Curly and Burly's Ventspot

Pictures from Logan City Citizen Academy

2011-06-02T17:49:00.003-06:00

In support of HB 116, I have this to say

2011-05-08T22:14:00.002-06:00

Brannon B. King

I think it is fine to address enforcement. At the same time, our immigration and naturalization laws are messed up. I’m extremely grateful that the Utah State Legislature is willing to approach both ends of the problem. And I’m glad they’re supporting my rights regardless of the federal government’s delinquency on the matter.

Employers have a right to hire who they will. This contributes to production costs and helps to keep consumer prices low. The federal, state, and local governments fight this right at every turn. When you focus on jobs lost to immigrants, you’re forgetting about the other 100% of the state – the consumers! We’re all consumers, including the producers and workers in the state. Consumer prices are a huge part of this equation! And the immigrants are not competing with the majority of workers in the state. Rather, they compete with a very small percentage of mostly uneducated folk. Let’s support employment in Utah by giving employers freedom.

Having people in the state legally documented and working for an employer who wants them here is completely different from citizenship in the state or nation. Don’t confuse legal resident with citizen. Citizens have constitutional protections, can live anywhere in the country, can vote, receive a stupid minimum wage, etc. For the first century in this nation states managed their own residency status without a problem. It worked then and will work fine now.

Immigration: What is seen and what is not seen.

2011-05-08T22:08:00.004-06:00

Brannon B. King

Notion: The immigrants (illegal or otherwise) are taking all our jobs. They work for such small wages! The unemployment rate is at 10% because of the immigrants. None of our teenagers can get jobs anymore.

Notion: The immigrants are responsible for the high cost of education and the huge class sizes. The immigrants glut themselves on our free education and use it as a babysitting service. In fact, they’re draining the life blood from all our social services!

Notion: The state legislature wants to make all the immigrants legal citizens because they fail to understand these other arguments, don’t realize that citizenship is federal issue, have fallen prey to some sob stories from dairy farmers, and are blindly rewarding illegal behavior for votes or lobby money, etc.

I will address these false hypotheses one at a time. They all represent only half an argument. They are, in the words for Bastiat, “what is seen”. Let’s find out what is not seen.

Labor: Job shortages are what are seen. What is not seen is the consumer. We have more consumers than producers. More people buy food than work. If we can drive down the cost of food we help more people than we help by providing jobs. So what drives the cost of goods and services? Labor costs, indeed. What drives down labor costs? Competition. An abundance of labor will drive down the wages. And that’s great (to an obvious extent)! We want cheap goods. That helps producer and consumer alike. Allowing companies to bring in cheap, part-year labor is a win for all consumers (aka, everyone), especially if we can pay them a truly market-driven wage.

The illegal immigrants are generally uneducated. They compete for that those jobs that are most base. These are not the jobs that the average person aspires to. But have you considered that your teenager’s lack of job availability might be related to child labor laws, minimum wage, mandatory education, and the generally massive tax burden upon the nation at the moment? These are all items that manipulate the low-education job realm in a negative direction. If you’re labor isn’t worth $7.25 an hour – go home, we don’t want your labor. (How demeaning is that!)

The unemployment rate has little to do with immigration and a lot to do with two things: market manipulations and embedded tax opaqueness (if there is such a word). Of course the government picks winners and losers faultily in all sorts of industries through the tax code, lobbied-for tariffs, 2000 page legislation, environmental restrictions, monetary and fiscal policies, etc. The federal government has entities designed for the exact purpose of distorting the lending and construction industries. Notwithstanding this large mess – the primary fault is in promoting borrowing rather than saving. We have no buffers. In other words, people lose jobs when the government or businesses plan incorrectly because they all run on borrowed money.

All goods produced in America have business, payroll, and income taxes embedded into the cost of production. If there was no income tax labor would be cheaper; hence, products and services would be cheaper. The other nations on the planet have figured this out. They track the cost of taxation and refund it on export. Or they don’t charge the tax until the consumer purchases the good or service. Either way, America runs a trade deficit on products and jobs every year because they cannot compete with tax-free goods. The ultra-cheap labor brought by an abundance of uneducated people is saving our nation, not destroying it.

Education costs: In our present system of mandatory school attendance for all (legal, dense, rowdy, or otherwise), inflated housing prices causing both parents to work, and centrally-managed education curriculums and oversight – a large influx of low-wage-earning folk certainly burdens the system! I have no argument there. That is seen. What is not seen is why the cost of education per student is so high regardless of immigration.

The cost is in the administration. This problem is no different than that faced by any large corporation. The basic issue is this: a person can only manage so many people. To add more staff is to add more management as well. The organization expands in the form of a pyramid with the highest paid labor towards the top. The only way to reduce the cost of education is to break off independent units that management might be reduced.

Whoa! Independent schools will destroy the diploma! It will no longer mean the same no matter where you graduated high school! They will undo everything we’ve worked so hard to achieve in public education. Our clone them and drone them plan will be a failure. If only.

Your goals are contradictory and unrealistic. Teaching everyone in the state the same thing will never happen nor would we want that. That would destroy innovation. It would bring in the era of Big Brother. It’s akin to Communism. Let’s stick with this goal: allow the hard-working poor a chance to move into middle class. We can achieve that without mandatory education. We can achieve that with independent schools. If you want your diploma to mean something then pay for third-party certification. This still brings value to a diploma without the massive management tree costs attached.
Utah spends $7000 a year on students. The proposed voucher program would give (at last figure) $2000 back to someone who sends their child to a private school. This is pure genius. For one, it takes a child out of public education, thus reducing the management cost. For two, it promotes private schools, again reducing the management cost of public education. For three, the state keeps some of the money to contribute to the cost of public education. It’s a win, win, win.

The State Legislature: they are not trying to make anyone a citizen of the USA. Citizenship in the USA has some perks: you can vote in federal elections, you can live in any state, you’re protected in your rights by the US Constitution, etc. The state legislature is just trying to make some people (as invited by companies in the state) legal residents. That’s even different from citizens of the state (think rights in the state constitution and voting in state elections).

The ability to declare someone a legal resident of a given state or citizenship in that state is a right belonging to the states. The present case law taking that responsibility away from the states (and granting citizenship to all continental newborns) should be fought tooth and nail. But worse, we need the federal government to act. The whole system is broken right now and unless we can get some cooperation from the federal government we will never get things straightened out. The primary goal of the state legislature, if I can be so bold as to speak for them, is to get the federal government off their duffs. Kinks in the worker program can be corrected over time.

The state legislature has worked to improve enforcement of the present immigration laws. Alas, the laws themselves are very broken. An enforcement-only approach ignores the larger portion of the problem: the bad laws themselves. I’m very glad that our state legislature is willing deal with the immigration issues from both ends.

Wake up, America.

2011-05-08T22:06:00.002-06:00

Brannon B King

A few thoughts on the integrity of retail sales tax:

Property taxes and income taxes are often touted as more stable than sales taxes. This is a lie. Property taxes will never be stable with such drastic governmental interference in the housing and lending markets as we have seen in the past century. And when a person looses their job, which declines more rapidly, their income or their spending? Consumption varies less than income. Obviously people will still spend money on food and housing as long as possible. A retail sales tax is the most stable form of taxation available. Wake up, America.

Most people think that they know how much they pay in taxes. However, money paid in income and payroll taxes adds to the cost of production. Without those, production labor costs would be cheaper. The cost of production is paid by the customers. The right way to measure how much a person pays in taxes is to sum, at the point of consumption, all the embedded taxation in the item being consumed. And in America, it is impossible to know. Prices in America are high because of the embedded taxation costs, primarily in American-made goods. Many other nations use this to their advantage. They are careful not to tax items exported. This is the primary reason America has a trade deficit. This is the primary reason companies are moving production overseas. Overregulation and minimum wage do not approach the premium of the embedded taxation. A retail sales tax is the most trade-friendly form of taxation available. Wake up, America..

The IRS deals with 170 million tax filings each year, 140 million of which come from individuals. They employ over a hundred thousand people to manage this monstrous task. Throw onto that the cost of each corporate and individual tax filer’s time and money in order to comply with the vast tax code. The cost of compliance is at least $250 billion per year. And it’s a colossal waste of money. Suppose that only retail stores had to file taxes. That would drastically reduce the amount tax code compliance costs, and restore again the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. Individual tax filings and forced contributions to retirement programs form an unreasonable search and seizure. Let’s change the system and allow these compliance resources to be used to produce valuable goods. Wake up, America.

Whenever a retail sales tax is proposed, there are many who are quick to respond that food and housing should be exempted from said sales tax. After all, a larger percentage of the poor’s income is needed for food and housing. Surely it would not be right to exploit them. This thinking leads to a variety of destructive sophistry. First, the idea that food and housing industries are more important than other industries is completely false in that those industries build on a wide variety of other industries. Life is more than food and shelter. Second, we already heavily tax food and shelter. The farm workers’ and home builders’ income and payroll taxes are paid through the sales of their food or shelter respectively. Without those taxes, the labor and subsequent product would be significantly cheaper. A wide variety of foods are heavily tarriffed to keep the internal prices high. Others are manipulated by internal constraints such as set-aside programs and ethanol subsidies. Home loans are also subsidized to keep the loans frequent and flowing. Please, bring back transparency. Wake up, America.

A Conversation with a Representative of United Health Care

2010-10-26T13:21:00.003-06:00

After a long battle with an automated voice answering machine…

Machine: Okay, just say, “benefits”, “payments”, or “help me with something else.”

Me: Benefits

Machine: I’m sorry, I’m having trouble hearing you. Please say, “benefits”, “payments”, or “help me with something else.”

Me: Ben-e-fits

Machine: I still didn’t get that. Please say…

Me (in a flustered voice): Ben-e-fits!

Machine: Actually, I’m having trouble hearing you. I’m going to transfer you.

….hold music…

Rep: Welcome to United Health Care, is this call regarding benefits or claims?

Me: Yes

Rep: Great, how can I help you today?

Me: Several months ago I sent in a request for a non-covered service and I would like to follow up on that request. I would also like to know why I have not yet heard a response.

Rep: Let me look up your information and I will get back to you. This could take 3 to 7 minutes.

...10 minutes of hold music...

Rep: Ma’am, it appears as if you did not receive a response because this service is actually provided under your plan. (Reads that portion of plan…)

Me: That is not actually the service that I requested. I requested_________.

Rep: I’m sorry ma’am. It appears that service is not covered under your plan.

Me: Yes, that is why I sent in a request for non-covered service. Who can I talk to about the benefits for your company as well as for me for you to add that coverage to your plans in the future?

Rep: What you need to do is talk to your employer about offering one of our other plans.

Me: That won’t really help because none of your plans cover this service. Is there someone in your company I can talk to about why it should be added to your plans?

Rep: That’s what I’m here for, Ma’am. What you need to do is talk to your employee about switching plans.

Me: None of your plans cover this service. Who can I talk to about adding services to your coverage?

Rep: There is nobody you can talk to. That’s why you are talking to me. What you need to do…

Me: I understand that nobody in your call center has the authority to add coverage to plans. But somebody in your company makes decisions on what gets covered and what doesn’t. Who is that? Who can I talk to about coverage?

Rep: That’s what I’m here for, Ma’am. What you need to do is talk to your employer.

The cycle repeats a few more times.

Me: No. You must not be understanding my question. Who IN YOUR COMPANY can I talk to about coverage?

Rep: I understand that you are upset. There is nobody you can talk to about coverage. What you need to do…

Me: Forget it. I can see that you are not going to be able to help me. Goodbye.

So what does one do? I’m virtually powerless. I can’t just tell UHC that if they aren’t going to offer the services I need I will just go to someone else who can. I am roped to UHC unless enough people tell my employer to find a new company. I, individually, can do nothing to improve my health care coverage. Because I am tied to UHC I have lost the ability to go see a very good doctor because he is so fed up with UHC he refuses to deal with them anymore. I’m paying high monthly premiums and yet I am not getting the coverage for services I actually use and I have to pay for those out of pocket. I’d much rather purchase a catastrophic plan and use the money that is going toward my health insurance premium to save and pay for my typical medical expenses.

And what did health care reform do to fix this? Absolutely nothing. It just guaranteed that there would always be a third party making decisions in between me and my doctor, limiting the choices of doctors I can see and services I can afford to purchase. We really need to sever the ties between employment and health insurance.

Cache County Library System

2010-10-06T21:53:00.000-06:00

To the Elected Officials of Cache Valley,

I have been watching the debate over the county-wide library system with interest. At this point, I do not know whether I support this system, there is still much I would like to look into. However, I have noticed that those who have inhibitions toward it are often bothered by the fact that people who do not and will not use the library will be forced to pay for it.

I recently read a letter to the editor encouraging the people of Cache Valley to reinstate the "barn raising" mentality of the olden days. The only problem is that they were comparing apples to oranges. With barn-raising, no one could vote that their neighbor in the next farm over had to come help too. It was all a voluntary effort put forth by each individual's goodwill.

I agree that we have lost our barn-raising mentality and it would be worthwhile to revive this attitude in order to make the library system accessible to everyone in the county. Part of the reason we have lost that mentality is that we have become accustomed to everything being provided for us. We are rarely asked to actively and voluntarily participate in something that is beneficial to the people of our community. It is typically done by tax and mandate or majority vote (sometimes referred to as mob rule).

I propose that regardless of whether or not we can justify the use of force in funding a county wide library system, we should try to find a voluntary way first. In addition to putting up a "yes" or "no" vote for a county wide library system, a survey could be conducted with the ballots with questions elected officials and those involved in creating a county wide library system would find informative. This could potentially be posted online as well, or sent out to residents if there is funding and it can be done inexpensively. Questions could include things like:

· How much in one-time startup donations would you be willing to donate to fund a county wide library system?

· How much would you be willing to voluntarily donate monthly in order to fund a county wide library system?

· How much would you be willing to voluntarily donate yearly in order to fund a county wide library system?

· How many volunteer hours per month (year?) would you be willing and able to provide to assist the library in order to enable a county wide library system?

· How many books per year would you be willing to donate to a county wide library system?

· Etc.

We are selling ourselves short by denying ourselves the opportunity to make a conscious, individual choice to sacrifice in order to help the community. I participated in the building of the Adventure Park in Logan this past year. It was a true barn-raising effort and many people in the community came through and helped. Although I did very little, it gave me a sense of community, a sense of accomplishment, and a sense of ownership and pride in the park. Knowing that I contributed to its building, I am more motivated to make sure my children keep it clean and respect the equipment. I am more motivated to make sure it gets used and used properly. I feel that I gave a piece of myself to the community and it strengthens my love for my community. No other park in Logan City brings about this kind of attitude and feeling within me. It is a feeling and attitude that I feel could strengthen our entire community. We need to enable more opportunities for things like this to happen, rather than turning to force first. How do we know if people are not charitable enough to make such things happen if we never give them the opportunity? Is it possible that we can fund a library system through voluntary means thus giving access to the poor and avoiding the use of forcing those who do not use a library to pay for it? If we can accomplish this we create a win-win situation and avoid unnecessary controversy.

Of course, this approach may take more time, effort, planning, and organization, but it also might enable a really great thing to happen in our valley without creating an injustice--real or perceived--upon those who do not approve in the use of force to make it happen. We can argue all day about the costs and benefits of a library and making sure the poor who could not otherwise afford it have access to it, but if this can be done voluntarily there will be no need to argue, and the sense of volunteerism involved just might strengthen our community.

Sincerely,

Michelle L King

Logan, UT
435.227.5081

Illegal Immigration: Finding the Root

2010-09-07T15:19:00.001-06:00

For Immediate Release: Local Activist Proposes Immigration Plan

Local activist, Michelle King, who was heavily involved in the most recent Logan Municipal Election, has released a paper detailing a view on illegal immigration that contradicts the view of many Utahns and mainstream Republicans. While many Utah lawmakers and activists support an Arizona-style bill, which codifies strict crackdowns on those found to be in the state illegally, King feels that the U.S. should embrace an open system of legal immigration.

“We are spending too much time trying to bail water out of a sinking ship,” states King. “What we really need to do is fix the boat. Rather than focusing solely on punishing people for ignoring bad laws, we should be focusing our efforts on making immigration laws more realistic.”

King’s 33 page paper breaks down the problem of illegal immigration into what she says are problems associated with, but not necessarily caused by illegal immigration.

“I was right in line with most of my conservative friends until I started studying immigration history. What I have found is that our immigration laws are based on racism, protectionism, and central planning. When laws are based on a rotted foundation we should be looking to fix those laws, not legitimize them.”

The essay titled, “Illegal Immigration: Finding the Root”, can be found at http://youralabastercity.com.microsoft2008hosting.com/ii.htm.

Lessons Learned from a Logan City Incident.

2010-08-09T15:41:00.007-06:00

In March 2010, a group of people pressured the Logan Municipal Council to approve antidiscrimination laws for the GLBT community in housing and employment. These laws would restrict employers and landlords from rejecting applicants based on sexual orientation. On May 5th, when the law was introduced to the council, the council voted to postpone the vote until August and that information was published in the Herald Journal. However, after the vote, the council members were flooded with letters from the GLBT community and supporters of the law expresses stories of harm and discrimination they have received because of their sexual orientation, successfully persuading at least one council member who was against the ordinance to change her mind. Because she changed her mind, thus giving the ordinance enough votes to pass, the council (or perhaps the chair?) decided to move the vote for the following Tuesday--less than four days away.

Those who get the newspaper and read it were notified of the change, but even those few were only given a four day notice. Another article was printed the day of the council meeting, but the article featured a controversial group from Salt Lake City, protesting the law. The offensive actions of this group coupled with their "outsider" status did nothing to encourage those who opposed the ordinance for legitimate reasons to speak out against it. I notified as many people as I could via email and and the internet, but many people were expecting the vote to take place in August and so were out of town or had church commitments that Tuesday night. Others wanted more time to study the issue and decide how they felt about the ordinance. As a result, few people showed up to testify against the ordinance compared with those who testified in favor of it.

Now regardless of the passage of the law, here is what it felt like to the "average Joe" citizens of Logan who I spoke with about it. Washington proposes laws which the majority of Americans oppose and they often sit on those bills when it is politically prudent to do so, but as soon as they get enough congressmen who will agree to vote for it, they ram it through Congress so fast people hardly know what hit them. This instance felt like Washington Politics at is worst, right in our own city. I'm sure that was not the intention of the council. They are all kind and compassionate people who were likely thinking about the intensity of the pleas from those who asked them to propose the law. But as good as their intentions were, that did not change the fact that many people felt that an injustice had occurred.

The council passed the law citing the overwhelming communications they had in support of the law. One council member even said something to the effect of, "if there were people against it, it's their own fault for not speaking up." The problem with that attitude is that nearly everyone who wanted the law passed was probably in the room. They knew about it. They brought the law forward to begin with and had been watching it anxiously--as I'm sure I would in their situation. But the majority of the city had no idea that the law was being considered and voted upon. Granted, that's partly their fault for not paying attention to their city government, but it is disingenuous to assume that they approve or blame them for not showing up when only four days notice was given.

The point I'm trying to make here, is not whether or not the city made a bad decision in approving the law. But there are several other things from this incident that I would like to point out, and we ought to learn from each of them:

laws passed assuming a majority approval often have skewed representation of support or lack of it
if you don't pay attention to your local (or any) government, laws that you do not like can be passed without your knowledge
sometimes things happen very quickly or unfairly, and if no one knows about it, no one will be able to speak up

My plea for the average citizen: PAY ATTENTION!

My plea for elected officials: Please look beyond what is on the surface, and give people sufficient time to learn and have a voice.

Postpone Logan City Welcome Sign

2010-08-03T13:15:00.001-06:00

Dear City Council,

I am writing (although perhaps much later than I should have done) with regards to the proposal for a “welcome” sign for Logan City. I think such a thing is desirable and a good thing for many cities, especially for a small city with character such as Logan. I am in favor of putting one up to show people passing through that we are proud of where we live and that we have much to offer. My concern is that the time is not quite right for such an endeavor, if the desire is to make it a long-lasting, high-quality monument as Mark Nielsen desires, according to the Herald Journal.

I know that our city is in good shape, financially, and that there is probably sufficient funding able to be allocated for the project. But we are in difficult and unstable economic times. Some predict a recovery soon while others predict yet another downturn in 2011. Logan has been sheltered quite a bit from the downturn, but has not been immune to it. I know many people who have been laid off, had their pay and benefits cut, and been given furloughs because of the state of the economy. My friends and neighbors are all taking this time to tighten their belts, cut their spending, and hold off on spending money on the frills they may have purchased otherwise. Although I could hardly call myself struggling in any way, my family has even had pay cuts and cuts in retirement and health benefits.

