on Glenn Beck 9/12 meetups and PTA's/PTO's hr1
04-24-2009 Eagar & McClory on Tea Parties hr1
04-24-2009 Eagar, Lockhart & Evans on Tea Parties & Beyond hr2
05-29-2009 Eagar on campaign hr1
05-29-2009 Eagar discussing US Senate hr2
06-12-2009 Gayle on Eagar's campaign hr1
07-17-2009 Eagar, McClory and Ruzicka discussing Eagar's campaign for US Senate hr1
07-24-2009 Eagar and Thompson on Conservative Republicans hr1
I Don't Know Cherilyn. Whatever.
Really. We're not trying to go after every radio talk show host in Utah. We have lots of great talk show hosts, including Doug Wright a fellow Republican on KSL radio--we believe Utah's largest radio station measured in listener-ship.
We typically listen to Rush Limbaugh on another station at the same time Doug Wright is so we're kind-of torn here: do we hear a Utah perspective or a national perspective? Hmmm, tough choice. Maybe we favor the national because our state is heaven compared to the problems the federal has created for itself. At any rate, we didn't catch this show until more recently so the show is a bit dated.
But our point doesn't seem dated. Though it is hard to follow a show without published transcripts as Utah radio shows tend to be, we have yet to uncover any newer discussions on the Senate race than found in this video we created on Doug's Sept. 15th show:
We're at a real dilemma now with one radio show host (Bob Lonsberry) that feels that Cherilyn Eagar "isn't bright" without an iota of supporting evidence and another (Doug Wright) that promotes "3 good MEN" one of whom really isn't running at all (Tim Bridgewater). We are beginning to feel like their might be some sexism going on here. Why didn't Wright say "3 good Republican candidates"? That would have abated the thoughts. But he said "3 good MEN" knowing their was a female candidate in the race he "didn't know personally." We are not accusing anyone of being sexist--after all we have had women in statewide offices including former Republican governor Olene S. Walker--and certainly there is a lack of evidence to do any sort of accusation. We also think highly enough of Wright and Lonsberry to dismiss the ideas of sexism--yet it wouldn't hurt for them to clarify their remarks either. Maybe it's a bummer having people pay close attention to what you say when you're on air.
We're not vying for endorsements from either. Wright probably endorses Bennett; Lonsberry endorses Shurtleff (or Chaffetz who isn't running at this point). But we think it important to treat the frontrunner in the race with more respect than just "whatever," "not bright," or to shirk on your responsibility as a media member by dismissing with an "I don't know her." Be fair like you preach to your audience; be Responsible Republicans yourselves.
One of the things we have learned through much research and applicable to our out-of-state like-minded readers is to study and follow your own officials. Campaign slogans such as Bennett's "Utah's Conservative Choice" can be more propaganda than descriptive--"Utah's Middleman" or "Utah's Compromiser" are more apropos in his case.
We typically listen to Rush Limbaugh on another station at the same time Doug Wright is so we're kind-of torn here: do we hear a Utah perspective or a national perspective? Hmmm, tough choice. Maybe we favor the national because our state is heaven compared to the problems the federal has created for itself. At any rate, we didn't catch this show until more recently so the show is a bit dated.
But our point doesn't seem dated. Though it is hard to follow a show without published transcripts as Utah radio shows tend to be, we have yet to uncover any newer discussions on the Senate race than found in this video we created on Doug's Sept. 15th show:
We're at a real dilemma now with one radio show host (Bob Lonsberry) that feels that Cherilyn Eagar "isn't bright" without an iota of supporting evidence and another (Doug Wright) that promotes "3 good MEN" one of whom really isn't running at all (Tim Bridgewater). We are beginning to feel like their might be some sexism going on here. Why didn't Wright say "3 good Republican candidates"? That would have abated the thoughts. But he said "3 good MEN" knowing their was a female candidate in the race he "didn't know personally." We are not accusing anyone of being sexist--after all we have had women in statewide offices including former Republican governor Olene S. Walker--and certainly there is a lack of evidence to do any sort of accusation. We also think highly enough of Wright and Lonsberry to dismiss the ideas of sexism--yet it wouldn't hurt for them to clarify their remarks either. Maybe it's a bummer having people pay close attention to what you say when you're on air.
We're not vying for endorsements from either. Wright probably endorses Bennett; Lonsberry endorses Shurtleff (or Chaffetz who isn't running at this point). But we think it important to treat the frontrunner in the race with more respect than just "whatever," "not bright," or to shirk on your responsibility as a media member by dismissing with an "I don't know her." Be fair like you preach to your audience; be Responsible Republicans yourselves.
One of the things we have learned through much research and applicable to our out-of-state like-minded readers is to study and follow your own officials. Campaign slogans such as Bennett's "Utah's Conservative Choice" can be more propaganda than descriptive--"Utah's Middleman" or "Utah's Compromiser" are more apropos in his case.