I feel that even though the city is doing well financially, it would be an act of true representation to show the community that the Council understands that city money belongs to the citizens. Since the citizens are holding back on spending their own money, I think they would appreciate their elected officials also tightening the city belt and hold back on spending the money of the citizens. Most people, including myself, view a welcome sign as an unnecessary but desirable embellishment. Something that can wait until the economy is more stable. I would request that you postpone putting up the sign until the economy shows more sure signs of recovery and the citizens themselves no longer have to tighten their own belts.

If you do choose to move forward with the placement of a sign, I would recommend not putting in as monumentous or as expensive of a sign as is desired. It is a trade off, to wait or to tone it down, but I think it would send an important message to the people of Logan that city officials understand their constituents. I saw a figure that Mr. Neilson would like to pay someone to design a sign. I have seen someone recommend that instead the city hold a competition, either at large or among the University graphic design department, and obtain a design that way. Not only would it save the city money and still provide a nice design, it would also make the sign more meaningful to the city and its residents. The people of Logan have much to offer and we should take advantage of it.

Thank you for hearing my point of view.

Useful Information on the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

2010-06-21T17:21:00.005-06:00

This post is spurred by a discussion from the chatrooms of during KVNU's "For the People" on the 17th Amendment.

Quoted from Scott Bradley's book, To Preserve the Nation, which I highly recommend you purchase. It is great reference material for everything you want to know about the Constitution:

"Originally, members of the House of Representatives were directly elected by the people of their states. The senators were selected by the state legislators....The Seventheethn Amendment upset this delicate balance of power, removing the states and placing additional power in the hands of the masses, which could possibly be persuaded by elequenty demagogues to violate the principles of limited government and individual rights.

"Prior to (and since) the Seventeetnt Amendment, those that sought election to the House of Representatives often went to their power base (the people) and promised to deliver tempting (often costly) programs to the people if they were elected. Once elected, they arrived tin Washingd DC eager to deliver upoon those promises and therby ensure their reelection in two years. Since virutally all of the members of the House made such promises to facilitate their election, the various members of Congress were eager to help one another enact these promises. Of course, a bill does not become a law until both houses of Congres (and the president) approve. Consequently, as wilth all bills, these expensive promise-fulfilling bills that were passed by the House of Represenatives next went to the Seante, where the senators examined them. Since expenditures that exceeded the revenue brought into the national government by normal constitutional means (in general, import taxes) would require additional tax funds to support, the senators recognized that any additional extravagent financial requirements would result in them having to increase the tax assessment to the states based upoton the population of the states (see U.S. Constitution, artuice1, section 9, clause 4). The Senators also knew that the state legislatures would opose having to raise taxes upon the people of their state to meet their national tax assessment, and they knew that their future reappointment to the United States Senate would be placed in jeapardy by taking such a position. So prior to the ratification of the Seventeetnth Amendment, they would prevent passage of the bills submitted by the House that were beyond the financial means of the nation. By this careful "check and balance," the nation was, by and large, prevented from dramatically expanding the size and scoep of the national government. With the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment, the people (not the states) became the power source of the senators, so the senators consequently adopted election tactics similar ot the practices that had been successsfully employed by the House of Representatives in their efforts to get elected. They began making promises, such as to deliver expensive "gifts," to their electorate, thereby ensuring their election. After their election, when they arrived in Washington DC, they too sought to deliver upon their promises, just as the House members always had. And since the Sixteenth Amendment created circumstances that no longer required them to go back to the state legislatures to acquire additional tax money (since they now had the power to simply raise taxes and collect them directly from the people), they simply collaborated with the House of Representatives and both houses of Congress fulfilled their election promises and ensured their continued ability to hold office. No one was left to prove a "check" on profligate spending."

We Are on the Same Team

2010-06-15T13:42:00.012-06:00

I recently added my name to a list of grassroots organizers who endorse Mike Lee to represent the state of Utah in the U.S. Senate. I knew from experience that by taking a public stand, I would be opening myself up for criticism and was ready for it. And the criticism did come, but interestingly, it did not come from liberals, Democrats, disgruntled Bob Bennett supporters, or even supporters of Mike's opponent for the Republican primary.

Criticism came from friends and people whom have I a great deal of respect for. People who I have been working with for a common cause and whose efforts I support. Those people are supporting someone whom I also have a great deal of respect for: Constitution Party candidate for the U.S. Senate, Scott Bradley (note that no such criticism has come from Bradley himself, at least not that I know of). And I love the passion and concern! There is nothing wrong with a little criticism to help me re-think my positions, and I have no problem with people expressing their disagreement with me. But the surprise was the nature of the criticism. Although I have been fighting for the same principles as these people, and have been working at multiple levels to do so, suddenly I am considered a person of no principle, willing to compromise what is right because I have endorsed Mike Lee.

I can understand where they are coming from and I understand that they are frustrated because they would like more help and support. I admire the work they are doing and I highly respect their opinions. But I hope they realize that we [those who signed the endorsement] are also true conservatives dedicated to restoring our country to its Constitutional principles. We may not be working through the same medium, but we are most certainly working toward a common goal. I have two beautiful children and one on the way. I have a vested interest in doing all I can for the restoration of the Founding principles of this country that goes far beyond myself.

I believe my friends are seeing that by sticking with the two-party system, I am perpetuating the same old thing and expecting different. However, for me the same old thing would be reading the voter guide through one time before casting my ballot and feeling like I have done my civic duty. The problems in our nation did not come because of Democrats and Republicans. We have problems in this nation because the American people have allowed the major parties to go unchecked. We have allowed politicians to exploit and change the system, and we have not held them accountable. We have not been educating ourselves on the proper role of government or how to effect change in government. Those problems will not be resolved by one candidate, or any candidate for that matter. The problem can only be solved by an America at large who will wake up, realize what our Founding Fathers realized, and pay attention!

I look at what people like Senator Bennett have been doing. Whether intentional or not, he has been able to deceive Utahns into thinking that companies can be too big to fail, that entities like Fannie Mae are a good thing worth propping up, and that it is okay for the federal government to fund people's local pet projects at the expense of the rest of America, to the point where all our local cities are reliant upon federal funding.

I can see that many people are waking up to Obama’s agenda, but are not waking up to the root of the problems of our nation. They see Senators Hatch and Bennett pushing back against Obama's agenda and praise them for it. I cannot convince them that those two senators are perpetuating the problems our country is facing. How can I convince them that they should support a new party if I cannot even convince them to change their republican senator? I knew that the only way to prevent his reelection was to make sure he did not make it on the primary ballot. We succeeded at that in the Republican convention, (which I could not have participated in if I and many others had not committed to support the Republican Party as a delegate) but the fight is not over.

Tim Bridgewater and Mike Lee are not of the same mold. I believe Bridgewater to be a good and kind person, but there are some things about issues he has supported in the past as well as present, and some concerns about his business practices that I cannot ignore. (I won’t name them here because they are available all over the internet these days, and my intent is not to trash on Bridgewater).

My friends are concerned that I am allegedly backing down on principle because I have chosen a "mediocre" candidate over a "near perfect" candidate just because the mediocre one can win. There seems to be a presumption that all I care about is winning. Not so. I am not the sort to vote for the winning team because they are on the winning team. I did not vote for John McCain (or Obama) in 2008. I do not believe in voting for the "lesser of two evils". I believe in voting for candidates who have good principles, good ideas, and the ability to make their ideas happen. If there were no candidate on the Republican ticket who fit that description, I would most definitely be supporting Bradley. However, I can feel no guilt for supporting Mike Lee. I have spoken with him numerous times, inspected his background, spoken with his family and people who know him well, and have confirmed that he is someone of sound understanding and sound principle. He has helped the Patrick Henry Caucus, which has been instrumental in pushing back against Federal Encroachments in our state, draft legislation and has given them legal advice free of charge because he believes in what they are doing and cares very deeply for this country and the Constitution.

By writing this, I am not trying to convince anyone to support Mike Lee. I am just trying to help people understand where I am coming from. I highly value the free market of political activism. Some may think it is a problem that there are so many new groups cropping up to split our efforts. But I believe we are all working toward the same goal and are all able to "catch" different people for the cause. Some people would not consider joining the John Birch Society because of past smear campaigns against them, but they might consider the Campaign for Liberty. Some people may be so tired of both major parties that they turn to the Constitution Party, but others who feel that is too extreme of a jump for them might consider joining the Republican Liberty Caucus. No one group is capable of "catching" all people. I am glad we have friends working up parallel avenues for the same cause so that we can reach as many people as possible, and allow the free market to determine the best and most correct method of restoring our nation. Without an educated electorate, all of our efforts will be for nothing, no matter which path we choose.

Now maybe I am wrong. Maybe the Republican Party is so corrupt there is no way to accomplish anything good there. Maybe Mike Lee is a really good liar and is just a pawn of the establishment. If I'm wrong, I'm glad there are others working up different avenues so that my failure does not cause the entire movement to fail (exaggerating for effect).

But what if my critics are the ones who are wrong? What if a third party will never gain traction or accomplish anything? What if third party candidates get corrupted by the Washington system just like the rest? What if the Republican Party CAN be reformed and can bring about improvement more quickly than a third party can?

Then I will be glad I have been working through the Republican Party, which CAN produce good candidates. In my opinion, the trick is not voting for the "pure" party, but finding "pure" candidates who will run on the Republican ticket and providing them the financial and campaign support they need to get elected.

And they need that support from us. We can’t just talk principles, we have to DO something and our resources are limited. The economy is suffering; we have to work for a living, spend time with our families, and often have church and community obligations. We typically don't ask for tax subsidies that might allow us more free time, or get paid to be political activists.

I have been supporting a candidate who I asked to run for the Utah House of Representatives. It has taken a lot of time and resources to help him and we are only trying to reach Republican voters, not the entire mass of voters! It would take even more time and resources to alert people about a third party candidate and those resources are not to be had. There are not enough people who are "awake" to make up for the lack of funds, or to help bring about the funds. We ask a lot from those who are involved. Instead of asking them to keep giving more and more for a hopeless cause, perhaps some of us should leverage the system in place so that those who are already giving so much don't have to work so hard, and so they have a little hope as well. My candidate barely made it onto the ballot after the convention and we only had to campaign to 150 people for that. Trying to do the same through a third party would simply never happen in this election, but that does not make my candidate any less principled. (Besides, there are a lot of good people who still look to the Republican Party as the party of family values. Let's not let them down!)

I hope people will recognize that we are on the same team. For the most part, we recognize the same enemies and problems. We merely disagree on the game plan. There is no reason to vilify one another and assume that others are unprincipled or not educated enough. I, for one, am glad there are people working for multiple solutions. Let’s hear it for the political free market!

Utah Grassroots Leaders Are Endorsing Mike Lee!

2010-06-14T08:33:00.000-06:00

Utah Tea Party, 9/12 Project and grassroots leaders statewide endorse

U. S. Senate candidate Mike Lee

Media Contact: Darcy Van Orden (801) 425-9845 dvanorden@utahrising.org

For Immediate Release

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah June 14th, 2010, 31 Utah grassroots leaders are endorsing Mike Lee!

“Mike understands the proper role of government and is our best advocate as a constitutional attorney. He is the only candidate who has actually defended the people against our ever encroaching government. Here in Utah we successfully passed State Powers legislation with his help. Mike testified on SB 67, our Healthcare Nullification Bill, provided legal research for HB 143 the Eminent Domain Bill and advised regarding SB 11 Utah’s State Made Firearm Protection Act. Mike Lee is best prepared to handle the unconstitutional battles facing our nation” - Larry Jensen, Salt Lake County 9/12 Organizer.

The Tea Party - 9/12 movement in Utah is a grassroots effort focused on fiscal responsibility and restricting the unbridled growth of government. These Tea Parties and 9/12 leaders believe Mike Lee truly shares their values of limiting the role of government, increasing personal liberty and strictly adhering to the constitution.

“If we are going to save the US economy, it will take more than just business experience; it will take the leadership of Mike Lee in the Senate to safeguard the constitution back in Washington. Mike stands firm that the federal government has no place nationalizing private corporations, re-distributing the wealth of its citizens through unconstitutional bailouts or handouts. Mike Lee’s professional endeavors have not benefitted from the federal grants and subsidies that have contributed to our nation’s overwhelming debt. Both on the floor of the Senate and with his individual constituents, Mike will bring the debate back to fundamental principles of prosperity, where it needs to be,” Darcy Van Orden, Davis County 9/12 Unite Chair

Mike is the best candidate to represent the people of Utah and we are proud to endorse Mike Lee:

Alan Daniel, 9/12 Coalition of Southern Utah President
Amber & Jeremy Harrison, Uintah County 9/12 Project County Organizers
Becky Pirente, Utah County 9/12 Project County Organizer
Brian Halladay, Utah County 9/12 Project County Organizer
Candace Salima, Utah County Tea Party Leader
Casey Anderson, Campaign for Liberty Regional Coordinator
Clark Roberts, Weber County 9/12 Project County Organizer
Darcy Van Orden, Davis County 9/12 Project Unite Chair
Diane Adams, 9/12 Coalition of Southern Utah Treasurer
Donnette & Larry Bodily, Cache Valley Tea Party Leaders
Don Guymon, Utah Republican Assembly Board
Ellen Schunk, Dixie Republican Forum Chair
Jacqueline Smith, Star Forum Founder
James Flohr, Citizens Council on Illegal Immigration of Washington County Vice Chair
Janie & John R. Hawley, Liberty Rim Republic Organizers
Jared Law, Utah 9/12 Project Organizer
Jerry Dearinger, Utah County 9/12 Project Group Leader
Julian Babbitt, UT Republican Liberty Caucus State Chair
Karen Monsen, Utah County 9/12 Project Group Leader
Kim Coleman, Salt Lake County North 9/12 Project Organizer
Larry Jensen, Salt Lake County South 9/12 Project Organizer
Linda Anderson, Utah County 9/12 Project Group Leader
Loma McKinnon, Utah County 9/12 Project Group Leader
Michele Alder, Cache County North 9/12 Project Organizer
Michelle King, Cache Valley Tea Party Leader
Michele LeMmon, Davis County 9/12 Project Organizer
Mike Swenson, Take Back Utah Co Founder
Mitzi Butler, Southern Utah Tea Party Leader
Nancy Norris, Beaver County 9/12 Project Group Organizer
Patti & Chuck Bateman, Cache County 9/12 Project Organizer
Robert Wren, UFIRE Chair

Keep Markets Fair

2010-06-12T21:17:00.003-06:00

The average cost of home ownership has been increasing since 1973 relative to the average wages earned. Why is this? It is caused by government-backed lending practices. And by “government” I mean our tax money taken through inflation or otherwise.

When the government promises to pay a percentage of value on any defaulted loans they encourage lower interest rates because there is less risk involved. This is a great boon for the lenders – they sell more loans. This is a great boon for the real estate and construction industries – they sell more and bigger houses, people move more often, etc. Some people even feel this is very philanthropic because some people who could not afford a loan otherwise now have a house to live in.

So much for the “seen” effects, but what of the unseen effects? The government has added no new item of value to the market; they’ve merely shifted resources. They’ve distorted the market. Money that would go elsewhere now goes to the banking, mortgage, realty, and construction industries. These industries grow and prosper. Over time, entrepreneurs that originally ran on saved capital transition to running on borrowed money simply because borrowing money is so cheap. The average house size increases. Investors begin to invest with borrowed money. And before you know it, the world is dependent upon tax-payer-backed loans! Any change to the system causes catastrophic layoffs, especially in the more inflated industries like mortgage lending and those who invest in such.

There are two large government-backed entities specifically designed to distort the lending market: the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) chartered in 1968 and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) chartered in 1970. Throw in the severing of the dollar from any form of scarce resource in 1971, and you can see why the average home price inclined beginning in 1973. The planned distortions have certainly been working. There are many other programs designed to reduce interest rates while enslaving the tax payer, some state and some federal.

When the government distorts the market, it prophesies a pending “bust” at the same time. When the bust happens, our legislators feel guilty for the problems they caused so they bail out the industries again with tax payer money. Hence, we have an endless cycle of booms and busts. It’s terrible! We need legislators who will keep the market fair for all industries and citizens alike. Our state legislators need to fight against federal and state encroachment in the lending arena. I know that Chuck Bateman is the person to do this for district 5. Please pursue this cause in your own state legislative districts if you live elsewhere.

Brannon King
Logan, UT

American Idols of Utah

2010-06-09T14:30:00.010-06:00

No, I am not talking about David Archuleta. The Idols I speak of are Utah candidates for the US Senate, Mike Lee and Tim Bridgewater. While the apathetic of Utah are busy listening to "Crush", political activists and "Tea Partiers" are busy arguing over which candidate is the most conservative. Which is good, right?

Right. Except that I have noticed that some supporters are so determined to defend their candidate they are willing to overlook and defend every flaw with religious fervor, the way my roommates used to defend their favorite singers after each Idol performance on Tuesday nights (sorry ladies, no offense intended!).

For instance, when Cherilyn Eagar came out and said she was in favor of "fair trade" because "free trade isn't free if it isn't fair" there was a sudden rush of conservatives who typically favored free trade who suddenly supported more of a "managed trade" type of approach. After all, they had to agree with their candidate so they could help her get elected, right?

Or when a few facts concerning Tim Bridgewater came to light such as his previous support for the No Child Left Behind Act and Medicare part D, supporters were quick to assure us that he had learned from his mistakes and no longer supports those things, and that he is just as conservative as he says he is. The concern here, is that we can't just brush it off and assume he has learned his lesson. It shows a lack of foresight and we need to consider if the same will apply to legislation in the future. Maybe it won't. Maybe he really has learned. But we can't just sweep the facts aside, we need to be aware of and acknowledge them and make sure to keep his feet to the fire in case he faces a similar choice in the future on a topic he hasn't quite learned the lesson on yet.

Or when information surfaced that Tim Bridgewater owns a company that helps other companies secure federal funding, conservatives who were supposedly fighting against the "pork and spend" policies of government were saying that it was okay to partake as long as that is the way the system was set up. They assured us that although Bridgewater has made a portion of his living this way, he is sure to fight the system because he is a conservative. Maybe he is telling the truth. He sounds very sincere about wanted to keep the government out of business. But rather than brushing this information aside, we should acknowledge that he has experience obtaining federal funding, he likely has wealthy friends and business acquaintances, and he has strong connections to the Bush's.

Washington is filled with a great deal of pressure and we can assume that Bridgewater's friends will come to him asking for favors. That doesn't mean he WILL cave. But when we send a representative to Washington we send them to a tough environment. We need to recognize where they will face challenges and give them the support they need to stand firm to their promises. Why have our representatives listened to lobbyists for so long? Because lobbyists have been giving them the support they need. Let's be honest. We have not. Most of us have not been helping with campaigns or donating to them. And we typically only write to them if we are mad at them. But if we change our ways and start giving good candidates the moral support (and campaign help) they need, then we will REALLY be able to find change we can believe in.

And to be fair, I must also pick on Mike Lee, the candidate I openly support. FEC reports revealed that Mike Lee donated $500 to Bob Bennett shortly after he voted for TARP. Lee supporters were quick to say that "come on, who of us haven't voted for or supported Bennett at some time or other?" While that may be true, people like me were paying close attention to Washington and the bailouts and who was voting for them, and were aware of Bennett's long history with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It did bother me that Lee donated to Bennett, even if it was to help with a possible challenge by Jim Matheson.

From the Lee campaign:

"The timing needs to be put into context. This was two weeks after TARP but at the height of the election. The focus was on not letting Obama win, and many had to hold their noses with McCain. Mike was not aware of Bob’s role in TARP at that time or about the Healthy American’s Act. Mike was basically asked by a colleague to make the donation to fend off a Matheson run. So Mike did. Once the Presidential election was over and Mike was able to read up on TARP he realized how problematic that was."

I felt that Lee should have been paying more attention to what was going on, and there was plenty of time to donate (or not) to Bennett if Matheson were to run. Obviously, in the end it did not bother me enough to change my support, but that is because I knew that supporting Bennett at the time did not actually change the principles that Lee espouses and would not effect how he will vote in the Senate. Knowing that he does a great deal of research in his work as a lawyer, I know he will do the same in the Senate and is grounded in firm principles. But still, I vote for him knowing that although his principles are firm, but also realize that perhaps he hasn't been paying attention the way I have and I need to make sure that he takes events that have happened in the past into account as he makes decisions.

On the other side of the coin, having an ardent obsession with one candidate doesn't mean we have to believe and relay everything negative that is said about their opposition. The "my candidate=good, your candidate=bad" thing just isn't the case most of the time. Truth is truth. Take it for what it is and don't twist it. Facts are fine, presumptions are not.

For instance, Bridgewater has taken criticism over the fact that one of the companies he has supported, Raser technologies, received a significant amount of stimulus money. Some members of the "Lee fan club" tend to cling to that and throw it out whenever they can. But let's be honest. Bridgewater didn't get that funding for them (as far as I know) and there is no indication that he approves of it:

"...worked as a consultant for Raser Technologies, an alternative energy company that has sought more than $50 million in federal stimulus funds. Bridgewater said he had nothing to do with those decisions and condemns federal bailouts." -Salt Lake Tribune

Criticize the funding he has taken for businesses all you want, but you can't turn stakes into steaks just because they have a few common letters. They are two entirely different objects.

But Bridgewater groupies are not off the hook on this either. They love to play the Energy Solutions card. I hear statements like, "I hear that Mike Lee wants to make Utah the world's dumping ground for nuclear waste," and "Mike Lee has waffled on the issue of nuclear waste" and if any of them would step back and look at the facts they would see that neither statement is true. While it is true that Lee has defended Energy Solutions ability to store waste from Italy here, the issue for him was not whether or not we should store waste in Utah, but whether or not we are following the Constitution. Lee has stated that he does not want Utah to be the place for the world to dump any kind of waste, but Utah made a contract with ES allowing them to store a particular kind of waste and must honor that contract. They cannot regulate waste coming in from Italy because the US Constitution gives the power to Congress and not the states to regulate foreign commerce (Article 1, Section 8). That is not waffling on an issue, that is going about solving a problem in a legal and fair way. Mike Lee lost his father because of nuclear contamination. He is not one to advocate storing dangerous substances near people.

So what do we take from this all? TRUTH! That's what! Understand that NO candidate is perfect. They ALL have flaws. Regardless of who we support, we need to acknowledge those flaws and be prepared to help the candidate overcome those flaws. We need to take responsibility for ourselves and not fall for rhetoric or blind idolistic support. And hey, happy campaigning!

In Favor of Mike Lee

2010-06-07T20:45:00.001-06:00

I have spent much time talking with and researching the candidates vying for the Republican nomination. I never felt that I could get behind any of the candidates until I listened to Mike Lee speak. Here are some of the things that stood out to me and made me sure that he is the right one to represent Utah:

· He knows the Constitution, the history of the founding of our nation, and the writings of the Founding Fathers inside and out. He is committed to following in their footsteps and staying true to those principles.

· He has stayed firm upon the principles of the Constitution even when it was not popular. Mike Lee was one of the first attorneys to successfully halt spent nuclear fuel from coming into our state, because the state has the right to determine what type of fuel is stored here. But when Utah had given approval to Energy Solutions to store a certain type of nuclear waste in Utah, Utah tried to stipulate that it could not come from Italy. The US Constitution states that the Federal government is to regulate foreign commerce and not the states. Since Utah had already approved that type of waste, Lee defended the Constitution in this instance even though it was unpopular. I am glad that Lee is willing to defend the Constitution even at the risk of personal criticism. We live in a Republic, bound by the Constitution. If we do not stick to those boundaries we open a door to indefinite expansion.

· Mike is committed to limited government and keeping the government out of our personal lives.

· Mike Lee is a humble and kind individual. I have found him to be very kind and respectful to all audiences I was witness to, even when people were asking him difficult questions. When I look for a senator I don’t look for someone who would be fun to barbeque and sing “Kum-Bay-Yah” with, I look for someone who is humble, knowledgeable, and will stand upon principle.

· He is a lawyer. Those lawyers we complain about in Washington have written bills hundreds of pages long with language that is incomprehensible to the general public. Only a lawyer—a Constitutional lawyer—who knows their game and refuses to play it will be able to unravel the mess. Mike Lee will be able to sort through the language and the legal tricks in the bills and expose them.

On Friday, June 11^th at 3pm at Willow Park in Logan come and see for yourself why Mike Lee is the right person to represent Utah. Please join with me in voting for Mike Lee on June 22^nd.

My Speech Against Logan City's Non-Discrimination Ordinances

2010-05-18T22:14:00.003-06:00

I believe that the people who have been advocating for this law have truly felt they have been treated wrongly and my heart goes out to them. I believe that the root of the problem of discrimination is a lack of compassion on the part of individuals. Therefore, the solution to the problem is to appeal to the compassionate side of those individuals. Creating a law that tells people how they can use their property does not inspire compassion. I believe that it will have the opposite effect. Imposing anti-discrimination laws will serve to cause employers and landlords to feel resentful and antagonistic toward homosexuals.

Anti-discrimination laws are appropriate for public entities because everybody is paying for those and should have equal access to them. If anyone should be subject to such a law it should be the city, state, and federal governments, and anyone who receives tax subsidies such as the RAPZ tax. I find it interesting that this law actually exempts the federal and state governments from complying with it.

But while the law may be acceptable for public entities, it is not right for the government to dictate who can and cannot use the private property of individuals. We have the right to our life, liberty, and property—our own property and not someone else’s. Rights are not granted by government or by laws, our basic rights come from God. We have the right to own and manage our own property because it was obtained with our time, labor and means. By controlling property which was rightfully acquired by someone, you are essentially controlling that person and goes against the God given right to life as well as liberty and property.

We need more compassion, not more control. You cannot legislate compassion! There are no shortcuts to ending discrimination. It must happen one person at a time. One relationship at a time. I urge those who have been negatively affected by discrimination to appeal to the compassionate side of those who have wronged them. Tell them your story of hardship, sign petitions and letters, reward those who do not discriminate with positive advertising. Encourage apartment and business owners to sign voluntary public agreements similar to nondiscrimination laws. If you do this you will remove the element of force and a violation of private property, and will foster and encourage an environment of understanding and compassion.

Logan City Rushes Vote on Anti-Discrimination Laws

2010-05-15T16:14:00.001-06:00

Dear Friends,

A few weeks ago Logan City Council Member, Herm Olsen, brought forward anti-discrimination laws that are similar to those passed in Salt Lake not too long ago at the request of a local gay rights group. The city council voted to postpone making a decision on that law until August. However, the council appears to have had a change of heart and will throw the ordinance back on the tableTHIS TUESDAY NIGHT AT 5:30PM .

Initially, Jay Monson and Herm Olsen were the only ones who favored the law. But according to this article printed in the Herald Journal today, Holly Daines is now in favor of the law as well. I strongly feel that individuals should have compassion on those with different beliefs and lifestyles than their own, but I do agree that it is the government's job to force such "compassion" by violating someone's right to control their own property. If you own an apartment, you should be able to rent or not rent to whomever you please. If you own a business, you should be able to hire/not hire whomever you please.

Please attend the city council public hearing this Tuesday night and speak out against this ordinance. We do not need more government to help us solve our problems, we need more compassion. Creating this type of law will only foster more resentment toward minority groups, not inspire compassion.

If you would like more information about anti-discrimination laws, please read the this well-researched and well-written article .

Sincerely,

Michelle King

435.227.5081

Below is a copy of a letter I have written to the city council:

Dear City Council Members,

First of all, I would like to commend you for looking for inexpensive ways to comply with the mandate to reduce phosphorus in the sewage system. I am interested in learning more about this issue.

When I originally wrote this letter I was going to commend you for tabling the decision to implement anti-discrimination laws in Logan city so that the issue can be further discussed and that the law could be drafted carefully. However, this morning I read in the newspaper that you planned to move up the vote to this Tuesday. I am very disappointed in this decision because it does not give the community sufficient time to consider the law and give their input. It does not give the council time to consider ramifications both seen and unseen. Statements in the newspaper made it appear that the reasoning for passing the law so soon was simply to send a message or to make Logan City “look good”. Laws should never be passed merely to send a message. If you are going to create more government there should very well be a legitimate reason and the image of Logan city is not a legitimate reason.

I would ask you to consider a few things as you contemplate the ordinance. While I hesitate to support such an ordinance for reasons I will state below, I find it more acceptable to have such a law applied to public entities only, since all people are paying into the government through taxes and fees. However, there are four reasons why I feel this ordinance is inappropriate for private entities.

First, it is absolutely inappropriate to create anti-discrimination laws that apply to private businesses and property owners. They have paid for their property, and have put much time and effort into their business and should have the right to hire or not hire, rent or not rent to whomever they please. Property owners often want to create a specific type of environment for their renters and they have every right to do so with their own property by choosing who they will hire or provide services for.

Second, employment and apartment rentals are private contracts between two individuals. It is wrong for governments to interfere with contracts between individuals. This subject is often only viewed from the standpoint of a bigoted apartment (or business) owner who will not rent to homosexuals. However, what if we have a renter who refuses to live in a particular apartment because the landlord is a homosexual? Do we punish the renter? Do they have to apply equally to all rental units in a certain category in order to make it fair? Such a suggestion is ridiculous, and yet I feel it is just as ridiculous for governments to interfere with private contracts by placing such requirements on landlords and business owners.

Third, I see this as the government forcing a moral decision upon private individuals. I believe that the proper role of government is to protect life, liberty (the ability to choose how one uses their time and resources without infringing on the very same rights of others), and property. I do not agree with the government legislating moral decisions because I do not want government defining what is moral and what is not.

Fourth, by creating laws such as these we are essentially creating a third type of property. We used to have just public and private property, but when we create laws such as the anti-discrimination laws it creates a new class of property: commercial property. Commercial property has become a pseudo-private entity where it is owned by private individuals, but partially controlled by government. I believe that this inhibits economic growth and the free market system by creating inconsistencies with true supply and demand. Because the property is still owned by private individuals, it is wrong to impose public control over the property. (For a much more thorough and eloquent description of this issue please read the article at this link: http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/the-delusion-of-anti-discrimination-laws ).

The other problem I see with the ordinance as proposed is that it gives discretion on whether or not there has been discrimination solely to the mayor. Perhaps the mayor has really good judgment concerning this, but it seems dangerous to have such a decision made by only one person with no checks and balances. If this law passes, at the very least I would recommend placing the judgment power with some type of panel or jury. This could also prevent the mayor from having to bear the entire burden alone of any scrutiny that may come to him from either side of the argument because of the decisions he makes in that regard.

I hope you will take my comments into consideration as you decide how to vote on this ordinance. Thank you for your time and your service to the community.

Sincerely,

Michelle King

Important Video on Inflation!

2010-05-14T14:22:00.000-06:00

Here is a great date night video. Please watch it instead of your action/adventure/romance movie tonight. It will be worth your time.

Go to http://inflation.us/videos.html for the full video.

An Open Letter to Utah Delegates

2010-04-25T22:22:00.000-06:00

There has been a political awakening in Utah as was evident by the large numbers of people who showed up to party caucus meetings in March. The Republican Party was reporting double and triple and higher attendance that night than in the past. Close to 80% of delegates elected had never been delegates before. It is wonderful to see so many people with a desire to take part in the political process!

However, I have noticed that many of these newly elected delegates are unsure of what their responsibility is and how to go about doing it. During these difficult economic times it is essential that delegates understand and remain committed to fulfill their responsibility. That responsibility is to research candidates they will be voting for, communicate what they learn to those who elected them, and commit to attend the convention and REMAIN THE WHOLE TIME.

First and foremost, a delegate is an elected representative just like that of any other office in government. He is not just voting for himself, but he is voting in behalf of those who elected him as. Just like any elected official, delegates are expected to do their homework and make an informed decision when they vote. They should take the time to meet the candidates and review their literature. They should also look beyond what candidates say and discover their background, and how it could influence their decisions.

Delegates should communicate with those who elected them, bring back what they learn, and ask for their input. Ultimately the responsibility of making the final decision lies upon the delegate, but only after considering many other factors.

Finally, when you accept the nomination to become a delegate, you also accept the task of attending the party’s convention and making a vote in behalf of those who elected you. You should be committed to stay at the convention until ALL party business has been taken care of. The state convention in particular is very long and delegates need to plan for that. In 2008, Jason Chaffetz missed receiving the party nomination by a mere nine votes, and yes, many delegates went home before the final round of voting. If delegates had stayed, the party and the people could have avoided an expensive primary and all the work involved with it. Instead of having to battle within the party, they could have spent the time working against the Democratic opponent.

If you have been elected as a delegate this year, congratulations! But please take your role seriously and do your homework, communicate with your neighbors, attend the convention and remain until all business is complete.

Sincerely,
Michelle King

The Truth About the Tea Party--by My Daily Roast

2010-04-19T14:33:00.002-06:00

www.MyDailyRoast.com

The Free Market of Political Organizations

2010-04-13T16:01:00.017-06:00

I have been involved with many political organizations in the past few years and during that time I have observed some interesting trends. There are people within the freedom movement who think they are conservatives, but when push comes to shove, the culture we have all been indoctrinated with often reveals its true colors. I have noticed a tendency for patriots to want things to change so quickly, and feel so passionately about their beliefs that they begin to utilize the very same tactics they are fighting against. I speak specifically of entitlement and control.

Entitlement

Most conservatives shudder at the thought of the "right" to health care, the "right" to receive employment benefits if they are unemployed, the "right" to have their food and necessities paid for through tax subsidies. All of these things amount to the "right" to someone else's labor because it's "for the greater good." But we understand that it's not that we don't want everyone to have access to health care, good employment, and the necessities of life, it's because we see that this approach is self-defeating.

We have many people putting in a lot of time, effort, and resources into the Freedom movement and we are all doing it for a good cause. Unfortunately I have seen those who are really out there doing the hard work go one of two ways: Either they overexert themselves and exhaust their energy and resources until they burn out, or they learn that they have to be practical and start charging money for their efforts.

The problem with the first scenario is obvious. We have good patriots dropping like flies, and that is detrimental to the movement as a whole. In the second scenario people get accused of being greedy, selfish, trying to make money off the political climate, or worse--they are labeled as unpatriotic because they aren't willing to give of their labor for free for the greater good. (Have I heard that somewhere before?)

The reality here is that we aren't funded by government subsidies like the liberals are. People have to make a living, feed their families, and don't have a lot of up-front money to develop resources. Imagine how much more we could accomplish if the real movers and shakers could do what they do full time instead of in their spare time! When our conservative buddies try to make it possible for themselves to fight freedom for a full-time job, let's not help our opponents by tearing them down and calling them selfish. That is a liberal tactic. We are capitalists and we don't believe that we have the right to the labor of others. Right?

Control

Not everyone agrees with the best way to go about restoring our freedom, and everyone selects a particular route because they feel like it is the best, most principled, and/or most effective. Naturally, they also want to see everyone else choose that same path. And that's okay. The problem comes when we want so badly for them to choose it, that we attempt to restrict their choices in order to get them to take our path.

There are many Tea Party Coalitions made up of various organizations who suffer from this problem. While the organizations agree on the end goal, they differ greatly on their approach on how to do so. Another kink is added when you consider that the leaders of these organizations tend to be very passionate and strong-willed.

When these differing opinions and strong personalities get together, some decide they want to prevent one group or other whose approach doesn't fit their own style from getting their information out to people. They may object to their material on a flyer or having a particular email being sent out to the contact list. Why? Is it really effective to do so?

Consider this. I feel that we need to reform the Republican Party rather than start a third party. Let's say I prevent all people and organizations in the Coalition who support any third parties or independent candidates from sending information to the emailing list. The whole contact list joins the Republican party and votes for Mike Lee because that is the information I allow to go out. Well then what? Why did they vote for him? Did they make an informed decision? Maybe, maybe not. But I certainly didn't do anything to help them make an informed decision.

And what if I'm wrong? What if the Republican party does something so stupid that they fail completely and the Constitution Party emerges victorious? I would have prevented a lot of people from participating in that. If I'm right, I shouldn't be afraid to allow everyone to make an informed decision. If I'm wrong, I will have led many others to be wrong right along with me. The words of Frederic Bastiat regarding the government can be applied to this situation as well:

"If it be a misfortune that the sense of responsibility should be extinguished in the individual, it is not less a misfortune that it should be developed in the state in an exaggerated form...when the State assumes charge of all, it becomes responsible for all."

Part of the reason we are in this mess is because people have not been making informed decisions. All of the immediate change we make won't matter if people do not have the responsibility to learn and choose freedom for themselves.

I don't pretend to have all the answers. I can't guarantee that the best way to bring our country back to its Constitutional origins is by working through the Republican party. I am not so arrogant as to think that if everyone in the movement thought the way I did that everything would be fine and dandy. I welcome the opportunity for people to point out where my ideas are flawed because that is how we make good ideas better and more effective. If we encourage the filtering of information to suit our own agenda we are no better than those who have been controlling the media for years.

Let the Free Market Work its Magic!

I hear a lot of complaints that there are so many new groups cropping up. People ask, why can't we just use an existing group and be united? Well, I'll tell you why. It's a free market. New groups come about because either someone saw a need that wasn't being met, someone saw a need that was being met but felt they could do it better, or someone didn't know a group already existed that fit that need.

I don't want us all splintered anymore than the next conservative does, but consider this. If something is not working, people will drift away from it and find something that does work. And people will begin to coalesce around those things that do work, because they work. That's how a free market operates. I don't see a reason for infighting among these groups. We all want the same thing, so let's try a bunch of things and see what works best. That way we aren't just relying on our own theories of which group or approach is best, we will see tried and tested methods and can make an informed decision on facts--what actually works.

We have many different options and I'm excited to find out which of them is most effective: working through existing parties, focusing on fiscal responsibility only, focusing on the Constitution only, focusing on libertarianism, third parties, running independent candidates without parties, write-ins, nonprofit approaches, for-profit approaches, candidate vetting, precinct strategy, and the list goes on.

Let's be consistent as we spout our conservative ideals. Let the free market work. Stop trying to silence people who don't agree with you. By all means, try to persuade people with sound logic, but there is no need to hinder or silence one another. We all want the same thing. Experience has told us that if we let our pride down and let the free market work it will bring us the best solutions. Let's find out what they are.

Republican Convention Orientation

2010-04-12T14:49:00.000-06:00

Republican* Convention Orientation

hosted by the Independence Caucus and Utah Rising

*this event is not sponsored in any way by the Republican Party

Congratulations on those who were elected as a state or county delegate! This is an exciting time to be involved and being a delegate gives you a strong voice in the selection of our elected officials. Some of you have been delegates before, but many have never been a delegate or been to a convention before. Because of this, a friend has sent me a power point presentation designed to show new delegates the ins and outs of the State Republican convention. I would like to invite you to a Convention Orientation where I will be giving this presentation. If you have already been a delegate before we would appreciate your attendance so that you may share your experience and help answer questions.

If you are not a delegate, this is still a good opportunity to learn how the convention works and to network with like-minded individuals. And who knows, you may end up becoming a delegate next time!

If you are not a delegate, please contact the delegates--particularly the state delegates--in your precinct and ask them to attend.

When: Tuesday, April 20

Time: 7:00pm

Location: New Dawn Technologies

Address: 843 S 100 W, Logan

Cost: free

If you have any questions or input, or if you would like to help with this event, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Michelle King

435.227.5081

Tax Day Tea Party--THIS THURSDAY, April 15th!

2010-04-12T14:36:00.001-06:00

Are you frustrated with the direction the government is taking? Are you tired of Congress ramming bills they haven't even read through passage without even reading them? Are you tired of paying taxes for programs and policy that are wasateful? Are you sick of your elected officials listening to lobbyists instead of you? ARE YOU TIRED OF TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION?

Then come participate in the second annual Tax Day Tea Party, sponsored by the Cache Valley Tea Party Coalition! At this rally you will have the opportunity to learn about some of the problems we face in our country and what you and all of us can do about them.

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!

People across the country are infuriated and if we all come together with a plan of action we can turn things around. You will be offered many opportunities to learn and get involved at this Tea Party Rally.

Most importantly, you will be EMPOWERED!

Please come with your signs, prepared for a peaceful rally.

Date: Thursday, April 15, 2010
Time: 4:00pm - 6:00pm
Location: Old County Courthouse
Address: 200 N Main, Logan

Speakers include:

Chris Tew, chair of the Cache Valley Tea Party Coalition
Michelle King, Cache Coordinator of the Independence Caucus
Scott Bradley, Founder of the Constitution Commemoration Foundation
Patti Bateman, Cache Coordinator of the Utah 912 Project
Craig Huntzinger and John Mulholland of the John Birch Society
Dr. Bruce Hill, medical doctor and former Cache Valley resident
Farley Anderson, representing the Independence Movement
Mark Porter, Cache County Chair of the Contitution Party
David Nilson, USU Young Americans for Liberty

See you there!

Disclaimer: The Cache Valley Tea Party Coalition is a loose federation of several conservative groups banding together to coordinate events and communicate with like-minded people. We provide a forum for free discussion and education. The ideas expressed by one member group may not be 100% accepted by all groups represented. We all support the mission of the Coalition.

T.axed E.nough A.lready

The Chaffetz Miracle--"Let Freedom Ring!"

2010-04-01T22:09:00.000-06:00

Are you going to the Tea Party on April 15th?

2010-03-31T10:46:00.001-06:00

"That one soul may not be lost"--Satan's plan in disguise

2010-03-26T14:48:00.008-06:00

Growing up, I was never terribly interested in politics—I thought they were boring and too negative and so I did not dig very deeply. My dad always helped me to understand that it was at least important to be aware of what was going on, and that I should always back up my choices and arguments with facts. As a result, I tried to keep up with the news and when I voted, I only voted for those things that I had looked into. If I didn’t know I just left that part of the ballot blank.

All of that changed when Brannon and I tried to get a friend of his to read the Book of Mormon, and he refused because of all the “Mormons who still supported Bush after x,y, and z”. We made the mistake of trying to defend "Mormons" [members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints] and got into a political argument which we knew nothing about. We made fools of ourselves and made his friend very mad.

It was a hard lesson, but a lesson learned. We began to study economics, government policy, the Constitution, and the writings of the Founding Fathers. We also started attending educational classes. The more we learned, the more we became concerned about the direction our government was taking.

As I have studied I have become acutely aware that what we are dealing with is a continuation of the war in heaven. God banished Satan and ruled in favor of Agency in our first estate, and we chose to follow Him and Jesus Christ. But here on earth, Satan still wages this war. Satan is trying to do much more than get us to sin, he is trying to get us to follow his plan, which was to, “destroy the agency of man, which…the Lord God, had given him [man]” (Moses 4:3).

God showed us how important agency was and went to great lengths to ensure that our agency was preserved, even though “a third part of the hosts of heaven turned…away from [Him] because of their agency” (D&C 29:36). He allows Satan to tempt us still to ensure that we can taste the sweet because we have seen the bitter (2 Ne 2: 15).

It is also stated in the scriptures that Satan is “more subtle than any beast of the field” (Moses 4:5). In other words, it will not be easy for us to differentiate between Satan and God. Satan is jealous of God, he wants to be God, and so he tries to mimic God’s plan with just enough falsity to cause us to worship and follow him instead of God. Hence people often compare communism and the United Order as one and the same, and yet they are not.

Satan is and has always been involved in governments and through secret combinations. This is testified to us throughout the scriptures beginning with Cain. Jesus Christ was crucified through secret combinations and the manipulation of government. The book of Mormon is almost entirely about secret combinations and the overthrow of governments. Moroni wrote specifically to us in our day warning us of this (Ether 8: 21-25--speaking of secret combinations):

“21 And they have caused the destruction of this people of whom I am now speaking, and also the destruction of the people of Nephi.

“22 And whatsoever nation shall uphold such secret combinations, to get power and gain, until they shall spread over the nation, behold, they shall be destroyed…

“23 Wherefore, O ye Gentiles, it is wisdom in God that these things should be shown unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins, and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you, which are built up to get power and gain—and the work, yea, even the work of destruction come upon you, yea, even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God shall fall upon you, to your overthrow and destruction if ye shall suffer these things to be.

“24 Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you...

“25 For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people, for it is built up by the devil, who is the father of all lies; even that same liar who beguiled our first parents, yea, even that same liar who hath caused man to commit murder from the beginning; who hath hardened the hearts of men that they have murdered the prophets, and stoned them, and cast them out from the beginning.” (emphasis added)

So with the scriptures I have shared above, I know these three things about Satan:

1. Satan seeks to take away our agency
2. Satan is subtle
3. Satan is the author of secret combinations which seek to overthrow the freedom of all nations

And I know these things about God:

1. God’s plan is for us to be free agents unto ourselves.
2. God sent us here to “prove [us] herewith, to see if [we] will do all things whatsoever the Lord [our] God shall command [us]” (Abr 3: 25)
3. God’s has brought us here that we might have joy. (2 Ne 2:25)

As I make judgments of my political positions I ask myself the following questions, “Is this Satan’s way, or God’s way?”, “Does this take away man’s agency and personal responsibility or protect it?” It may sound like oversimplification but the only real way to root out Satan’s subtlety is to strip it down to those very basic questions. For instance, does this national health care plan take away agency or preserve it? It forces people to buy a product. I would say that removes agency. There are many arguments that it is for our own good, for the greater good. But it is Satan’s plan to, “redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost” (Moses 4:1), not God’s.

I can think of another example that appears to be much less clear cut. The past year or so there has been a lot of controversy regarding Payday Lenders, who give out short term loans to people using their paycheck as collateral. It is a very dangerous practice and many people get caught up in a never-ending cycle of getting their paychecks advanced to them each month, and each time they lose more and more money because of interest and fees. Many lawmakers have deemed this to be “predatory lending” and have sought to ban payday lenders and/or cap the rates they can charge. It seems to be a well-meaning law aimed at protecting people from themselves.

But I go back to my original questions: “Does this destroy man’s agency and personal responsibility or protect it?” On the side of the lender, their agency is not protected, but is imposed upon. They are given restrictions as to how they can act and what they can do with their own property. On the side of the borrower, their borrowing choices are now more limited than they were before. All this so that “one soul may not be lost”. This policy appears to follow Satan’s plan because it is an attempt to stifle agency and protect people from themselves rather than allow them to make choices and pay the consequences of those choices.

A better approach to deal with payday lending that is more in line with God’s plan would be to require payday lending companies to be upfront and honest about fees, interest rates, and binding agreements. This enhances agency because the buyer cannot make an informed choice if the information is not available. It may appear that the lender’s agency is restricted in this situation, but it is restricted in such a way that prevents them from imposing on the agency of others (which falls under the proper role of government).

Our country is marching rapidly toward socialism, which falls right in line with Satan's plan. Socialism is “any of various political philosophies that support social and economic equality, collective decision-making and public control of productive capital and natural resources” (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/socialism).

Does our country fit this definition? Perhaps not entirely but it is not hard to see that it is moving that direction. The government already controls the capital through the Federal Reserve system, and has been systematically taking over the banking industry. 95% of TARP money was given to only 30 companies--26 of which were major banks--even though there are thousands of banks in the US. The money was used by larger banks (such as Wells Fargo) to buy up smaller banks (such as Wachovia) and these large banks are now under much heavier federal regulation because of the TARP funds. The FDIC has been shutting down banks across the US because they don’t pass the "stress tests”—including banks that were not actually failing—and has been allowing the large banks to buy up even more of them. It won’t be long before the entire banking system is controlled by the Federal Government.

They also control monetary policy through the Federal Reserve system—which is a “public-private” entity. They claim it works independently but it is heavily entangled with the government to the point that most people don’t even know it is a private entity.

They have also added a measure into the health care bill that will allow the Federal government to take over the student loan industry. Which brings me to transition from the banking system to the education system. The Federal Government was given no authority in the Constitution of the United States to be involved in the education system.

(And of the Constitution God has said, “[the] constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh… That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment. Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another. And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood. (D&C 101:77-80)

If the government can control who does and does not get a student loan, they can control who does and does not get a college education, and can even control what loan applicants are allowed to study. It brings in a whole new world of opportunity for social engineering which is contrary to agency and personal responsibility.

Another industry the government has started to overtake is the automobile industry. If they subsidize Crystler and GM enough then it will be “cheaper” for everyone to buy their cars because part of the cost has already been paid for by taxes. Most people are not willing to pay for the same thing twice so the more that happens, the more likely they will be to buy a Chrystler or a GM (Bastiat Vol 2, p488). Other car companies will not be able to compete with the subsidies. If you don’t believe it look at education—only a select few have the option to send their children to a private school because they cannot compete with subsidized education.

The Patriot Act also brought another step toward socialism when it gave greater control of the Federal Government over internet and phone communications. It allowed them to label anyone they deem as a threat as an “enemy combatant” and through that they can strip citizens who are given that label of their Constitutional rights. All so that “one soul may not be lost.”

Now the government intends to take over the health care industry which is a huge portion of our economy. If the government is controlling the insurance industry, they can control the prices of health care (the prices but not the actual cost). That is what supporters of the bill seem to want—or they think they do. But if the government controls the cost they can control the cost of having, say, more than two children. If having more than two children is deemed to have too heavy of a “carbon footprint” or causes people to get more than their “fair share” of health care, then they could impose fines similar to China’s and make it so only the very wealthy can afford to have children.

Perhaps I am jumping to conclusions on these things, but mother's typically tend to imagine the worse-case scenario and I am very concerned for my children. Even if these laws were passed with the purest of intentions, it is too much power in the hands of too few people. Who is to say the next person to take office won't take those well-intentioned actions and turn them to an evil purpose? All of these things open the door for more and more government control.

Satan has a great hold over the people, many of whom work within our government. It is very difficult to pinpoint who has ill intentions and who is misled, but it is not so difficult to see the difference between agency and captivity.

This walk toward socialism has been happening for years, so slowly that people don't recognize it for what it is. I can give you countless quotes from prophets warning us about socialism. Satan would not likely turn us into a socialist country overnight. He will "[cheat our] souls and lead [us] carefully down to hell." (2 Ne 28:21)

There is a tendency after a restoration occurs, for entropy to take place as time passes and we stray further and further from truth. That is why we have had several restorations in the history of mankind. Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus Christ, and Joseph Smith have all restored that which has gone astray over time. As quoted earlier, God brought forth the men to write our Constitution as a type of restoration to allow for the spreading of the Gospel. I think he knew that just like everything else, people would stray from pure truth after a time and start to distort truths as they have done with the Bible.

The Constitution of the United States was written to preserve agency. Anyone attempting to interpret the Constitution by more “modern” standards--even if they are well-meaning--are guilty of contributing to the entropy at the risk of hindering agency. The Constitution was written to address human nature and human nature has not changed since the fall of Adam.

We must continue to fight the war in heaven here on earth and do everything in our power to preserve the agency of our brothers and sisters. We must work to bring ourselves and our country back to that vehicle--the Constitution--which the Lord provided to preserve agency in these last days. There are things both large and small that we can do and we must do what is in the scope of our abilities. And remember that by "small and simple things are great things brought to pass" (Alma 37:6).

"Bend it Like Bennett"--see how Senator Bennett 'bend's the Constitution

2010-03-20T08:52:00.003-06:00

Or go to YouTube.

Call for Action! Call for help!

2010-03-18T14:59:00.001-06:00

I am very concerned with the direction our government is going. Bills are being rammed through Congress without being read, and with disregard for the Constitution and the American people. Elected and appointed officials are making and taking bribes and threats and things are happening at an alarming rate. I am a mother and the “mother bear” in me has risen up. All of this spending and recklessness will be at the expense of my children. I want it to stop and I want it to stop NOW!

I have been studying and learning the last few years and as I have learned I have become empowered to be able to affect change—real change and in the right direction! I have learned many lessons as I have gotten involved and many have been learned the hard way. But I am determined to move forward and keep trying because this is for my children.

The Utah Senate race is a very important race for us at home and nationally. Senator Bennett has been perpetuating the problems we see and will not make the hard choices to stop the corruption and to stop spending at the expense of our children. He voted to raise the National Debt ceiling twelve times in a row, has supported much of the Bush era spending as well as the Bailouts. He is well-funded by special interest organizations and disregards the Constitution of the United States. He needs to be replaced! This will send a message to all of Congress that they need to shape up or ship out!

I initially joined the Constitution party because I was so disillusioned by the Republican and Democrat parties. I have found, though, that they are not without corruption either, and that their focus is to get 2% of the vote in order to remain on the ballot. Their goal is not to win. Perhaps they are more focused on a long term goal, but we need to make change NOW. Senator Bennett is up for election NOW.

Bennett has several million dollars to spend on a campaign and he will spend it to deceive people into thinking that he is a conservative. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to compete with the kind of money he has. THE BEST CHANCE OF REPLACING SENATOR BENNETT IS IN THE REPUBLICAN CONVENTION ON MAY 8, 2010. Every voting precinct will send between 1 and 5 state delegates to the convention and these delegates will vote on who will represent the Republican party. If a candidate gets over 60% of the vote, they become the nominee. If no one gets over 60%, the top two contenders will compete in a primary. IF WE CAN GET A CANDIDATE OTHER THAN BENNETT OVER 60% OF DELEGATE VOTES THEN BENNETT HAS NO CHANCE TO USE HIS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

This will be a difficult feat because people such as Mayor Randy Watts and Senator Lyle Hillyard are dedicated to helping him.

I am asking you to register with the Republican party and GO TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD CAUCUS MEETING ON TUESDAY, MARCH 23^RD AT 7PM AT MT. LOGAN MIDDLE SCHOOL (if you live in Logan) and run as a delegate or vote for someone else to be a delegate who will not support Senator Bennett.

There are many people running against Bennett who will be able to make a positive change. I recommend to you Mike Lee, who is dedicated to bringing our country back to the Constitution as understood by the Founding Fathers. He is committed to not vote for any legislation that is not in harmony with the Constitution and to push back against the idea that because the courts ruled something to be okay, that it is okay. He will work hard to bring our nation back to the Constitutional principles that have helped us to flourish for so many years.

Please call me for more details on how to become a delegate and who else is working toward this goal in your precinct.

Sincerely,

Michelle L King
435.227.5081

I Support Chuck Bateman

2010-03-14T10:54:00.001-06:00

To the editor:

I am writing to voice my support and endorsement for Chuck Bateman who is running for the Utah House of Representatives in District 5.

I think most people on all sides of the political spectrum can agree on one thing—that our country faces some serious problems and unless we change the way we are doing things we are going to face a lot more problems. With a depressed economy, lower tax revenues, increased government spending and favoring of money and power-driven special interest groups by both major parties, now more than ever we need to create a safe haven in our home states that can protect us from a federal government that has made bad decisions (regardless of which party was in power).

Our state legislators are a key element to making Utah a safe-haven from Federal corruption. We need representatives who will take a stand and deal with the hard issues. Ones who will help Utah work toward self-sufficiency. We need someone who will do more than just vote for the least controversial stance, but who will actively write, promote, and vote for legislation that will protect Utah from damaging decisions made by the Federal Government.

Chuck Bateman is just such a person. He has a background in a variety of things that give him balanced understanding of things that are important to the people of this valley. His life career has included farming, education, business, and financial education that give him a unique ability to understand problems from multiple viewpoints. He has also developed a deep understanding of the Constitution and has made a commitment to uphold and defend it.

In addition to his extensive knowledge, and perhaps more important, is his integrity and his strong moral character. As I have gotten to know Chuck I have been very impressed by the firmness of his principles. He listens to people and considers what they say, but he always studies it out to make sure it is right. He is not one to be swayed by bribery, flattery, or what happens to be popular at the time. He will always vote for that which is right, fair, and just.

Please join with me in supporting Chuck Bateman as a delegate at the Republican caucus meetings on March 23^rd at 7PM. If you would like to meet Chuck in person please visit www.VoteChuckBateman.blogspot.com and click the calendar link to see when he will be in your neighborhood. If he is not scheduled in your area please consider hosting him in your home.

Michelle King
Logan

Waking Up America-written by Chuck Bateman

2010-03-05T14:40:00.001-07:00

Over the years many people have indicated that political candidates (that make it onto the ballot) leave voters having to decide between the lesser of two evils. Or, put another way, voters leave the voting booth feeling that the only choice they had was to vote for the best among the weakest.

Why do we not have people that stand on solid principles running for public office? Why don’t we have great leaders rising up to lead this nation? I believe the answer lies in the lack of knowledge on the part of the general public on how to make this happen.

First, the schools do not teach the process of how the political parties are organized to get people on the ballot. It is the job of every citizen to encourage good people that are rooted solidly in moral principles and possessing knowledge of the proper role of government, to run for office. It is possible to find good people with strong moral values, but most lack the knowledge of how government should be structured and how it should function for the people to prosper and actually realize the natural rights that come from their creator. Our education system is mostly void of curriculum(s) that provide this knowledge and training. Consequently, morally-sound men may get elected, only to fall short in providing the leadership necessary to govern.

Second, the people do not get involved and/or remain involved in the process of supporting candidates to get them on the ballot. The failure of citizens to encourage good people to run for public office, coupled with the failure to ensure that those people are on the ballot at voting time, is where a huge part of the problem exists.

If these two issues could be solved, voters would find at the voting booth a ballot containing the best to choose from instead of the weakest. The true “cream” will have risen to the top. Voters would have great choices in selecting representatives and senators for our state and national congresses. It would also provide a much better pool of qualified people to select from for the office of President of the Untied States. And last, but not least, with the legislative branch and executive branch filled with qualified individuals, they could properly place the right people to fill our nation’s Supreme Court seats. The same process and results should occur at state and local levels.

The citizens of our nation get what they deserve in the way of leaders. If our leaders use government improperly to take away from the people the responsibility they need to shoulder, the result is loss of freedom and liberties, followed by complacency and apathy. It certainly seems desirable, on the surface, to be free of having to spend time and effort in being a constant watchdog of our public officials and direction they are taking our government. Currently, in American, people are waking up to the fact that we have a government, that by rule of law (albeit unconstitutional), is exercising control to diminish our freedoms and liberties. If this is to be stopped and the direction our government is going reversed, we will, in not too many years, wake up and find we are under a socialistic/communistic form of government. We will have no lawful way to get out from under the type of slavery this brings upon the people.

So, wake up America, and get involved in your precincts! Begin a program of self-study to learn about the proper role government should play in our country and our lives. Study history – therein lies the answer – where we can find that nation after nation, civilization after civilization, has risen to some height only to fall. Remember, man by his very nature is selfish and devilish.The U.S. Constitution, as it was brought forth by the founding fathers, is an eternal guide to control any entity from obtaining and/or usurping too much power. It is a system of checks and balances to stop the concentration and subsequent abuse of power by any one segment of government or group of people. It is an eternal guideline to keep the nature of man in check.

Learn from the lessons of the past, improve your knowledge base, and get involved in finding, promoting, supporting, and voting for qualified people to become our elected officials. And then remain vigilant in watching how they govern. Don’t become complacent and/or apathetic in these duties and responsibilities. Where much is given, much is expected – this is as it should be.America became the greatest nation on earth and the envy of the rest of the world. Now it is trembling on the brink of disaster because of what is happening from within. It is “we the people” that will determine America’s future.

We must elect an entirely new group of people to fill public offices throughout our country. We must elect those who will understand and execute proper governance and move quickly towards bringing our financial crisis under control. Our financial mess, alone, could cause a collapse of our Federal government, bringing us to our knees and under tyranny. We are a lot further down the path towards our demise than most Americans realize. Wake up, America!

Written by Chuck Bateman

Qik - Chuck Bateman's first candidacy speech 2 by Michelle L King

2010-02-26T22:17:00.002-07:00

Qik - Chuck Bateman's FIrst candidacy speech by Michelle L King

2010-02-26T22:16:00.006-07:00

Qik - Chuck Bateman's official announcement of candidacy by Michelle L King

2010-02-26T22:15:00.003-07:00

2010-02-22T14:15:00.000-07:00

Conservative Activist Training Conference—ONLINE!
April 5th-10th, 2010 – 6-10 PM-MST each evening

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER!

Are you tired of calling your senators and congressmen and not being heard? Do you want to find and elect representatives who will listen to YOU instead of the Big Money special interest groups?iPoliticom has a plan of ACTION that can help you SUCCEED!

Attend our online Training Conference! NOW is the time to get involved and ACT! At the end of this online training conference we will have provided you with a well-defined plan of action letting you know exactly what YOU can do to help conservative candidates win in the 2010 Primaries and General Election.

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER!

* FACT ONE – The current system is rigged to favor the incumbent and where seeking political office against the incumbent is next to impossible.
* FACT TWO – WE THE PEOPLE can trump the big money and elect good people to defend our constitutional rights.
* FACT THREE – The political parties are not on our side. Don’t let the party chose who you can vote for. They think we want to elect more RINOS and Progressives into office. They are wrong!!!
* FACT FOUR – United we can trump the influence of big money. We’re not asking you to unite under one banner—we’re asking you to unite towards accomplishing our common goal of getting true conservatives elected into office.
* FACT FIVE – WE THE PEOPLE are the government—this is a well orchestrated series of instruction to help us learn how to govern.

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER!

Who Should Attend: All concerned citizens, potential candidates and activists that want to get involved and reclaim their voice in the process should attend Let Freedom Ring. Learn how to ACT upon the following topics:

The Tenth Amendment-the key to the restoration of our freedoms and liberties
Are you tired of the mainstream media ignoring you? How to become a part of the Citizens’ Media.
Legislation nullification-how to support your states in enacting Federal legislation nullification. Protect yourself from unconstitutional Cap and Trade, national health care, public education, etc
Support your local Sheriff-Why the Sheriff is your best line of defense for protecting your constitutionally guarded rights and liberties
Financial meltdown—how to identify and get the right people into office will help fix economic turmoil and what you can do to help make this happen
Attention minorities, unions and progressives are not on your side. Find out why
How to apply the precinct strategy to WIN elections
Turbo charging our efforts using technology to the hilt. The how’s and why’s
How to use effective marketing tools and techniques to further the cause of Freedom
- Why and how mothers and wives should get involved
- And much MORE!!!
Pre-registration is just $10 through March 21^st! (After the 21^st cost will be $25)
CLICK HERE TO REGISTER!

Open Letter to Utah Governor Herbert regarding States' Rights

2010-02-16T18:00:00.001-07:00

Governor Herbert,

Please sign SB11 without further delay! I know you have concerns about potential lawsuits, but we have to draw a line somewhere. The federal government does not like this attitude of the states and the people reasserting their rights and they will likely fight it with all they have. But remember that our Founding Fathers also knew that it would be very costly to fight for their freedoms and they had to fight with their lives. We do not have to do that--we have means that are legal and costly but to not involve human lives.

Remember Andrew Jackson and his firmness in standing up against the Central Bank of his time. He knew he would face opposition. He knew it would be expensive and that the Central Bank would do everything in their power to stop him at the expense of the citizens. And they did do it.

But he stood strong because it was the right thing to do. He could see the corruption and the way the Central Bank was used to manipulate elections and other corruption that takes place when so much power is concentrated into a few hands.

We too, must stand strong because too much power is being concentrated into a few hands. It is time for us to show that we have a backbone.

Please sign SB11 and other bills re-asserting states' rights. It is the right thing to do. It is time.

Sincerely,

Michelle L King
435.227.5081

Independence Caucus endorses Judge Lowrey, exposes money trail of Mark Kirk in Illinois

2010-01-30T17:19:00.000-07:00

The following video exposes the money trail for Mark Kirk, running for US Senate in Illinois. He has received hundreds of thousands from the few banks who benefited from TARP. And no-so-coincidentally, he voted for TARP. Please pass this video as far and wide as you can before the Illinois Republican Primary this Tuesday.

Censorship in Logan City

2010-01-21T15:22:00.005-07:00

Logan City has just recently invoked a new policy regarding contact with the media. City officials are no longer allowed to take calls from members of the media. Media must now submit their questions in writing. The Herald Journal reported that the city council apparently had no knowledge of the policy and that it was put in place by the "executive committee" (or in other words, Mayor Watts). According to the Journal, the mayor was displeased with stories such as the city spending $800 on dessert for outgoing council members and $12,999 for holiday meals stating that they were not newsworthy. (I happened to find both of those stories quite newsworthy).

This policy may have come about by good intentions and a desire for more accuracy in media reporting, but limiting transparency will not solve the problem and is likely to create more problems. It opens the door for filtering and watering down of what happens in the city. Take a look at the stories listed above as not approved by the mayor. Would we have been told those stories if a written inquiry was required?

It also opens the door for the city to favor one media outlet over another by giving them more information and more timely information. Naturally they would give the benefit to the source most likely to put them in the most positive light (not necessarily the most accurate). filter what information is being published, allows them to favor one media group (whichever one will put them in a favorable light) over another, and is a big step away from government transparency.

Another unintended consequence is that if people do not feel they are able to get the information they need from the mainstream media they will start looking to alternative sources such as local bloggers, Facebook posts, and Twitter instead because citizens are not required to put their inquiries in writing. I can guarantee that those sources are much more likely to be biased and less likely to be accurate than the mainstream media as they have no real incentive to leave bias out of their writing.

Some questions that need to be asked (in writing, of course):

1. Who should the media submit questions to?

2. If they submit questions to, say, Mark Nielsen can Mark Nielsen respond to the inquiry freely or must he run his response through another party before giving it to the media?

Do not let your local government get away with doing the same things our federal government is trying to do!

Cache Valley Daily has also published an article on this topic and will be speaking out against this policy with the Herald Journal and other media outlets. I encourage you to do the same by calling Mayor Watts, by writing letters to the editor (hjletter@hjnews.com or cmccollum@hjnews.com), submitting your thoughts on Cache Valley Daily's ishare, and by writing on your personal blogs, Facebook, and any other source you have to get the word out.

UPDATE:

See link to the city's response to question submitted by the Herald Journal here.

See the city's press release here.

"The City of Logan’s media policy does not in anyway limit the media’s access to information."

Perhaps not, but it could and how will we know whether information is being filtered and censored?

"The intent of this policy is to insure that the information provided to the media is accurate and timely..."

Yeah, you said that already. I think the word you want is ensure.

"The City will use common sense..."

Common sense is very subjective.

"This media policy has been implemented on a trial basis and may be refined."

Refined, not revoked. Interesting.

Evaluation of the Independence Caucus senate challenger debate on Jan 15, 2010

2010-01-18T13:03:00.003-07:00

Last Friday the Independence Caucus hosted a debate for all Utah candidates for US Senate who have answered their 80 question survey. Incumbent Senator Bob Bennett and Democrat candidate Sam Granato have not answered the survey and so were not invited to participate. Those in attendance were Tim Bridgewater, Cherilyn Eagar, James Williams, and Mike Lee. I have met each of the candidates individually and it was a good experience to see them side by side.

The evening started off with Bob Basso, famous for portraying Thomas Paine, giving an energizing speech on the awakening of the American people and on working together as a team. It was a nice unifying message that I think set a really positive tone for the following "debate", or to be more accurate, panel. My evaluation of the candidates performance is as follows:

Tim Bridgewater: I thought Tim did a very good job of answering the questions. He appeared very relaxed. He was very friendly and conversational. It was almost as if he was having a conversation with the audience as if we were all at a barbecue instead of a formal event. He would look people in the eye and speak very clearly and relaxed. He talked a lot about limited government and the corruption in our government. He had the right idea but he seemed to marginalize the Constitution more than I am comfortable with. He also showed more faith in the Federal Reserve than I am comfortable with. I really like him a lot and he would be much better than Bennett. He also shows a willingness to listen and learn. I believe there is some potential there, but when contrasted with other candidates I do not believe he is the best for this seat at this time. I also learned from a friend who attended the Eagle Forum panel the following day that he said he would support a Constitutional Convention, which is a very alarming to me. There is no greater danger to our Constitution than a Convention would be at this time. I hope that he will recognize the importance of the Constitution and if he can do this I look forward to supporting him in the future.

Update: I have since learned that Bridgewater does not support a Constitutional Convention.

James Williams: I have a lot of respect for James. He is very firm in his convictions of doing what is right. He did not appear to be actively campaigning anymore--he had no signs, literature, staff or booth set up. But he still held his own in the debate and contributed a valuable element to the conversation. At one point something he said caused one of the other candidates to applaud him even before he was finished answering the question. (I wish I remembered what he was talking about at that time!) I hope he continues to participate in the debates and events.

Cherilyn Eagar: My initial impression of her at the debate was very positive. I think she did a very good job of answering questions and tried to keep a common theme throughout. I thought her answers were very good (except for the few instances of name-dropping in some of her answers: Mitt Romney, Glenn Beck). She really has the right idea and seems sincere in wanting to root out the corruption in government.

Her real weakness came out in her closing statement. She used that opportunity to take some not-so-subtle shots at other candidates and I felt that it showed her fear that the competition is indeed better than her. I think she would have been better off merely referencing herself rather than making implications about other candidates.

Mike Lee: Mike gave very clear and thought out answers. He also kept to a common theme which was that we really need to get back to the Constitution and its original intent. He displayed a deep understanding of what that means and how to apply it. He was very confident, clear, and positive. He has both the principles and the strength to represent our states and the Constitution in Washington.

So if you couldn't tell, I plan to put my support behind Mike Lee this election cycle. But I don't want you to take my word for it. These are my opinions based on my interactions and study of the candidates in combination with my understanding and study of what is right, good, and effective. I encourage you to do your own thinking and research and make that decision for yourselves. Google search them all and check out their events calendars. The next time they are near you go and meet them, talk with them personally and ask questions. It isn't hard and it does not really take very much time at all.

Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is

2010-01-16T14:23:00.003-07:00

I have been impressed with the awakening of the American people. People who have never been involved in politics before or even cared have been stepping forward and getting involved. It is both exciting and heartening to see this change come across the nation. People are waking up to the realization that the government is getting a little too cozy with its power over our every day lives, and politicians are getting a little too cozy with special interest groups while taxing and ignoring the rest of us. Naturally, us hard-working Americans have been distrustful and suspicious of anyone who asks us for money.

And contrary to what the socialists would like to believe, we are a very generous and charitable sort of people. So many have been giving so much of their time and their means in order to help this awaking turn into positive action to clean up the government. I am continually amazed at the sacrifices that freedom-loving patriots are making who ask for no compensation.

The problem is, that some people are giving so much of their time and their energy freely that they are burning out. Those organizations who must rely on 100% volunteers have a difficult time finding and/or retaining volunteers for their leadership positions. The government is keeping us so busy trying to provide for our families we have no time to organize ourselves in such a way that we can fight back effectively.

Unlike not-s0-freedom loving groups such as ACORN, none of us are willing to ask for our fix of federal money in the form of grants and political favors. None of us are willing to succumb to deal-making with special interest groups. So unlike ACORN, we are not able to fund our leaders to quit their day jobs and work full time on their activism. No, our leaders are typically hard-working Americans who still work a day job and sacrifice their recreation time and time with their families instead. In the meantime our federal government is embracing spending and economic policies that will continue to crush hard-working Americans.

That, my friends, is the very thing we have to fight! I know we are all good-hearted and would love for everyone to be able to help each other for free. Unfortunately, all that will accomplish is having the flames of liberty flicker and burn out one by one as we overwork ourselves and each other. Freedom is not free. We can either give freely to something that will prevent our government from continuing its reckless path, or we can wait until the governmant takes it from us forcefully for dubious purposes or inflates it out of existence.

Think how much more we could accomplish if, for example, we could make it possible for Frank Anderson of the Independence Caucus to quit his job and work full time to accelerate the valuable things he has already done? What if he could teach people how to research and expose the corruption in government and organize candidate vetting full time instead of trying to squeeze it in the small amount of free time he has? Think of how much more we could accomplish if we could make it possible for people to go around the country and train principled candidates and their volunteers on how to beat out well-funded incumbents as Congressmen Jason Chaffetz did in 2008 full time, instead of hoping they can work time in their schedules to do so? Think how many more candidates and volunteers could be empowered by having someone train 40 hours a week instead of just 8 hours a week?

Therefore, I would ask that when our leaders ask for donations, or begin to charge for services or information, we not cry foul and jump down their throats. They are not doing it because they are yet another set of greedy politicians trying to exploit us for our money. It is because, let's be realistic here, we cannot do what needs to be done without money (perhaps not to the degree the the special interests fund the incumbents, however). There are operating costs, legal fees, travel costs and much more. If we really believed that our leaders should be doing this all at their own expense for the "greater good" then we have been indoctrinated with more socialism than we realize.

Please, if you want to help turn this country around you will give up a few hours a week/month--whatever you can, and help share the burden. Perhaps as was suggested at a recent patriotic activity, we could commit to give up a movie night, a box of ice cream, or some other thing which we feel is worth the sacrifice and donate it to someone who is really contributing to the cause of freedom.

I know the economic times are tough, but that is precisely the reason we need to dig a little deeper.

Patrick Henry Caucus Drafts Provision for Utah to Opt Out of Federal Health Care Law

2009-12-26T14:29:00.001-07:00

UTAH PATRICK HENRY CAUCUS UNANINMOUSLY SUPPORTS A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN ORDER TO STOP THE FEDERAL HEALTH CARE BILL

Leading state sovereignty caucus strongly opposes the federal health care bill and supports lawsuits based on two violations of the U.S. Constitution.

The Patrick Henry Caucus adopted a unanimous position Wednesday, December 23, 2009, to oppose the Health Care Reform Bills, and to support a lawsuit against the federal government in order to stop the national health care bill from becoming law.

Calling the law unconstitutional, The Patrick Henry Caucus, which is comprised of legislators from both the Utah House of Representatives and the Utah Senate, vows to fight the federal law on multiple fronts. The Patrick Henry Caucus has an opt-out provision drafted and ready for presentation to the Utah Legislature next month. The opt-out would make it illegal for Utah agencies to implement any portion of the new federal law. The Caucus is calling on the State of Utah to join in with other States and take the lead on filing a lawsuit to stop the bill, should it receive final approval.

The Caucus believes the law is unconstitutional in at least two respects. First, the law unfairly gives preferential treatment to residents of Nebraska as a result of efforts by Senate Democrats to court the vote of Nebraska Senator Ben Campbell. The Caucus believes that this preferential treatment violates principles of due process and equal protection and is therefore unconstitutional under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Second, the law amounts to an excess of Congress’s enumerated powers inasmuch as it requires every American to acquire health insurance. This legislation marks the first time in history that Congress has required every single American to purchase a particular good or service, and cannot be reconciled with the notion that Congress possesses only those limited powers granted by the Constitution.

The Patrick Henry Caucus calls on the leaders from all States to join in the effort to file a lawsuit against the federal government in order to stop this wrongheaded piece of legislation. We must not allow Congress to commandeer one sixth of our nation’s fragile economy while simultaneously undermining the authority of the States. ####

Three Reasons to Show Bennett the Door

2009-12-15T09:07:00.001-07:00

To the Editor:

In July 2008 Rasmussen Reports reported that just 9 percent of Americans felt that Congress was doing a “good or excellent job.” Several months later, Americans re-elected 94 percent of the same federal representatives and 83 percent of the same federal senators. A lot of people must be blaming another state for the nation’s problems! It’s not true, folks. Here are three reasons Sen. Bennett is part of the problem.

First, Sen. Bennett voted for and is a big pusher of the bank bailouts. In his words: “Leave it up to the historians to sort out where the blame should go. Let’s send a signal of confidence to the world markets right now.” Translation: Let’s spend $700 billion that we don’t have to lie to the rest of the world.

A quick scan through Bennett’s top 40 campaign donors for 2010 show that one third or more of his $600,000-plus in campaign contributions has come from banks he bailed out (opensecrets.org). It was the same story for him in 2004. The banks take excessive risk knowing that the taxpayers have their back and donate to campaigns on both sides of the isle to ensure it. Who is being represented here — the citizens or the big bankers? We don’t need bank bailouts. We need citizens who hold both their leadership and their banks in check. Stop living the lie.

The second reason to boot Sen. Bennett is for his so-called “Healthy Americans Act.” This is an alternative bill to the more prominent “Affordable Health Care for America Act,” aka, Obamacare. Unfortunately, the bill is not much different. It still forces people to have health insurance, increases government control of health care and increases the size of government and taxation accordingly. Who benefits from mandatory health insurance? Who benefits from a tax payer backing for their business? Certainly not the average American — it can only benefit those who abuse the very abusable system. Why would Sen. Bennett cosponsor a bill in favor of mandatory insurance? He received at least $60,000 in campaign donations from medical insurance companies so far in his 2010 campaign cycle, among other reasons.

The third reason Sen. Bennett needs to go is for his involvement in the Transatlantic Policy Network (tpnonline.org). He was the chairman of the group until somebody pointed out that it was unconstitutional for him to hold that position (Article 1, Section 6). He is now entitled “US Honorary President.” When asked about what this group does in their closed-door meetings, he responded that they close the doors to “keep the air conditioning in.” Why are we giving up our sovereignty to these extra-governmental groups? We have so little control of our government already.

Brannon B. King

Logan

Parking Changes Necessary?

2009-12-03T19:21:00.003-07:00

Dear City Council Members:

I am writing in regards to the proposed plan to change the parking stalls near the temple from angled parking to parallel parking. Although I was not in attendance at the council meeting where it was discussed, I listened to it on the internet as I have done for the past three years.

While I am not outright against the proposal, I do have a few concerns that I am hoping will be addressed at some point. They are as follows:

How does this change improve safety? Is there any data on this?
Will this cause unfunded mandates for property owners along the area? If the city is mandating changes that cost property owners money then the city should cover the cost.
Keeping that in mind, is this a good use of taxpayer money--reducing parking that taxpayers can use and paying for landlords to pave their backyards?
Why now? Is this the right time to be making such a change? (During a recession, when people are struggling financially, would making a change that requires extra money and reduces property value for nearby homes and apartments be the best option)?

Thank you for considering my concerns. I hope to be in attendance at the public hearing next month.

Sincerely,

Michelle L King

See related article here: http://www.cachevalleydaily.com/news/local/78294942.html

or listen to the city council discussion here: http://kutatv.com/page.php?5.37

Press Release: Special Interest Groups

2009-10-08T18:38:00.001-06:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
A KVNU radio ad sponsored by the incumbent Mayor has implied this week that the Cache Independence Caucus has endorsed Logan municipal candidates along with "landlord coalitions". Contrary to this misleading advertisement, the opposite is the truth. The only "landlord coalition" involved in this election is the Utah Apartment Association, who is lobbying our Logan City government to adopt their "Good Landlord" licensing program. The Logan Municipal Council has even appointed/invited a lobbyist from the Utah Apartment Association to be on the committee to evaluate the controversial licensing of private property in Logan. Mike Morrill, Steve Stokes and Tony Wegener have expressed clear disagreement with the Utah Apartment Association.

Critics have also implied that by being accountable to the Cache Independence Caucus, endorsed candidates would not be accountable to the citizens. This is totally false. The Cache Independence Caucus empowers voters by giving them a bigger voice and representation in government. We support candidates who promise to follow the Constitution of the United States, which is actually the first mentioned duty of all municipal candidates who take the oath of office.
Text of the KVNU Radio ad referred to in the above press release:
"Logan city residents deserve elected officials who answer to the citizens, not special interest groups. When groups such as landlord coalitions, and Independence Caucus support a candidate, they usually expect something in return. Or as Michelle King from the Independence Caucus put it, 'If any Independence Caucus endorsed candidate shows a record of taking their ticket in and then turning around and doing what they want, we will work twice as hard to get them out of office as we did to get them into office.' Who do you want our leaders to be accountable to?"

Actual text of the conversation the ad refers to:
Q. "What's to say that one of these candidates the Independence Caucus backs, they don't just go get a ticket to the game and then once they get there they change all the rules?"

A. First I went through and described the earmark requirements proposed by the Independence Caucus such as earmarks must be voted on by their own merits alone and then said, "If any Independence Caucus endorsed candidate goes against that and shows a record of doing what you say, turning and taking their ticket in and then turn around and doing what they want, we will work twice as hard to get them out of office as we did to get them into office."

Michelle L King
2009 Coordinator
Cache Independence Caucus
435.753.4790

Press Release: Special Interest Groups

2009-10-08T18:38:00.000-06:00

A Citizens' Special Interest Group

2009-10-07T21:49:00.000-06:00

Dear Citizens of Logan,

My name is Michelle King and like you, I am a citizen. I am not a professional politician. I live and raise my children in the beautiful city of Logan. My daily life consists of regular old things that many regular citizens do -- things like raising a garden, cleaning my house, shopping for groceries, sewing, etc. And like many people today, I have been frustrated by the lack of representation in our government. Our leaders on all levels often forget to listen to those who have no money to contribute to their campaigns. Instead, they listen to those who have the most power and influence to get them re-elected. I have felt like an insignificant voice crying out into the void, my voice being drowned out by special interest groups, large "associations", and corrupt politicians.

But my voice has found new volume and it has given me hope. Not too long ago I discovered a group called the Independence Caucus. This group is a CITIZENS' movement dedicated to bringing the voice of the citizens where our representatives can hear it. Their motto is “The triumph of integrity over money.” They have developed a way for WE, THE PEOPLE to have a voice once more.

This method begins with a candidate vetting, or screening, process. It is essentially a job interview. And why not? All of us have interviews before we are offered a job. Our leaders have one of the most crucial jobs there is, and it is right and just that they should be interviewed by the people they work for: THE CITIZENS.

So we, the people, first give our job applicants an initial screening to see if they will be responsible with our money and will “support, obey, and defend” the Constitution of the United States as stated in the oath of office. This is done with an 80 question survey followed by a personal interview conducted by their employers (the people). We then select a candidate and offer them our support in return for them being willing to represent us.

This is what a group of citizens has done for the current Logan city elections. We found three strong candidates willing to go through this job interview who passed with flying colors. It does not matter what issues we face now or in the future because issues come and go. After interviewing these candidates we have found that they will stand firm for the Constitution and stand up for the people come what may. These candidates are Mike Morrill (mayor), Tony Wegener (city council) and Steven Stokes (city council).

I ask you, as a citizen of Logan city and the United States of America to add your voice to mine and vote for these three charismatic men on November, 3, 2009. I also invite you to bring your voice to the county and nation and participate with us in candidate screening for the 2010 County Council and U.S. Senate races. Getting involved locally is the best and only way to change the nation -- you have to support great politicians from the ground up. YOUR VOICE CAN BE HEARD! (Candidate discussions take place on the social networking site at www.icaucus.ning.com -- sign up to participate.)

Sincerely,
Michelle L. King
2009 Coordinator
Cache Independence Caucus

Mike Morrill for Mayor, by Tony Wegener

2009-10-04T17:51:00.001-06:00

October 4, 2009

Mike Morrill for Mayor

I am a candidate for City Council. I am also a realist; I do not expect to be able to significantly change the direction of city government as a City Councilman, with Mayor Watts at the helm for another term. Therefore, I am asking all Logan citizens who want a more conservative, more representative, less divisive, less intrusive government; a government with the POLITICAL WILL to refocus Logan City on its PRIORITIES, and govern on PRINCIPLE, to support Mike Morrill for Mayor of Logan City. Mike Morrill, Tony Wegener and Steven Stokes WILL make a difference.

The Herald Journal, October 3, 2009, reports that the Logan Library now has room to expand into the space vacated by the city administrative staff. But that may only be temporary; according to Ronald Jenkins, Logan Librarian, “The fate of the building and Logan Library will likely be decided late next year. Among the possibilities is construction of a new library”.

One possibility considered by the City Council last year, was a complete remodel of the existing city building. There is actually enough space to serve the library’s needs for the next 20 years. In 2008 the price tag to completely rehabilitate the building was $5,300,000. Another possibility is Mayor Watt’s vision for a new library/city center. The price tag in 2008 was $25,000,000.

Mayor Watts must be stopped! I would like to help refocus Logan on the fundamental role of Government…and get back to basics…back to basic PRINCIPLES and carefully considered PRIORITIES

At the beginning of the current political cycle, Tyler Riggs, of KNVU, asked each candidate a series of questions, including: Please describe what you believe the role of government is? My response was as follows:

The role of city government is to serve the people…to secure the safety of the community and to provide essential services economically and efficiently. Thus one might expect Logan City to provide appropriate police and fire protection services and a well-maintained infrastructure, to support a growing community. Basic infrastructure would include roads/sidewalks, sewer and water. Other appropriate services include parks, recreation facilities and library services. (There was more)

So I support expansion of the library into the existing city building on PRINCIPLE, but I must also oppose the mayor’s apparent compulsion to spend $25,000,000 on a City Center/Library…on PRINCIPLE. There are more serious needs, safety hazards and liabilities in Logan City. There are essential services such as aging sewer and water pipes and missing curbs, gutters and sidewalks which must take PRIORITY over building unnecessary public monuments.

For example: Our city water service does not meet state code; it represents a serious safety hazard; it is a liability in the event of a major fire. Our 100 year old water and sewer lines are fragile and failing daily; we are wasting money annually on patch and repair; we are further behind today than when the current administration took office. There are Logan City employees who lose sleep over the vision of a catastrophic event on Logan City…and the loss of culinary water and fire flow.

Again…I am a realist; I do not expect to be able to significantly change the direction of city government as a City Councilman, with Mayor Watts at the helm for another term. Therefore, I am asking all Logan citizens who want a more representative, less divisive, less intrusive government; a government with the POLITICAL WILL to refocus Logan City on its PRIORITIES, and govern on PRINCIPLE, to support Mike Morrill for Mayor of Logan City.

Mike Morrill, Tony Wegener and Steven Stokes WILL make a difference.

Empowered

2009-09-30T22:07:00.000-06:00

To the Editor:

About four years ago my husband and I got in a political discussion with a friend. We basically shoved our feet in our mouths because we didn't have a clue what we were talking about. We learned our lesson and began an extensive study of economics and governments. The more we studied the more we realized our country was on the wrong track.

We looked into and joined several groups dedicated to political action. Some wonderful progress was being made but there were so many bills being passed all the time it seemed impossible to fight off the corruption in Washington by writing to our Congressmen and signing petitions.

Then we attended a lecture by one of the co-founders of the Independence Caucus, Monte Bateman. Monte told us of the Special Interest influence in our government and illustrated the reasons that all our letter-writing and petitioning were having so little affect. We were very intrigued by the information and decided to join the Independence Caucus. After joining we found videos that not only explained the corruption, but proposed a solution to curb it as well as a process to find and support good candidates for offices that could be used at all levels of government.

It was the answer we had been looking for. It would be so much better to elect officials who would make good decisions and actually listen to us than continue to write weekly letters only to get cookie-cutter form letters in response. We felt empowered.

And that is the purpose of the Independence Caucus: To empower the citizens to learn about and support principled candidates. There are many worthy political action groups in existence who are concerned about the direction of the government, but many have no power to endorse or support a candidate.

This is not about using national turmoil to push a local agenda. There is nothing sinister or hidden behind this. I am a concerned citizen of Logan who wants to help some very good candidates get elected.

The issue of the vetting questions, or "screening" questions as I prefer to call them, is only one small part of this whole thing and it is surprising that people are hanging onto this issue so tightly. The questions are meant to follow a politician throughout his/her entire career. They may not vote on such issues with their current office, but they may have that opportunity if they choose to run for a different office in the future. In the meantime their responses to these questions tell us their beliefs, priorities, and principles.

I don't see how Mike Morrill opposing the "expansion and/or the perpetuation of any and all existing federal legislation and regulations in areas that are not constitutionally enumerated" should reflect negatively on his campaign. Or Tony Wegener committing to "oppose any legislation that would allow the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to violate the 1st amendment rights of any American individuals and/or businesses" should mean that he is not an honest man because he doesn't vote on federal legislation. Or Steven Stokes committing to "oppose and vote against any legislation and/or oppose any efforts by the executive branch to recognize or implement any taxation of American Citizens for any United Nations programs" should mean that he is not well-equipped to be on the Logan Municipal Council.

I would encourage the citizens of Logan to look at the platforms of each of these candidates and see what they really have to offer Logan City. Each of them has a great love for Logan city and the people who live here. They are honest and principled men, and because I had the opportunity not only to see their responses to 80 questions on national issues, but interview them personally and ask them about who they are, what makes them tick, and specific local issues, I am empowered to be able to say that Mike Morrill will be an excellent Mayor, and that Tony Wegener and Steven Stokes will be great assets to the Logan Municipal council.

I also invite you all to participate in the candidate vetting for the Senate race of 2010. You can join the discussion of the current candidates on our social networking site: www.icaucus.ning.com. This time you can be the one to help select a candidate. Get involved early while you have a real choice!

Sincerely,

Michelle L King
2009 Coordinator
Cache Independence Caucus

Logan City Candidates Endorsed by Indpendence Caucus

2009-08-30T20:02:00.004-06:00

Here in Logan City we have been having problems of too much government and too much spending. Yes, the corruption has trickled even to this remote little valley in Utah. It just so happens that the Independence Caucus motto is "the triumph of integrity over money". Well in our case we needed a little more integrity and a little less money involved in city affairs and so we gave all candidates the opportunity to go through the I-Caucus candidate vetting process.

Two mayor candidates and four city council candidates made it to the final phase of vetting. It was a very difficult decision to make. But let me tell you, it was really nice to choose between four good people rather than the "lesser of two evils". I guess that's what happens when you get involved early in the game.

So now we would like to congratulate our newly endorsed candidates and we will be working our tails off to get them elected!

Mayor:
Mike Morrill
http://www.mayormikemorrill.com/

Municipal Council:
Steve Stokes
Tony Wegener

All of these men are dedicated to the preservation of liberty and not spending more money than you have.

We will be hosting a Town Hall Forum featuring these candidates on Tuesday, September 8, 2009. For details on the Forum and the vetting process please go to http://cacheicaucus.blogspot.com/

The Media Forgot to Report on This: Chicago TEA Party

2009-08-09T19:11:00.007-06:00

The media has been ignoring protests and TEA Parties across the country. I thought I'd help spread the word since the media hasn't been doing their job. I don't agree with all the signs in the pictures, but I would be just like the mainstream media if I only posted the ones I like. Here is a copy of the email I received about this protest in Chicago:

WAKE UP AMERICA -NOW THAT IT IS STARTED, WE NEED TO KEEP IT UP UNTIL THINGS START GOING THE OTHER WAY.

It begins. . . IN CHICAGO OF ALL PLACES.

Looks as if the natives are getting restless!!

Right in Obama's back yard!! I'm more proud of the folks in the windy city, than I thought was ever possible! By the way, I didn't see the ABC CBS NBC CNN MSNBC covering this - did you? Wonder why...

Those who have visited Chicago will recognize the downtown area.

Get Big Money Out of Lawmaking

2009-08-05T13:01:00.001-06:00

This may be a little redundant, but here is a letter to the editor I wrote that was just published:

Dear Editor,

So many people are squabbling over issues such as health care reform, gay marriage, gun laws, free speech and abortion. Don’t get me wrong, all of these issues are important. However, we are not getting the real facts on any of these issues. Both major political parties conveniently leave out inconvenient facts and exaggerate the facts that do exist. We will never truly be able to find solutions to any of these issues until we get to the root of the problem: congress members being bought off by special interest groups.

The entire system we have allows our congress members to favor some groups over others through earmarking, tax loopholes and votes that favor certain organizations. Take our own senators. You can write to Sen. Hatch all you want about how he should vote on health care reform. You will get a nice form letter in return but no matter what you say he will vote against Obama’s plan. Why? Not because most Utahns are against it. It is because Blue Cross and Blue Shield is one of his largest campaign donors and they will suffer from regulation and competition with a public insurance plan if the bill passes. (You can find the information about his and every other congress member’s history on opensecrets.org.) Well, great, if you have the same goal (albeit for different reasons) as Blue Cross and Blue Shield you have nothing to fear, right? Except that his top five campaign donors are all health companies and I can almost guarantee you that those companies do not always have your best interest at heart — but Sen. Hatch has their best interests at heart.

Then there is Sen. Bennett. If you were not aware already, he voted for the $700 billion bailout, despite the overwhelming number of calls to his office begging him not to do it. He cited one letter by one person who wouldn’t get a loan if the banks froze up. That was his excuse. But if you will take a look on opensecrets.org once again you will find that Sen. Bennett received $23,200 from Citigroup, $20,000 from JP Morgan Chase, $15,500 from the American Bankers Association, and $15,999 from Freddie Mac. Whose interests do you think he really had at heart?

I don’t know about you, but I personally do not want this kind of lawmaking going on. I do not want whoever has the most money to decide which laws are passed and which are not.

Let’s get big money out of lawmaking and then we can discuss the issues for their true merits and vices — not who will get the most money out of it.

Calling All Americans: You Can Make A Difference!

2009-07-28T12:14:00.012-06:00

Are you concerned about the things that have been happening in the government? There are a lot of issues out there that people are concerned about and for good reason. Many of those issues can be very divisive because they are related to beliefs and feelings that are deeply ingrained in people. Issues like abortion, health care, global warming, gay marriage, racial discrimination, labor laws, and free speech. I have observed people tear each other apart in online comments and butt heads in person over these issues. In general these arguments never lead to anything because each person is already convinced that they are right and will not hear anything different. It seems like a hopeless cause and many people are throwing their hands up in the air and saying, "It's no use, I give up. We are too divided, this country is beyond repair."

Do you want things to get worse? I am writing this in order to beg you not to give up. If you give up they will get worse. We are not so divided as you think we are. Liberals and conservatives and everyone in between has a common enemy. An enemy that keeps us from getting true facts. One that prevents us from discussing the true merits and vices of the issues. This enemy is Big Money. Special interest groups who give large donations to our congressmen in return for favors regarding laws. These groups will do anything to get laws passed that benefit themselves, usually at the expense of others. They distort facts and attempt to silence or make a public mockery of those who would expose the truth.

You will never learn the true costs and benefits of various health care proposals, global warming, or the state of the economy as long as we have a system in place that allows congressmen to favor some people over others in this manner.

If there was something you could do to help fix the problem would you do it? Well you can help and it's really quite simple. The Independence Caucus is a non-partisan group aimed at fixing this very thing. There is a series of videos posted below that describe how the bribery system works and how we can fix it. There are eight segments (soon to be twelve) about ten minutes long each. You don't have to watch them all at once, although I couldn't stop once I started. I encourage everyone to watch them, get all their friends and family to watch them, and join the Independence Caucus and help us get Big Money out of law-making! Then we can have the real discussions about all the other issues based on truth and their merits.

Watch the rest of the videos here.

Cache Tea Party Coalition's Pioneer Day Booth

2009-07-27T14:33:00.005-06:00

The 24th of July is the day that Utah celebrates the arrivals of the Pioneers and the heritage of our state. It's usually as big of a celebration as Independence Day is. The Cache TEA Party Coalition, consisting of the Independence Caucus, Utah 912 Project, and Campaign for Liberty (and sometimes other groups such as the Patrick Henry Caucus, Constitution Party and the John Birch Society) put together a booth for the Logan City celebration.

Things went very well at the booth. Several hundred people came by and most were more interested in the information than the candy we had on the table. We gave away about 50 copies of the Independence Caucus videos, handed out lots of information on our groups, had about 40 people sign up for the email notification list, and got almost 80 petitions to audit the Federal Reserve signed. We also received about $35 in donations that will go towards flyers, DVDs, booth fees, and advertising costs.

I only observed 3 run-ins with "liberals" who in the end, at least agreed with us on the issue that congress has been bought off and are willing to address that issue. One man in particular came over just to mock and heckle us claiming that "Taxed Enough Already" was a silly slogan because "nobody's taxes have been raised". Michele informed him that the Boston Tea Party was about taxation without representation, not just high taxes, and that the TEA parties are the same now. Congress is no longer representing us but are representing big money special interest groups. That shut him up. He quit trying to heckle and became interested in some of the information we had up about our Utah Senators (specifically the campaign donations in the post below).

Michele designed the banner you see at the top of the booth and did most of the decorating.
Brannon explaining to a visitor about how Senators Bennett and Hatch have been benefiting from very large donations from special interest groups.
One of the busiest moments. All people in the photo are discussing the booth materials.
A couple of these guys appeared to be keeping their eyes on us for awhile. They probably wanted some of the Star-bursts that were on the table.

More Interviews with the Fed

2009-07-23T19:32:00.000-06:00

Fed Under Fire

2009-07-17T15:04:00.000-06:00

For Those Who Think Local Politics are Unimportant

2009-07-17T08:59:00.005-06:00

I have a long stretch of land that runs between the outside of my fence and the sidewalk. I have planted there a compelling mix of wildflowers. The first few years the flowers looked astounding. The lush growth of color and variety was a striking prospect for all who drove by. I was able to enjoy this beautiful garden with virtually no work.

Then last night I went out to water the flowers only to find that my floral paradise was infiltrated with weeds. These weeds had been hiding beneath the foliage of the wildflowers all spring, but as the summer heat began to beat down upon the garden and the wildflower blossoms began to fade the weeds shot up to great heights.

Naturally I began tugging away at the weeds, but I found that I was quite unprepared for the task. My hands were repeatedly pierced by thorns. I had not been planning to weed and so I had no gloves, no shovel, and was wearing clothing that was inappropriate for yard work.

I continued my little battle with the weeds. Some came right out, others broke off at the base leaving a healthy root behind to spring up once more. Had I been prepared I could have dug in with a shovel and removed those roots completely.

Another problem is that the weeds, big and small, were so embedded within the wildflowers it was difficult to tell weed from flower. As a result I had some flower casualties along with the uprooted weeds. I did the best I could do under the circumstances, and as I looked at my cracked and bleeding hands I realized that if I had removed those weeds while they were small I would never have had such a monstrous problem, and the wildflowers would have had more room to flourish.

Now to all of you who complained about having to choose between the less of the two evils of George Bush and John Kerry, of John McCain and Barack Obama--where were you when those weeds were small? How do politicians get to where they are?

They hide amongst the wildflowers in local offices and party positions, out of the public eye. You do not notice them until they are full grown weeds. If John McCain had not been a senator he would not have run for president. If he had not been elected in the primaries he could not have been a senator. If George Bush had not been elected governor his chances for a Presidential run would have been greatly diminished. Nancy Pelosi could not have been Speaker of the House if she had not been elected to Congress. She would likely not have been elected to Congress if she had not been party chair in Northern California. She would not have been party chair if she had not worked her way up the ranks in smaller offices (wikipedia: Nancy Pelosi). Or perhaps if you had been involved campaigning for her competitor she would not have won.

The power to make a difference lies in the primaries and local elections where the weeds are still small (and underfunded). If you do not want to choose between the lesser of two evils Bob Bennett and Jim Matheson (overfunded) next November--or whoever your choices happen to be-- then get involved in the primaries now.

If you are a member of a third party and want to build strength in your party then run for local office. Show people that the your party is electable. Build experience and publicity for your party. You will never get voters of Utah to vote anything but Republican until you show them that a third party member can hold office and make hard choices on a smaller scale.

Local elections are just beginning. Now lets get out there while the weeds are still small and get to work!

Health Care is Not a Right

2009-07-15T10:37:00.003-06:00

I am not a heartless person. I feel very deeply for those who do not have health insurance. I have close family members who owe thousands of dollars to hospitals because they did not have insurance when they needed care. I know there are problems with health care--that it is artificially expensive and that quality is declining. But that does not change the fact that it is not a right.

Specific rights that all men have are declared in the Declaration of Independence: the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights list those rights in a more specific form. None of those state that we have a right to health care. The right to life is the right to live your life, the right to own your labor and choose to use your time in ways that you feel are in pursuit of happiness.

Since you have the right to own your labor, everyone else in the country has a right to theirs. That includes family practitioners, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies. They spent time and money learning how to do what they do--and lots of it. They were long and difficult hours with high levels of liability. We do not have a right to their labor. Period. If we did we should call it what it is: slavery.

The current health care bill that is being stampeded through Congress would declare health care as a basic human right (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090715/D99EO8BO0.html.) So much for the thirteenth amendment: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." (emphasis added).

And just FYI, here is a diagram of how this lovely plan will work: http://docs.house.gov/gopleader/House-Democrats-Health-Plan.pdf

Fishy Campaign Donations

2009-07-14T14:57:00.004-06:00

Bob Bennett's Campaign Donation Record

Top 5 Contributors, 2005-2010, Campaign Cmte

Contributor	Total	Indivs	PACs
Citigroup Inc	$23,200	$18,200	$5,000
JPMorgan Chase & Co	$20,000	$17,000	$3,000
Reagan Outdoor Advertising	$16,800	$16,800	$0
Freddie Mac	$15,999	$6,000	$9,999
American Bankers Assn	$15,500	$0	$15,500

Top 5 Industries, 2005-2010, Campaign Cmte

Industry	Total	Indivs	PACs
Securities & Investment	$163,500	$45,500	$118,000
Insurance	$132,700	$15,900	$116,800
Lobbyists	$95,143	$88,143	$7,000
Commercial Banks	$90,075	$47,075	$43,000
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products	$76,544	$12,000	$64,544

And what a surprise, Senator Bennett also voted for the bill that gave those companies billions of dollars at the protest of 90% or more of his constituants. Hmmm. He's also up for reelection this year.

Orrin Hatch's Campaign Donation Record

Top 5 Contributors, 2005-2010, Campaign Cmte

Contributor	Total	Indivs	PACs
Xango LLC	$46,200	$46,200	$0
Blue Cross/Blue Shield	$45,603	$27,100	$18,503
Schering-Plough Corp	$33,000	$23,000	$10,000
Bear Stearns	$30,700	$27,700	$3,000
Nu Skin Enterprises	$27,000	$27,000	$0

Top 5 Industries, 2005-2010, Campaign Cmte

Industry	Total	Indivs	PACs
Lawyers/Law Firms	$430,842	$309,447	$121,395
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products	$430,681	$202,900	$227,781
Securities & Investment	$288,100	$211,100	$77,000
Health Professionals	$224,050	$57,000	$167,050
Computers/Internet	$215,927	$111,850	$104,077

Wow. It also happens to be true that Senator Hatch is on the Health and Judiciary committees. Lawyers, pharmacies and insurance companies donate to his campaign, eh?. So do you think he has your best interest at heart, or is it thee guys who donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to his campaign at heart?

Wanna look up your congressman? Click here: OpenSecrets.org

If this trend of bribery bothers you then visit the Independence Caucus at http://www.ourcaucus.com/ , watch the videos, and join the cause!

Mad

2009-07-09T23:19:00.001-06:00

Logan, Utah Tea Party, July 4, 2009: Speaker John Mulholland

2009-07-05T20:59:00.004-06:00

John Mulholland is the county chair for the Campaign for Liberty. He is also a precinct leader and contributor to the Cache GOP blog.

Logan, Utah Tea Party, July 4, 2009: Speaker Michele Alder

2009-07-05T20:58:00.002-06:00

Michele became a U.S. citizen last year and is very proud of it. She is very ambitious and is a member of Indpendence Caucus, the 912 Project, and the Patrick Henry Caucus (I think).

Logan, Utah Tea Party, July 2009: Speaker Chris Tew

2009-07-05T20:56:00.005-06:00

Chris Tew works closely with of the Campaign for Liberty, the 912 Project, the John Birch Society, Independence Caucus, and the Constitution Party.

Logan, Utah Tea Party, July 4 2009

2009-07-05T20:51:00.008-06:00

We had about 50 people show up, which isn't too bad considering it was planned July 1st, there was no advertising, and a large portion of our supporters were on a parade float in Hyrum at the same time. We go 30 petitions signed for Bob Bennett, Orrin Hatch, and Nancy Pelosi to support the Federal Reserve Transparency Act. We also were able to make some good contacts with other people who are frustrated with the government spending and interference that has been going on. Here are pictures from the event as well as a few of a booth Brannon and I ran at a party that evening. I will also post video clips of the Tea Party.

Transparency

2009-07-01T18:35:00.000-06:00

The Obama Rush

2009-06-25T15:04:00.007-06:00

So far, President Obama has had fairly high ratings (at least according to the liberal media). I think that people in general like him--his person more so than his policies. I don't blame them. He seems like the sort of person I might like to have over for a BBQ or work with in the PTA, even though I disagree strongly with a majority of his policies.

Unfortunately, the President is taking advantage of his popularity, the strong support of the media, and the Democrat majority in the House and Senate to push his agenda through at an unprecedented pace. Perhaps that is wise politically, but it is extremely irresponsible and unfair to the American people--especially after promising transparency.

Since taking office Obama has rushed through an extremely large and expensive stimulus bill (so large no one could actually read it before voting on it), a massive budget that is larger than all previous budgets combined (article, article) and now he has issued an executive order for a council over the automotive industry (article, article, article). He is urging legislation that would increase the power of the Federal Reserve (actual bill, article, article, testimony of the Fed's Inspector General illustrating she doesn't know what they are doing , sign the Audit the Federal Reserve petition here) a somewhat hidden but very large energy tax under in the name of global warming (read the bill, Democrats hired a speed reader to read the 946 page bill, which is now 1201 pages) , and a universal health care plan that would open the door for complete government control over health care (read the bill, explanation of what's in the bill, video on health care, video on Canadian health care , another video on Canadian health care, sign a petition against the bill here). Other items on his agenda that are in progress are mandatory civilian corps service (first step passed the House, article with quotes by Obama and his wife about this goal, article, article), and has alluded to mandatory higher education (Obama's address to the nation, Fed 2009*).

All of these things that have been in the works so far have been rushed through with little time to even read the bills let alone debate them. The President and his allies need to slow down and allow the American people a little say in things, without shoving a one-sided agenda down their throats via the liberal media and a compromised Congress.

*"It is our responsibility as lawmakers and as educators to make this system work, but it is the responsibility of every citizen to participate in it.

So tonight I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training. This can be a community college or a four-year school, vocational training or an apprenticeship. But whatever the training may be, every American will need to get more than a high school diploma.

And dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It's not just quitting on yourself; it's quitting on your country. And this country needs and values the talents of every American."--Barack Obama

A Letter from Utah Senator Orrin Hatch

2009-06-15T22:41:00.006-06:00

I recently wrote to Utah Senator Orrin Hatch encouraging him to support H.R. 1207. He responded in a manner that is a bit upsetting to me. Here is an evaluation of his letter:

"Since the Federal Reserve Act was signed into law in 1913, the Federal government has had a role in ensuring the integrity of our country's financial system in order to protect American investors and consumers against such problems as bank failure. "

I can see how our financial system has maintained integrity since 1913. After all, think how poor everyone was then. The average yearly income was only $1296, gas was $0.12/gallon, a loaf of bread was $0.06, a gallon of milk was $0.36, a new car was $490 and a new house was $3,395, 2.6 times the average yearly income. (Gold is Money, progressive list of retail food prices). Now the median income is $50,233, the average is $67,609 (wikipedia: Household Income in the United States, Census Bureau: 2007 Report). The average home cost in 2007 was $299,100, or 4.4 times the average yearly income. (Census Bureau: 2007 Housing Report) We are so rich now because of them, aren't we?

They really have protected from depressions as well. There were a total of nine recessions between 1797 and 1913--a 116 year span. Since the Establishment of the Federal Reserve there have been a total of 16 recessions--a 95 year span (wikipedia: list of recessions in the United States). One of those recessions happened to be the Great Depression, which was caused by the bursting of a bubble created by the Federal Reserve expanding the money supply by more than 60% between 1921 and 1929 (Murray Rothbard, America's Great Depression), and then hiking interest rates from 3.5% to 6% and contracting the money supply suddenly in 1929 (Lawrence W. Reed, Great Myths of the Great Depression).

"The Federal Reserve System is a mixture of public and private entities. The Federal Reserve Board has been granted the authority by Congress to set monetary policy and to regulate commercial banking activities. While the Federal Reserve System was established as an independent agency, the President of the United States appoints the seven members of the board with the appointments subject to confirmation by the Senate. Congress also has the power to modify the Federal Reserve System."

What he means is that the Fed is a private bank granted special privileges by the government and given an official sounding name to make us all think they are a part of the government. They are given a monopoly over money because of a law that states that their currency is legal tender and you must accept it as payment, and you must pay your taxes with their currency. Why would the government do this? Why, because the Federal Reserve, who can print as much money as they want for nothing, has promised to buy all government bonds that are not purchased by other people so that the government can afford to do whatever it wants to do. Like have a $3 trillion budget, or buy car companies, or fund expensive and invasive health care plans.

As for the seven members of the board appointed by the President, they have 14 year terms (wikipedia: Federal Reserve System). That means Presidents can come in and out of office without appointing anyone. We don't vote for the board although they control our money. And Hatch claims the Congress has power to modify the Federal Reserve System, but they won't. As illustrated by Hatch's letter later on where he says, "I am hesitant to support proposals to further erode the independence of the Federal Reserve System or to intrude on the setting of monetary policy." And he claims to be a conservative.

Hatch goes on to say:

"While many people have questioned the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve System based upon provisions in the Constitution which give Congress power to "coin money and to regulate the value thereof," the Congress has appropriately assigned theses authorities to government agencies. For example, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has been given authority to collect taxes. Similarly, the Federal Reserve System has been delegated the authority to establish monetary policy."

If that is the justification for the Fed it is a very large stretch. For one thing, the Constitution does not give Congress the power to delegate that responsibility. For another, the IRS did not exist until 1862 (wikipedia: income tax, IRS), the same time the income tax was put in place. The founders of our nation and constitution did not put such measure in place and I do not think those measures are justified now--but that is another post.

Hatch also claims that compared with foreign central banks, "the Federal Reserve System appears to be very forthcoming in disclosing policies and open to receiving suggestions."

Sorry, but I don't think comparing bad to worse is justification for not holding them under accountability and creating transparency. Central banks shouldn't even exist for reasons I have listed in previous blogs.

Just as a note, Utah Senator Bob Bennett refuses to give a position on the issue.

Conspiracy

2009-05-31T10:19:00.008-06:00

Conspiracies are nothing new or unusual in the history of the world. In the days of Julius Caesar, 60 senators plotted and carried out his murder on the Ides of March, stabbing him to death as he read a false petition (Wikipedia: Assasination of Julius Caesar). John Wilkes Booth and other conspirators plotted the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln (Wikipedia: Abraham Lincoln Assasination). If you read the Book of Mormon you will find a historical (and religious) account of the ancient Americas. Governments were often overtaken by conspirators such as the Gadianton robbers who disguised themselves among the people and infiltrated the governments ( *Helaman 6:15-32*; Helaman 7:4-5; 3 Nephi 2:10-13; Helaman 3:23 ). Even Jesus Christ himself was a victim of conspiracy. Most are familiar with the story of how the leadership of the Jews plotted his death without the knowledge of the common people. Where there is power and money, there is bound to be conspiracy by those seeking to control it.

Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that there is some measure of conspiracy in high levels of government and where money is controlled. I am not implying that all people in those positions are a part of a conspiracy, or that all of them are unknowingly influenced by it. I am simply stating the likelihood of the existence of conspiracy. You would be sticking your head in the sand to deny that there is any conspiracy or corruption in the government or the financial system.

But what does the conspiracy look like? Where does it come from? What makes it so bad? Conspiracy existed before the earth did and we can find an example of it in a book called the Pearl of Great Price (translated from the Dead Sea Scrolls by Mormon prophet Joseph Smith). This account of the preexistance is common knowledge among members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I know there are a lot of false rumors and prejudice about this church, but please take off your blinders a few minutes and open your hearts to this doctrine. It is essential to understanding many of the problems that exist in this world.

Before we came to earth God counseled with all His children (you and me included) about what life would be like on this earth. Satan claimed that by his plan everyone could go to heaven. However, God cast him out of His presence because "...Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him." (Moses 4:1-4) Surely if people were allowed to choose they would inevitably make some bad choices. Rather than allow people to suffer the consequences of their erroneous choices (and be rewarded for consequences of good choices) he preferred that someone else, (himself, no doubt) make the choices for everyone to ensure that they made "good" ones. With a plan like this, Man would be denied all means to true happiness that is gained from overcoming obstacles and learning from mistakes. He perpetuates this plan now. Satan wants to deprive us of our agency physically, financially, psychologically.

Fortunately for all of us, God chose to allow us to choose for ourselves and make mistakes. He sent Christ to give us a chance to start anew after making those mistakes in order for us to learn from them. He wants us to take this opportunity and follow Christ for our own good, yet He does not force us to take this path. In other words, he provided for gratitude, knowledge, and progression. We came to this earth planning and hoping to use our agency correctly -- agency which we knew would be available here.

So getting back to the point, our constitution was created by men who left their homelands for for freedom of religion and who fought their mother country for the right to control their own property. They were fighting for the right of every man to exercise his own agency. It was inspired by God and modeled after His plan. The rights to life, liberty, and property were to allow men to choose for themselves, make mistakes for themselves, receive consequences of their choices, and learn from those choices.

But there is opposition in all things (2 Nephi 2:11), and there are always those minions of the Devil working to fight against God's plan. He finds those on earth subject to the temptations of power and money and utilizes them to bring about his plan. These are the conspirators, among others, who attempt to emulate the imprisoning plan of Satan. Some claim they have good intentions, wanting to usurp freedoms for "our own good" or for the "greater good". Just as Satan wanted to do in the beginning. Whether their intentions are good (for "our own good") or evil (for personal gain) is irrelevant.

Let me be a little more specific. An example of taking away the consequences of actions for the "greater good" would be the government bailing out industries that have made unwise choices. Along with the bailout money the government imposes various new regulations on these industries and companies that they must comply to, restricting their agency even more--to prevent them from making more bad choices (in theory).

An example of taking away the agency of the people would be when the government decided that a certain percentage of everyone's paycheck be put towards their retirement. It didn't matter if they had a large savings or inheritance, or were investing on their own. It didn't matter if they needed that money for food just to get by right now. They had no choice in the matter.

Another example of taking away our agency is when our ability to use our property--our money-- as we see fit. When it is controlled by those who can inflate and thus make our money worth less and less by printing as much of it as they please, it takes away our purchasing power. This is not obvious to us immediately and so they do so without our knowledge or permission. It is a form of robbery and prevents us from choosing how we would have spent that money had it been in the form of something of relatively stable value such as gold or silver.

As you educate yourselves in preparation to vote on initiatives, policies, and for politicians to represent you, keep these things in mind. Look at the consequences of the laws being proposed and the stances the politicians take on those laws. Look for consequences both seen on the surface and more indirect and hidden consequences. Do they take away the agency of the people? Do they take away consequences of people's choices? Whose plan is it modeled after?

Remember the great conspiracy of Satan and that he would have you in chains if he could. But he can only do this if we allow it to happen. The beautiful thing about the way our government is set up is that conspiracies and corruption can be rooted out and overthrown if enough people open their eyes and vote out those who intentionally or unintentionally seek to thwart our freedom. Please educate yourself, look beyond the surface and analyze the true consequences of what our representatives are doing.

Online Political Arguments

2009-05-15T16:37:00.003-06:00

I have noticed that when many people engage in political conversations over the internet, specifically through online editorial comments, they tend to use terms like "idiots", "morons", "stupid", "treehugger", "gun-loving", "whiner" and other such derogatory terms. I really don't know what they are trying to accomplish by this other than making themselves feel smart and superior.

When I see things like, "These people are a bunch of morons!" or "Are you really that stupid?" I wonder if they are actually trying to convince someone of their point of view. I don't know anyone who would admit they were wrong, whether or not they are wrong, when someone is shoving insults down their throat. I tend to think online discussers who use such terms just like to argue and make themselves feel good.

If they really wanted to convince someone of their point of view they ought to both listen and speak respectfully. Everyone has different life experiences that affect the way they interpret information. We ought to learn from the experiences of others and take them into consideration, not just assume that our way is the best way. We ought to educate ourselves about multiple approaches and perspectives so that we can understand why those who disagree with us feel and think the way they do. If you are learning with a mind set to prove yourself right you may not truly be learning. Really, none of us could possibly be right about absolutely everything. It is important to be open to new ideas, to facts, and to reason--and especially to the idea that we might be wrong sometimes.

If in the end you still feel the same way about the issue, that's great! Your knowledge is stronger, more in debt, and most importantly--not blind. And you will be enabled to speak respectfully with facts and reason to those who disagree with you without needing to result to insults and degradation.

Bastiat's "Private and Public Services"

2009-04-29T18:42:00.002-06:00

Mises.org has posted my recording of Bastiat's "Private and Public Services". Please, everyone, take a listen! It's less than an hour long; you can burn it on a CD and listen to it on your commute. This article by Bastiat reasons in favor of keeping services in the private sector excluding those that specifically require the use of force (such as defense and public properties). It's a fantastic article. The full text is available in PDF here.

Audit the Federal Reserve

2009-04-26T14:40:00.001-06:00

In a recent address, President Obama gave a reason for why the government is giving money to banks instead of directly to the American people. He said that for every one dollar the government gives to a bank equals eight or ten dollars in loans for Americans. Stop for a minute and think about what that means. One dollar is worth more to a bank than it is to you? I'm going to attempt to explain why that is the case, and what it means to you.

We currently have a fiat money system. Which means that our money is backed by, well...nothing. I take that back. It is backed by something. It is backed by debt. In order to explain what I mean I am going to take an excerpt from the book The Creature from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin, which describes the way the Federal Reserve and our current monetary system works.

"The federal government adds ink to a piece of paper, creates impressive designs around the edges, and calls it a bond or Treasury note. It is merely a promise to pay a specified sum at a specified interest on a specified date....The bond is given to the Fed where it is then classified as a Securities Asset...which can be used to offset a liability. [An asset is something that makes you money. A liability is something that costs you money.] It then creates this liability by adding ink to yet another piece of paper and exchanging that with the government in return for the asset.

"That second piece of paper is a Federal Reserve Check. There is no money in any account to cover this check. Anyone else doing that would be sent to prison....in accounting terms, the books are said to be 'balanced' because the liability of the money is offset by the 'asset' of the IOU. The Federal Reserve check received by the government then is endorsed and sent back to one of the Federal Reserve banks where it now becomes a government deposit...it is used to pay government expenses and, thus, is transformed into many Government Checks.

"These checks become the means by which the first wave of fiat money floods into the economy. Recipients now deposit them into their own bank accounts where they become Commercial Bank Deposits.

"Commercial bank deposits...are liabilities to the bank because they are owed back to the depositors. But, as long as they remain in the bank, they are also considered as assets because they are on hand....Through the magic of fraction-reserve banking [the practice I mentioned previously -- Obama stating where the same money is loaned to multiple people at the same time], the deposits are...reclassified in the books and called Bank Reserves.

"...Here's how it works. The banks are permitted by the Fed to hold as little as 10% [or the current rate] of their deposits in 'reserve.' That means, if they receive deposits of $1 million from the first wave of fiat money created by the Fed, they have $900,000 more than they are required to keep on hand....that $900,000 is called Excess Reserves.

"...Now that they have been transmuted into an excess, they are also considered as available for lending....these excess reserves are converted into Bank Loans.

"But wait a minute. How can this money be loaned out when it is owned by the original depositors who are still free to write checks and spend it any time they wish? Isn't that a double claim against the same money? The answer is that, when the new loans are made, they are not made with the same money at all. They are made with brand new money created out of thin air for that purpose. The nation's money supply simply increases by ninety per cent of the bank's deposits. Furthermore...the old money, which they received from depositors, requires them to pay out interest or perform services for the privilege of using it. But, with the new money, the banks collect interest, instead, which is not too bad considering that cost them nothing to make. Nor is that the end of the process. When this second wave of fiat money moves into the economy, it comes right back into the banking system...in the form of More Commercial Bank Deposits.

"The process now repeats but with slightly smaller numbers each time around....It takes about twenty-eight times through the revolving door of deposits becoming loans becoming deposits becoming more loans until the process plays itself out to the maximum effect, which is...

"Bank Fiat Money = Up to 9 Times the National Debt. The amount of fiat money created by the banking cartel is approximately nine times the amount of the original government debt which made the entire process possible. When the original debt itself is added to that figure we finally have...

"Total Fiat Money =Up to 10 Times the National Debt. The total amount of fiat money create by the Federal Reserve and the commercial banks together is approximately ten times the amount of the underlying government debt. To the degree that this newly created money floods into the economy in excess of goods and services, it causes the purchasing power of all money, both old and new, to decline...The result is the same as if that purchasing power had been taken from us in taxes. The reality of this process, therefore, is that it is a Hidden Tax = up to 10 Times the National Debt....And that still is not the end of the process. Since our money supply is purely an arbitrary entity with nothing behind it except debt, its quantity can go down as well as up. When people are going deeper into debt, the nation's money supply expands and prices go up, but when they pay off their debts and refuse to renew, the money supply contracts and prices tumble. That is exactly what happens in times of economic or political uncertainty. This alternation between periods of expansion and contraction of the money supply is the underlying cause of Booms, Busts, and Depressions.

"Who benefits from all this? Certainly not the average citizen. The only beneficiaries are the political scientist in Congress who enjoy the effect of unlimited revenue to perpetuate their power, and the monetary scientists within the banking cartel called the Federal Reserve System who have been able to harness the American people, without their knowing it, to the yoke of modern feudalism. "

It's no wonder our leaders seem to think that a lending freeze is such a crisis. It's no wonder that they get upset when we save our tax returns and stimulus checks instead of spend them. The way our monetary system is set up is completely immoral. We are encouraged to live beyond our means. That is why you have a higher credit score with 20 maxed out credit cards as long as you make the minimum payment than you do if you have 1 credit card that you pay off every month and a mortgage you pay extra on. The whole system is contrary to what common sense would tell you, and our prophets advise (referring to the prophets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints)[See Climbing Out of Debt, Pay Thy Debt and Live] .

Being in debt to someone is being in bondage to them. I am trying to pay down my home mortgage as quickly as possible because if I fail to pay the mortgage company a certain sum every month they can take my home away from me. Fortunately for me, that is the only debt I have. I am not held down by monthly car payments, credit card payments, student loan payments, etc. That was not always the case for me and I can promise that I have much more freedom now than I did then.

I would have even more freedom if I had several months worth of paychecks or more set aside as a cushion. If everyone had that cushion of savings think of how stable the economy could be. You wouldn't see the kinds of foreclosures that we are seeing now because people would have several months or more to find a new job if they could still make all their payments, and without government assistance. Many more jobs would be saved because people wouldn't suddenly be unable to spend what they were spending before. And with fewer job losses obviously there would be less of a problem. A recession wouldn't be nearly as devastating if an economic downturn even was able to reach the label of "recession" to begin with.

But that is not what our current system encourages. You are taxed on the interest you earn in your savings and given tax breaks on the interest you pay on your mortgage.

In Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope, while discussing the opportunity to pay down the national debt at the end of Bill Clinton's presidency, he states the following, "In fact, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan expressed concern that the debt might get paid down too fast, thereby limiting the Reserve System's ability to manage monetary policy." p187 He did not want us to pay down the national debt. If everyone were to pay off their debts, under our current system there would be no money left.

This constant debt is all made possible by the Federal Reserve System. Wikipedia states,

"The Federal Reserve System is...a quasi-public banking system that comprises the presidentially appointed Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in Washington D.C.; (2) the Federal Open market Committee; (3) twelve regional privately owned Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities throughout the nation acting as fiscal agents for the U.S. Treasury, each with its own nine-member board of directors; (4) numerous other private U.S. member banks, which subscribe to required amounts of nontransferrable stock in their regional Federal Reserve Banks; and (5) various advisory councils"

Note that the banks are privately owned and yet they are fiscal agents for the U.S. Treasury.

Now consider the $700 billion bailout package, several billion dollars going to car companies and AIG, and our proposed $3 trillion budget. Our government borrows money from private banks who create money out of thin air, and then pays them back interest on it. Even at a low interest rate you will be paying a lot of interest on $3 trillion!

In addition to this, the Federal Reserve cannot be fully audited by any outside entity. Law specifically says that we cannot audit any foreign transactions they are involved in, anything having to do with monetary policy (which is pretty much everything), communications between the boards of governors, and various other items (U.S. Code Collection). Basically they can do whatever they want with our money supply but they are not answerable to the taxpayers.

Abolishing the Federal Reserve is an important step of stablizing our monetary system. However, it is unlikely that this will happen until their actions can be exposed. A bill going through the House of Representatives right now, called the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 (H.R. 1207), if passed, will change the law and require a full audit of the Federal Reserve by 2010. It has support by both Republican and Democrat congressional leaders. Please contact your representatives and encourage them to support this bill. You can find your representatives at house.gov and senate.gov.

The Patriot Act

2009-04-16T19:51:00.008-06:00

I just found a new reason to hate the Patriot Act. (Read the full text of bill here)

I think I have mentioned before that I am refinancing my house. It's taken a few months to get all of the paperwork done so in the meantime we have made two house payments which for reasons I don't really understand, require us to prove that we have additional assets to offset what the loan was originally approved for. We were asked to provide bank statements and statements from our retirement account.

I wondered about the requirement (is the government just trying to get a hold of all my account information for some reason?) but I complied and sent the statements. Shortly after I received an email from the loan officer telling me that the statement showed that there was a large deposit that required a letter of explanation.

Excuse me? I have to justify putting money in my own bank account? Are you kidding? Not only that, but it wasn't even a deposit. It was a transfer from savings to checking to cover my next mortgage payment because the loan was taking so long to close. I am now required to provide a savings account statement to go with the checking, along with a letter signed by me and my husband explaining why the transfer was made.

So I wrote an angry email to the loan officer asking why I was being required to do such a ridiculous thing. Here is her response:

"The US Government Patriot Act forces an explanation on any large cash deposit...it is for all lenders and it is to provide a paper trail of those types of funds to be assured we are not money laundering or terrorists...it is a federal requirement we cannot get around....There is no other way to meet this requirement."

Doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? This requirement is for deposits as low as $500. It makes me downright ticked off! My husband has a job. He makes money. He puts it in our bank account. There is nothing terrorist or laundering about it. We are now to allow the government to assume that we are all guilty until proven innocent while they create "paper trails" and log information about us to "keep us safe".

I don't feel safe. Voters of Bob Barr (me) and supporters of Ron Paul (also me) have been dubbed as possible terrorists [see this article] (yes I know it was retracted officially but how did that happen to begin with?) and homeland security warns of the dangers of right wing extremists (me again) [see this article]. I have to justify putting money in my bank and know that some Homeland Security file is keeping track of such things. Since when were patriotic, financially responsible citizens a threat to the nation?

Many people gave their lives in order to bring us freedom. Now we are giving up our freedom (or having it taken away from us depending on how you look at it) to save ourselves? For some reason I doubt much life-saving has come about from the Patriot Act. Only life-invading. Our deceased war heroes must be ashamed of all this!

The Patriot Act is very unconstitutional and the only way to repeal it is through congress (ha ha) or through the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court cannot just up and repeal laws of their own accord however, so Brannon and I started looking into suing the Federal Government in order to get it repealed. As we were searching we found the following article:

In a stunning defense of President George W. Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program, President Barack Obama has broadened the government’s legal argument for immunizing his Administration and government agencies from lawsuits surrounding the National Security Agency’s eavesdropping efforts.

In fact, a close read of a government filing last Friday reveals that the Obama Administration has gone beyond any previous legal claims put forth by former President Bush.

Responding to a lawsuit filed by a civil liberties group, the Justice Department argued that the government was protected by “sovereign immunity” from lawsuits because of a little-noticed clause in the Patriot Act. ….For the first time, the Obama Administration’s brief contends that government agencies cannot be sued for wiretapping American citizens even if there was intentional violation of US law. They maintain that the government can only be sued if the wiretaps involve “willful disclosure” — a higher legal bar.

“A ‘willful violation’ …of intelligence information by government agents… and such disclosures by the Government are the only actions that create liability against the United States,” Obama Assistant Attorney General Michael Hertz wrote.

Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is suing the government over the warrantless wiretapping program, notes that the government has previously argued that the government had “sovereign immunity” against civil action under the FISA statute. But he says that this is the first time that they’ve invoked changes to the Patriot Act in claiming the US government is immune from claims of illegal spying under any other federal surveillance statute.

“They are arguing this based on changes to the law made by the USA PATRIOT Act, Section 223,” Bankston said in an email to Raw Story. “We’ve never been fans of 223–it made it much harder to sue the U.S. for illegal spying, …–but no one’s ever suggested before that it wholly immunized the U.S. government against suits under all the surveillance statutes.”

Salon columnist and constitutional scholar Glenn Greenwald — who is generally supportive of progressive interpretations of the law — says the Obama Administration has “invented a brand new claim” of immunity from spying litigation.

“In other words, beyond even the outrageously broad ’state secrets’ privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ [Department of Justice] has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and — even if what they’re doing is blatantly illegal and they know it’s illegal — you are barred from suing them unless they ‘willfully disclose’ to the public what they have learned,” Greenwald wrote Monday. (read more here)

So basically we cannot sue. WHERE ARE THE CHECKS AND BALANCES?!?

And just as a side note that has nothing to do with this post, I wish that people would quit calling the TEA Parties "Obama Bashing Parties" because most people who go are just as ticked off about Bush's spending and bailouts as they are about Obama's.

Big Brother Pill Tracker

2009-04-13T10:01:00.006-06:00

I just learned how the government can going to keep track of whether or not we take our medications. (See Meet the President).

Microchip Informs Whether Patient Has Taken Pills

Sure, that's not the intention the chip was created. It is to help seniors, psychiatric patients, and people who rely on a regular dosage of medicine. But just imagine if your Nanny State Health Insurance refuses you coverage if your little microchip doesn't say you've been taking your meds.....

Don't take me too seriously on this one though. I think it would take a pretty good fight to get approval for such a think to occur. I just thought it was an interesting article.

Presidential Candidates-Strengths and Weaknesses

2009-04-08T09:07:00.004-06:00

This is kind of irrelevant, but last night I was thinking about how the media said that Obama's strength was economics and his weakness was foreign policy, and John McCain's weakness was economics and his strength was foreign policy. I think the media had it all wrong.

The media said Obama was inexperienced in foreign policy, which was true but that does not mean that he was capable of doing a good job in it. After all, I see his real strengths in being an eloquent speaker, a good listener, and being patient though being insulted. You never saw him lose his temper or get nasty in a debate. These qualities are generally very desirable for human relations and I could see them as being valuable--especially with America-hating countries that would do anything to wipe us off the globe. I am not sure if his policies and tactics are working now, foreign policy is something I am not well informed on myself, but I don't think they are working any worse than the approach of previous administrations.

As for economics, I see his plan as being very weak indeed. It appears to be an attempt to get his whole agenda across all at once in the name of "crisis". He has increased our spending to a ridiculous amount which, even if there is a short term gain, is very unstablizing in the long run.

As for John McCain. He admitted that he was not well-versed in economics so the media at least was right about his inexperience there. He embraced the same bailouts and stimulus spending as Obama, only unlike Obama he didn't really understand real effects of what he was doing.

But they claimed he was strong on foreign policy. I admire his stalwartness in being a prisoner of war and his heroic story of letting another prisoner be sent home before him in order to follow protocol when he could have gone home himself. But that does not make one strong in foreign policy. As far as I could see he wanted to stick to the Bush tactics that have angered so many people both in and out of our country and have dubious benefits for our country. McCain was just plain a bad choice on the part of the Republicans.

Meet the President

2009-03-31T13:35:00.006-06:00

I have been reading Obama's biography, The Audacity of Hope. I am doing this for several reasons. One is I would like to understand his whole agenda and where he is coming from. Another is that since he is the leader of our nation I would like to know as much about him as possible, and it's only fair to hear his own words rather than rely on the commentaries and opinions of others (Yes, I am aware that many believe he didn't write the book. For this purpose let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he did).

What I have been discovering by reading this is that his economic stimulus plan isn't really a response to a crisis. It was his agenda all along and crisis is just the excuse to get it passed quickly and all at once. Everything from his health care reform to taking of auto companies is right there in his book.

There are several off Obama's ideas that are worrisome to me. Allow me to share a few excerpts from the chapter entitled, "Opportunity". Just to warn you, this will cover a wide variety of topics.

"...I am optimistic about the long-term prospects for the U.S. economy and the ability of U.S. workers to compete in a free trade environment--but only if we distribute the costs and benefits of globalization more fairly across the population." (emphasis added)

We often talk of the redistribution of wealth, but we rarely discuss the redistribution of cost. Those of us who have been responsible with our means and our work are now not only required to assist those who have not been so, we are also required to bear the losses of those who have been making risky and irresponsible decisions. Obama talks of Americans feeling safe enough to make risky investments with a possibility of high return because of the cushion provided to them by American tax payers. "...if fate or miscalculation caused any one of us to stumble, the larger American community would be there to lift us up." I have nothing against people making risky investments, but when I'm the one footing the bill if they fail I get a bit skeptical. It's not just fate and miscalculation that will cause people to fail. This "cushion" will allow people purposely chose a risky investment they would not choose if they were to suffer the consequences of the choice personally. (Just look at AIG, GM, Chrystler, Citibank, Fannie Mae, etc.)This system rewards failure at the expense of those who did not fail. It is a very un-just system, although Obama seems to feel that it is just, and that the injustice lies in letting people suffer because they made a mistake.

"Take the Administration's attempt to privatize Social Security. The Administration argues that the stock market can provide individuals a better return on investment...But individual investment decisions will always produce winners and losers."

Gosh. What if we are allowed to make a bad decision with our own money? He goes on to say,

"That doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage individuals to pursue higher-risk, higher-return investment strategies. They should. It just means that they should do so with savings other than those put into Social Security."

He says this after talking about how so many people don't have spare money and are living paycheck to paycheck. What other savings are they supposed to use? Or is that plan only for the rich? The rest of us have to play it "safe" by letting the government invest our money for us? And in the case of most of us there is no guarantee that the money will still be there for us when we retire. Those savings being sent to Social Security could be put into safe investments such as savings bonds (or risky ones if we want) and will be guaranteed to us when we retire.

"...the Ownership Society doesn't even try to spread the risks and rewards of the new economy among all Americans....If you are healthy or wealthy or just plain lucky, then you will become more so. If you are poor or sick or catch a bad break, you will have nobody to look to for help."

I don't want to share my risks or rewards with anyone, nor do I want a share of anyone else's risks or rewards. I may choose to share my rewards, but sharing by force is no solution. And does Obama really think that everyone who has a bad break has no one to look to besides the government? Government ought to be the last place they look! I would hope that most people have family and friends willing to help. I know not everyone has able family and friends, but it is an error to assume that there is nowhere to turn except the government.

"...Americans also believe that if we work full-time, we should be able to support ourselves and our kids. For many people on the bottom rungs of the economy--mainly low-skilled workers...this basic promise isn't being fulfilled.

"...someone working full-time today in a minimum-wage job doesn't earn enough to rise out of poverty."

This one kills me. Minimum wage is the very lowest wage an employer is allowed to pay and employee. Does Obama really believe that every single job offered in the U.S. should be enough for a person to support their entire family? Buy a house and food for 4 flipping burgers at a fast food joint? Or slapping stickers on blocks of cheese in an assembly line? I don't know of anyone who expects to rise out of poverty by earning minimum wage weather it be $4 and hour or $12 and hour. Most people who work for minimum wage are teenagers or young adults who are not yet supporting families. 63 percent of minimum wage workers make above minimum wage after one year of employment. It is very rare for a person to earn minimum wage long term. (Do Some Workers Have Minimum Wage Careers?) Statistics also show that when minimum wage is raised, unemployment increases. Employers lay off workers to make up the difference. (Slackernomics)

"Employers should have to recognize a union if a majority of employees sign authorization cards choosing the union to represent them. And federal mediation should be available to help an employer and a new union reach agreement on a contract..."

I have nothing against employees who feel that they are not being treated fairly getting together and forming a union in order to influence their employer. But really the federal government doesn't need to have anything to do with it. Union laws are not necessary and certainly the government is not needed to mediate the whole process. If the union is able to put enough pressure on the employer to receive their demands than great. If not, the union can follow through with their strikes, threats, whatever and see if the employer can pull through without them.

"...Former Clinton economic adviser Gene Sperling has suggested the creation of a universal 401(k), in which the government would match contributions made into a new retirement account by low- and moderate-income families."

What a great idea! They will match my 401(k) with my own money! Awesome! (Or maybe they will match it with my doctor's money since he has more than me--or the money confiscated from AGI CEOs).

"...if we can prevent diseases from occurring or manage their effects through simple interventions like making sure patients control their diets or take their medicines regularly, we can dramatically improve patient outcomes and save the system a great deal of money."

How does he propose the government make sure that we all control our diets and take our medicine regularly? Do I go to jail if I don't stick to my diet? Or do they inspect my cupboards once a week to make sure I'm not cheating? Or perhaps he will track it all on a Universal Electronic Health System and deny me coverage if I don't eat my green veggies.

"Next, we would allow anyone to purchase this model health care plan [government provided]....Private insurers like Blue Cross Blue Shield and Aetna would compete to provide coverage to participants in these pools, but whatever plan they offered would have to meet the criteria for high quality and cost controls set forth by [the National Academy of Science's Institute of Medicine].

"...we would have to make sure that the creation of a new state pool does not cause employers to drop the heath-care plans that they are already providing their employees."

French economist Frederic Bastiat says that those who have paid for a service once will take care not to pay for it a second time. Who in their right mind would buy private insurance if their tax money is paying for public? There is no way the private insurers could compete with that--especially with the government criteria and cost controls mentioned above imposed upon them. In general it is more expensive to meet government regulations, not less. Then employers will be left paying to make expensive private plans available that no one wants because the government does not want them to "drop the health-care plans they are already providing their employees."

And I'm not even finished reading "Opportunity"!

Are We So Dependent?

2009-03-26T13:25:00.004-06:00

This morning President Obama held an online "town hall" meeting where he answered questions posted on the internet by citizens. People could either submit their own question if they wished as well as vote on questions other people submitted. I was reading through the questions and ran into several very similar to the following (this is not a direct quote--it's as close I as can remember): Obesity is a growing problem in the United States. What are you going to do to make sure all of us eat healthy?

Wow. Do we really need the President to do that for us? Should he come up with a National Daily Meal Plan to ensure we all eat a balanced diet? Or maybe he could just ban all junk food. Maybe that would ensure we all eat healthy. (If you thought prohibition was bad wait until they ban Oreos!) I was not aware that making us all eat a healthy diet was among the responsibilities of the President.

I think rather than asking the government to prevent us all from getting fat, perhaps we could apply a little personal study on nutrition and utilize a little will-power. I struggle with will-power at times myself, but the day the government bans my Oreos (or requires them all to be "low-fat") is the day I leave the country. The problem is not that healthy foods are not available. The problem is that people need to take responsibility for their own nutritional choices and accept the consequences of those choices. Please, please don't ask the government to make those choices for you, or your children.

ETA: This says it was posted by Brannon but it was actually posted by Michelle. I didn't realize he was logged in instead of me.

The Power of Government and Money

2009-03-12T16:33:00.000-06:00

The recent state of the economy has caused the government to start handing out money to all kinds of organizations. It was happening before but now the practice has been accelerated. My point here is not to decided whether or not it is bad for a person or organization to accept government funds, but to emphasize a fact: by accepting government funds you give the government some measure of control over you.

As far as I know, the money is always given out with stipulations (there are obvious reasons such as the need to ensure funds are not abused, but there are often other reasons which we will not discuss here). The government uses the excuse of somebody's crisis or "need" to offer them help. For good or for ill the entity is convinced that they would not be able to make it without this assistance and become dependent on it.

Let's start on a large scale. The U.S. is well known for giving money for foreign aid. Most of us are aware that Obama recently reversed a ban for using U.S. funds for family planning clinics in foreign countries (CNN). The U.S. also gives financial, as well as technological and informational aid to other countries through the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Order (WTO). This aid, however is not given freely. Anybody receiving the funds is subject to certain provisions and regulations (a few which can be found here). And of course, perhaps you should expect that the aid would come with regulations because after all, we don't want the government to go out and use it for lavish parties and mansions for government officials when the money was meant to improve schools in poor neighborhoods.

Even the North American Free Trade Agreement is not free of regulation. They may not be hanidng out money but it is a form of monetary incentive that requires trade partners to adhere to certain environmental regulations and despite the term "free" trade it still requires protections of some American goods (Wikipedia: North American Free Trade Agreement).

Moving on to a slightly smaller scale is when the government gives money to large businesses. This money is also not given freely. Banks and auto companies have recently been "bailed out" by government funds but are also now subject to government regulations. Banks recieving money now must cap CEO salaries, refinance people who are at risk for forclosure, and adhere to other government regulations being enforced upon them. Auto makers GM and Crystler (Ford apparently decided they would rather scrimp than be subject to government controls and backed out of their request for money) now have to submit business plans to prove to the government that they are making good decisions, as well as adhere to other guidelines imposed by the government (http://earth2tech.com/2008/12/19/bush-approves-174b-greenless-bailout-for-gm-chrysler/).

And then comes federal funds given to state government. This approach is a way for the federal government to gain control over powers given to the states by our constitution. They get away with it because they aren't directly controlling it, they just threaten to pull funding if the states don't do as they say. In this way they can dictate the extent welfare, unemployment benifits, and Head Start are implemented in the states. They also dictate school standards in public education through legislation such as No Child Left Behind. The recent stimulus plan also dictates that certain funds be used for school building, improving highways, and other elements typically left to the states to determine. Several state governers have considered rejecting some or all of the money because of concern over the strings attached to the money (http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/feb/03/gov-shuns-stimulus-stuns-lawmaker/).

Then you have individuals who receive money from the federal government. If you run a babysitting business or a preschool all you have to do is become licensed through the federal government and they will give you money to buy toys, supplies, and help with other costs. Friends in the business have informed me that they have to adhere to a great deal of government regulation and paperwork in order to keep this funding.

Welfare recipients have to constantly inform the government of their location and their job. Friends of mine who have been on welfare or medicaid said they have to send in work pay stubs to prove their income and inform them of a job change. If you don't send them job change information the government somehow seems to know anyway and will send you paperwork to fill out quite soon after the change. A good friend of mine recalls leaving the welfare building in tears the day she first applied because they demanded so much information.

You can see that the federal government injects money at all levels and thus has some control at all levels. They can gain significant power over other nations in this way, power over states and industries, and power over individuals. Again, this post is not to evaluate the virtues or vices of any of these programs, anyone who uses the money from them, or why the regulations and provisions are attached to them. I just want to make it clear that it is a fact: accepting government funds gives the government a measure of power over you. It's up to you to decide if this is good or bad and if it is worth the money.